In a strikingly bold speech about terrorism scheduled for this morning, Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will call not only for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but a redeployment of troops into Afghanistan and even Pakistan ? with or without the permission of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.

 

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama will say, according to speech excerpts provided to ABC News by his campaign, "but let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

 

Obama's mention of an "al Qaeda leadership meeting" refers to a classified military operation planned in early 2005 to kill al Qaeda leaders including Osama bin Laden's top deputy Ayman al-Zawahri in Pakistan's tribal regions. First reported in The New York Times earlier this month, the mission was "aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials."

 

In many ways, the speech is counterintuitive; Obama, one of the more liberal candidates in the race, is proposing a geopolitical posture that is more aggressive than that of President Bush. It comes at a time in Obama's campaign when the freshman senator is drawing more financial support from more voters than any other candidate, though he has yet to vault from his second-place position in the polls. One of the reasons for that is that the Democratic front-runner, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, is seen as more experienced and in some ways stronger, a perspective Obama wishes to change.

 

The speech, to be delivered at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., seems an attempt by Obama to ramp up his campaign to the next phase, where he hopes to seem not only a youthful idealist, but a president who would pursue a muscular foreign policy and protect the United States from terrorist attack.

 

.....

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3434573&page=1

That's what I would do...

brilliant. . . we are making progress in Iraq and now is the time to pull out?

In a strikingly bold speech about terrorism scheduled for this morning, Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will call not only for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but a redeployment of troops into Afghanistan and even Pakistan ? with or without the permission of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3434573&page=1

Imagine if Bush were to use that reasoning. HELL 0N EARF.

They better get Pakistan's permission to go there. attacking upon the soil of a nuclear power without their allowance? That could end poorly in a situation. But troops out of Iraq and into a countries that are a problem makes much more sense.

brilliant. . . we are making progress in Iraq and now is the time to pull out?

 

:| what progress? get over it. it's done! we lost!

brilliant. . . we are making progress in Iraq and now is the time to pull out?

 

:| what progress? get over it. it's done! we lost!

:|

brilliant. . . we are making progress in Iraq and now is the time to pull out?

 

What progress is that? Their legislature prematurely went on vacation again. The largest bloc of Sunnis are pulling out of the government. We are baby sitting a chaotic country whose central government continues to fail.

In a strikingly bold speech about terrorism scheduled for this morning, Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will call not only for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but a redeployment of troops into Afghanistan and even Pakistan ? with or without the permission of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3434573&page=1

Imagine if Bush were to use that reasoning. HELL 0N EARF.

 

Obama's words don't mean declaring all out war on Pakistan and invading the country. He means sending troops into the regions where the central government and Musharraf are losing control whole AQ and the Taliban are becoming stronger and stronger. Musharraf might not like it, but he might have to deal with it. He has to deal with the instability in his country sooner or later. Post 9-11 he would have been absolutely fine with us doing it because he feared us. Now he thinks he can play us along the same lines of playing the fundamentalists in his country.

 

And I don't think anyone ever said Bush has to ask permission before using force in the exercise of protecting American national security. Maybe the nuances of the debate have been mischaracterized in terms of the black and white. But not being extremely aggressive overzealous warhawks is not the same thing as asking permission. There have been plenty of occasions where force has been used correctly and with democrat and liberal support.

 

But where a link to protecting our national security is extremely weak, yes, people will be critical of what is being done. Who ended up being absolutely right about Iraq? The people who said we should not have invaded it because it was not vital to the post-9/11 world.

brilliant. . . we are making progress in Iraq and now is the time to pull out?

 

:| what progress? get over it. it's done! we lost!

 

Is your last name Reid?

 

Read the assessment of two lefty reporters that spent some time in Iraq:New York Times

In a strikingly bold speech about terrorism scheduled for this morning, Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will call not only for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but a redeployment of troops into Afghanistan and even Pakistan ? with or without the permission of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3434573&page=1

Imagine if Bush were to use that reasoning. HELL 0N EARF.

 

Obama's words don't mean declaring all out war on Pakistan and invading the country. He means sending troops into the regions where the central government and Musharraf are losing control whole AQ and the Taliban are becoming stronger and stronger. Musharraf might not like it, but he might have to deal with it. He has to deal with the instability in his country sooner or later. Post 9-11 he would have been absolutely fine with us doing it because he feared us. Now he thinks he can play us along the same lines of playing the fundamentalists in his country.

 

And I don't think anyone ever said Bush has to ask permission before using force in the exercise of protecting American national security. Maybe the nuances of the debate have been mischaracterized in terms of the black and white. But not being extremely aggressive overzealous warhawks is not the same thing as asking permission. There have been plenty of occasions where force has been used correctly and with democrat and liberal support.

 

But where a link to protecting our national security is extremely weak, yes, people will be critical of what is being done. Who ended up being absolutely right about Iraq? The people who said we should not have invaded it because it was not vital to the post-9/11 world.I had to lol on both of the bolded parts (emphasis my own).

 

If this shoe were on the other foot like I said, it'd be hell on Earth.

 

This is why I can't stand politics and those that just toe the party line and close themselves off from everything else that doesn't come from their own party/candidate/president.

 

That Obama is such a 'fear monger'. :lol

brilliant. . . we are making progress in Iraq and now is the time to pull out?

 

:| what progress? get over it. it's done! we lost!

 

Is your last name Reid?

 

Read the assessment of two lefty reporters that spent some time in Iraq:New York Times

 

This is what you call progress:

 

Iraq Violence Rages as Sunni Bloc Leaves Cabinet

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/world/mi...hdadcnd.html?hp

 

Progress my ass.

brilliant. . . we are making progress in Iraq and now is the time to pull out?

 

:| what progress? get over it. it's done! we lost!

 

Is your last name Reid?

 

Read the assessment of two lefty reporters that spent some time in Iraq:New York Times

 

This is what you call progress:

 

Iraq Violence Rages as Sunni Bloc Leaves Cabinet

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/world/mi...hdadcnd.html?hp

 

Progress my ass.

 

If you can't read the linked article with an open mind and be encouraged by it, then there is no sense arguing over it.

 

I'm not denying the situation is not bad, and bad news will continue to come for a long time.

 

But progress is being made and Gen Petraeus is doing a decent job.

brilliant. . . we are making progress in Iraq and now is the time to pull out?

 

:| what progress? get over it. it's done! we lost!

 

Is your last name Reid?

 

Read the assessment of two lefty reporters that spent some time in Iraq:New York Times

 

This is what you call progress:

 

Iraq Violence Rages as Sunni Bloc Leaves Cabinet

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/world/mi...hdadcnd.html?hp

 

Progress my ass.

 

If you can't read the linked article with an open mind and be encouraged by it, then there is no sense arguing over it.

 

I'm not denying the situation is not bad, and bad news will continue to come for a long time.

 

But progress is being made and Gen Petraeus is doing a decent job.

 

 

Please tell us what progress is being made? A large portion of the population is pulling from the governement. There is more violence in the country now then in the past months. We control less of the country then ever before.

 

I am not saying we have "lost" Because that is foolish. We arent fighting a war we are trying to occupy a huge land mass for a group of folk that are supposed to be forming their own stable government yet are not currently because of centuries old problems together. Most of the country is pretty much out of our control anyways and horrible press around the world for us at this point.

 

If Israel, a country that is amazing in their military training, cant control the west bank. Which is right near them, us controling a country that is the size of ohio from across the world is rather difficult. Ask the British about that theory.

 

 

 

I think that we need a "plan" for an exit route out of the country that can conserve our troop lives and just as importantly help keep the power base currently there that is friendly to us in tact. The biggest reason that I personally believe a lot of folks wish to be there is ego now. To suggest that we are withdrawing in failure is a horrible thing to them. If we are staying we better get control of the country. If we are leaving then lets get a good plan to support the iraq's in their civil war and gtfo and fix the other mess we made

fighting in an area with an actual threat to our own national security? sounds like a plan...get out of iraq now before we end up putting 10,000 names on the iraq war memorial which will look real nice next to the 10,000 names on the vietnam war memorial

I think that this would be a decent idea, but we have to be really careful. Sending troops into that area of Pakistan may destabilize that country, and lead to a coup. The last thing we need would be a radical Islamic country that has working nuclear weapons.

I think that this would be a decent idea, but we have to be really careful. Sending troops into that area of Pakistan may destabilize that country, and lead to a coup. The last thing we need would be a radical Islamic country that has working nuclear weapons.

 

Have you read the news lately? Pakistan is pretty much on the edge of a coup as it is.

I think that this would be a decent idea, but we have to be really careful. Sending troops into that area of Pakistan may destabilize that country, and lead to a coup. The last thing we need would be a radical Islamic country that has working nuclear weapons.

 

Have you read the news lately? Pakistan is pretty much on the edge of a coup as it is.

Yes, and an action like this would push them over the edge. Otherwise I would want us to do that.

In a strikingly bold speech about terrorism scheduled for this morning, Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will call not only for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but a redeployment of troops into Afghanistan and even Pakistan ? with or without the permission of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3434573&page=1

Imagine if Bush were to use that reasoning. HELL 0N EARF.

 

Obama's words don't mean declaring all out war on Pakistan and invading the country. He means sending troops into the regions where the central government and Musharraf are losing control whole AQ and the Taliban are becoming stronger and stronger. Musharraf might not like it, but he might have to deal with it. He has to deal with the instability in his country sooner or later. Post 9-11 he would have been absolutely fine with us doing it because he feared us. Now he thinks he can play us along the same lines of playing the fundamentalists in his country.

 

And I don't think anyone ever said Bush has to ask permission before using force in the exercise of protecting American national security. Maybe the nuances of the debate have been mischaracterized in terms of the black and white. But not being extremely aggressive overzealous warhawks is not the same thing as asking permission. There have been plenty of occasions where force has been used correctly and with democrat and liberal support.

 

But where a link to protecting our national security is extremely weak, yes, people will be critical of what is being done. Who ended up being absolutely right about Iraq? The people who said we should not have invaded it because it was not vital to the post-9/11 world.I had to lol on both of the bolded parts (emphasis my own).

 

If this shoe were on the other foot like I said, it'd be hell on Earth.

 

This is why I can't stand politics and those that just toe the party line and close themselves off from everything else that doesn't come from their own party/candidate/president.

 

That Obama is such a 'fear monger'. :lol

 

Wow I guess you dont know the definition of a fear monger.

 

It really is a basic concept Mr. Fox.

 

Iraq= no links to Al-Qaeda, and no direct threat to the U.S.

Pakistan border with Afghanistan= Supporting Al-Qaeda and Taliban,, direct threat to the U.S.

 

Which one do I want to eliminate and use force?

In a strikingly bold speech about terrorism scheduled for this morning, Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will call not only for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but a redeployment of troops into Afghanistan and even Pakistan ? with or without the permission of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3434573&page=1

Imagine if Bush were to use that reasoning. HELL 0N EARF.

 

Obama's words don't mean declaring all out war on Pakistan and invading the country. He means sending troops into the regions where the central government and Musharraf are losing control whole AQ and the Taliban are becoming stronger and stronger. Musharraf might not like it, but he might have to deal with it. He has to deal with the instability in his country sooner or later. Post 9-11 he would have been absolutely fine with us doing it because he feared us. Now he thinks he can play us along the same lines of playing the fundamentalists in his country.

 

And I don't think anyone ever said Bush has to ask permission before using force in the exercise of protecting American national security. Maybe the nuances of the debate have been mischaracterized in terms of the black and white. But not being extremely aggressive overzealous warhawks is not the same thing as asking permission. There have been plenty of occasions where force has been used correctly and with democrat and liberal support.

 

But where a link to protecting our national security is extremely weak, yes, people will be critical of what is being done. Who ended up being absolutely right about Iraq? The people who said we should not have invaded it because it was not vital to the post-9/11 world.

We cannot and will not send our military into Pakistan without their approval, period. If Obama is god forbid elected president, I can assure you that this would never ever happen. When we go out on a MEU with the first destination being a port like the Navy base in Rota, Spain, we can't even sail a direct path to Spain, we have to zig zag and go about a thousand miles totally out of the way. Why? Because sailing directly to another country is an act of war, it doesn't even matter if we're sailing to our very own Navy base in Rota. This is just one of the countless exampls of stupid international laws that we must abide by, so you can be damned sure we aren't going to be going into Pakistan without their permission, however it's pretty common knowledge that SOCOM units are there right now, but conventional forces? No friggen way.

 

Now going back to Afghanistan? Hell yeah. Ever since we turned that country over to the army, it's gone to sh*t. It's only a matter of time before we get sent back there to clean up the army's mess since they can't hold down the country.

Wow, I'm pleasantly surprised by this. Obama certainly has balls.

In a strikingly bold speech about terrorism scheduled for this morning, Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will call not only for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but a redeployment of troops into Afghanistan and even Pakistan ? with or without the permission of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3434573&page=1

Imagine if Bush were to use that reasoning. HELL 0N EARF.

 

Obama's words don't mean declaring all out war on Pakistan and invading the country. He means sending troops into the regions where the central government and Musharraf are losing control whole AQ and the Taliban are becoming stronger and stronger. Musharraf might not like it, but he might have to deal with it. He has to deal with the instability in his country sooner or later. Post 9-11 he would have been absolutely fine with us doing it because he feared us. Now he thinks he can play us along the same lines of playing the fundamentalists in his country.

 

And I don't think anyone ever said Bush has to ask permission before using force in the exercise of protecting American national security. Maybe the nuances of the debate have been mischaracterized in terms of the black and white. But not being extremely aggressive overzealous warhawks is not the same thing as asking permission. There have been plenty of occasions where force has been used correctly and with democrat and liberal support.

 

But where a link to protecting our national security is extremely weak, yes, people will be critical of what is being done. Who ended up being absolutely right about Iraq? The people who said we should not have invaded it because it was not vital to the post-9/11 world.

We cannot and will not send our military into Pakistan without their approval, period. If Obama is god forbid elected president, I can assure you that this would never ever happen. When we go out on a MEU with the first destination being a port like the Navy base in Rota, Spain, we can't even sail a direct path to Spain, we have to zig zag and go about a thousand miles totally out of the way. Why? Because sailing directly to another country is an act of war, it doesn't even matter if we're sailing to our very own Navy base in Rota. This is just one of the countless exampls of stupid international laws that we must abide by, so you can be damned sure we aren't going to be going into Pakistan without their permission, however it's pretty common knowledge that SOCOM units are there right now, but conventional forces? No friggen way.

 

Now going back to Afghanistan? Hell yeah. Ever since we turned that country over to the army, it's gone to sh*t. It's only a matter of time before we get sent back there to clean up the army's mess since they can't hold down the country.

yeah...that damn international law...keepin us from ruling tha world and shiiiiiite...and i seem to remember sending our military to iraq without their permission...same thing right?...

In a strikingly bold speech about terrorism scheduled for this morning, Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will call not only for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but a redeployment of troops into Afghanistan and even Pakistan ? with or without the permission of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3434573&page=1

Imagine if Bush were to use that reasoning. HELL 0N EARF.

 

Obama's words don't mean declaring all out war on Pakistan and invading the country. He means sending troops into the regions where the central government and Musharraf are losing control whole AQ and the Taliban are becoming stronger and stronger. Musharraf might not like it, but he might have to deal with it. He has to deal with the instability in his country sooner or later. Post 9-11 he would have been absolutely fine with us doing it because he feared us. Now he thinks he can play us along the same lines of playing the fundamentalists in his country.

 

And I don't think anyone ever said Bush has to ask permission before using force in the exercise of protecting American national security. Maybe the nuances of the debate have been mischaracterized in terms of the black and white. But not being extremely aggressive overzealous warhawks is not the same thing as asking permission. There have been plenty of occasions where force has been used correctly and with democrat and liberal support.

 

But where a link to protecting our national security is extremely weak, yes, people will be critical of what is being done. Who ended up being absolutely right about Iraq? The people who said we should not have invaded it because it was not vital to the post-9/11 world.

We cannot and will not send our military into Pakistan without their approval, period. If Obama is god forbid elected president, I can assure you that this would never ever happen. When we go out on a MEU with the first destination being a port like the Navy base in Rota, Spain, we can't even sail a direct path to Spain, we have to zig zag and go about a thousand miles totally out of the way. Why? Because sailing directly to another country is an act of war, it doesn't even matter if we're sailing to our very own Navy base in Rota. This is just one of the countless exampls of stupid international laws that we must abide by, so you can be damned sure we aren't going to be going into Pakistan without their permission, however it's pretty common knowledge that SOCOM units are there right now, but conventional forces? No friggen way.

 

Now going back to Afghanistan? Hell yeah. Ever since we turned that country over to the army, it's gone to sh*t. It's only a matter of time before we get sent back there to clean up the army's mess since they can't hold down the country.

yeah...that damn international law...keepin us from ruling tha world and shiiiiiite...and i seem to remember sending our military to iraq without their permission...same thing right?...

 

uh, we declared war on iraq. obama is not talking about declaring war on pakistan but sending troops into their country with or without their permission and without a declaration of war.

 

there is a huge difference

We haven't declared war since WW2.

 

Carry on.

Declaring war is a thing of the past.