By Doggone/GA

December 1, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this

“It’s time for the international community to force Pakistan to get serious about ending its status as a source of terrorism”

“Outside military force against Pakistan isn’t feasible and wouldn’t accomplish much except to weaken Pakistan’s central government, which would be counterproductive”

Am I the only one who sees the inherent disconnect between these two statements? The international community should “force” Pakistan to “get serious” but military force is not an option?

Jay, normally I agree with what you say…but economic sanctions don’t amount to FORCING anything.

By AJC/DNC Management

December 1, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this

But won’t that make the terrorists angry?

By demwit

December 1, 2008 3:14 PM | Link to this

Obama promised to get Osama bin Laden shortly after he’s President. No worries here…

By citizen

December 1, 2008 3:41 PM | Link to this

Until there is a change in the teaching of the ideology that Jews and Westerners are ‘infidels’ and therefore, are legitimate targets, violence will continue. The living standards in the Middle East are not conducive to creating hope of a better future, living wage jobs or a sense of safety and security. Because there is such a large pool of disenfranchised youth, the draw of the fanatical islamic movement can seem to give purpose to these youth. I don’t think the answer lies with a military response; I think the answer is with educating the world’s population with what we are faciing.

By Paul

December 1, 2008 3:44 PM | Link to this

This is going to be one of the toughest challenges of the Obama Administration.

Jay, I agree - if anyone thinks Iran is a mess, you ‘ain’t seen nuthin’” until you see what Pakistan would be like with a military ‘solution.’ But given Pakistan doesn’t have much of anything the world wants (like Iran with oil or dollars or Russia with natural gas - Pakistan just has something we don’t want them to share - nukes) we just might get sanctions through.

A couple of years ago most American wanted us out of Iraq yesterday and were shocked and aghast that the Bush Administration ignored the clear will of the people. Yet those same voices want a Pakistani government with a population supportive of Islamic fundamentalism to move against Islamic fundamentalists. Am I missing something here?

Another point. Indian officials had been warned terrorists would strike. By sea. They did. Officials resigned.

The Left castigated Pres Bush because Richard Clarke ‘warned’ him terrorists would strike (just like he’d been warning the Clinton Administration oh so many years). Bush was ‘warned’ but didn’t ‘do’ anything about it, obviously, or at least didn’t do enough, because terrorists struck. Eight months later.

Now Pres Obama has been ‘warned’ by his own VP that he will be ‘tested.’ The Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism just issued a report stating terrorists will most likely carry out an attack with biological, nuclear or other unconventional weapons somewhere in the world in the next five years unless the United States and its allies act urgently to prevent that.

Link: Panel Forsees Unconventional Terror Threat

So Pres-elect Obama, too, has been warned.

Question: if such an attack does occur, will the Left be more forgiving of Pres Obama than they were of Pres Bush, even though Obama may have years to prevent the attack, not months, as did Bush?

By Bosch

December 1, 2008 3:45 PM | Link to this

Um, yeah, the only problem is they actually HAVE nuclear weapons.

See the problem here?

By Copyleft

December 1, 2008 3:59 PM | Link to this

Am I the only one who sees the inherent disconnect between these two statements? The international community should “force” Pakistan to “get serious” but military force is not an option?

There is no disconnect; action needs to be taken, AND military action is useless against terrorism. Therefore, non-military action is needed.

By "The Corporal"

December 1, 2008 4:10 PM | Link to this

To Jay

No, time for Obama to fix Pakistan. Remember, during the campaign he (and you said he) had all the answers. All he has to do is go over there, sit down with everyone and all will be hunky-dory.

I can hardly wait.

By Bosch

December 1, 2008 4:20 PM | Link to this

Paul,

First, howdy, hope you had a nice Thanksgiving.

Second, I think it’s pretty much a foregone conclusion that we will see another terrorist attack, warning or not. And just think if the prime minister of Israel or England a few years back resigned every time there was a terrorist attack, they’d never have time to set up shop.

It’s how they handle the situation afterwards.

And besides, Obama spent billions getting to be the POTUS, let’s not waste that money. Geez!

By "The Corporal"

December 1, 2008 4:28 PM | Link to this

Trouble in Paradise?

News Headline:

“Liberals Angry Over Obama Keeping Gates as Pentagon Chief

President-elect Obama’s expected selection of Robert Gates as his defense secretary and retired Gen. Jim Jones as his national security adviser is raising eyebrows among liberals.”

The first of many disappoints for you liberals.

Run to get elected on one set of issues and then back-stab those who elected you. A politician is a politician and Obama is a classic.

By Bosch

December 1, 2008 4:31 PM | Link to this

And Paul,

Um, duh, of course the left will be more forgiving of Obama. What kind of silly question is that.

Just kidding, but how do you figure that Obama has had years to prevent an attack, has he had some kind of access to intelligence information that we don’t know about? Maybe by using his X-Ray vision or other Superhero talents?

By getalife

December 1, 2008 4:32 PM | Link to this

“I Was Unprepared For War”… “I’m Sorry” About The Economic Crisis… Some Voters Backed Obama ‘Because Of Me’”

w, finally showing some accountability.

Change.

By Bosch

December 1, 2008 4:33 PM | Link to this

Corporal,

This lib is glad Gates is staying right where he is. The only one who I think could do a better job is Mr. Nunn, Sam Nunn.

You guys really make too many wrong assumptions. But what’s new.

By scrappy

December 1, 2008 4:37 PM | Link to this

The Corporal - “Liberals Angry over Obama Keeping Gate…”

I am Liberal, I am not upset. Were “Liberals” polled for this? Just because a so-called media outlet made it a headline, does not make it true.

I think a lot of people here should keep that in mind.

By getalife

December 1, 2008 4:39 PM | Link to this

“The Buck Will Stop With Me”

Obama, Change from day 1.

By Paul

December 1, 2008 4:41 PM | Link to this

Hey Bosch!

I did, and trust you did, too.

Did you know a convection oven’ll cook a 22-pounder in three and a half hours? So it’s done before noon? Even though family’s not coming over until midafternoon?

More wine!

I was just having fun with the “Bush was warned crowd. And pointing out the farright may be more forgiving of Obama than the farleft was of Bush. Politics, politics.

As far as the years thing, the report postulated ‘within five years.’ So assuming something hits a couple years into Obama’s administration, he had ‘years’ to stop it. Bush had but a few months.

semi-sarc

A couple months ago I stopped by a Honda dealer to look at the 2009 Fit. Good design. They had one you could look at. If you wanted one, you had to sign in a book, wait for the next month’s allocation and take whatever came in.

I went by the weekend before Christmas. They had nearly a dozen on the lot. Had nothing to do with gas prices going down so people’re back to buying tanks. Sales guy said when the economic meltdown hit it was like flipping a switch - no sales.

Go to Honda’s website, check out the 2009 Insight. Our guys are going belly-up and the Japanese have another new hybrid -

By "The Corporal"

December 1, 2008 4:51 PM | Link to this

We’ll see - time will tell.

But he can’t have it both ways ……….

By AJC/DNC Management

December 1, 2008 4:51 PM | Link to this

By getalife December 1, 2008 4:39 PM “The Buck Will Stop With Me” Obama, Change from day 1.

al-Gitmo: That’s pretty funny, he’s surrounded himself with a bunch of KKKlinton hacks, who else does he think they’re going to blame?

By Dusty

December 1, 2008 4:53 PM | Link to this

Once again, I wonder what citizens expect our leaders to be… Wonder warriors who can pick a threat from thousands of threats on millions of shorelines to be ready at an exact point at the RIGHT TIME.

The leaders of our countries, USA & INDIA for example, are doing what is possible in most cases. Terrorists study every weak point they find because there are ALWAYS going to be WEAK POINTS. Then they move.

Security people are the sacrificial lamb to make citizens feel better. Fire them and get new people who are not able to foresee every possibility or protect every weak point either. But the citizens feel better.

The realization is that no one can be TOTALLY PROTECTED these days. We don’t tell our children that but the adults should realize it no matter what.

By AmVet

December 1, 2008 4:59 PM | Link to this

One moment he’s a card carrying Marxist intent on destroying the USA and the entire free world. The next he’s just another warmongering GOP-lite.

No wonder you neo-con buffoons can’t help but get slaughtered every election anymore.

And don’t expect that to change for at least a decade…

By getalife

December 1, 2008 5:22 PM | Link to this

Andy,

Congrats on not getting banned today but which part of the buck stops with him do you not understand? I think four star Marine General Jones will tell him to man up and don’t be a w.

How about w finally taking responsibility for some of his disasters?

Change?

By AJC/DNC Management

December 1, 2008 5:25 PM | Link to this

It’s amazing the crap you’ll find on the dead threads, it’s where the rats go to build their filthy nests-

By GodHatesTrash December 1, 2008 3:45 PM Sad and sobering to think that the greatest army in the world is having trouble maintaining a 1:1 kill ratio against a ragtag army of misfits. Invariably, patience beats hubris and arrogance, over time.

The brave American soldier fights with both hands tied behind their backs, showing great restraint and caution against an enemy that hides behind women like God’s Trash, and they have lost many, many men because of these rules of engagement.

And don’t it figure that the libs would be the ones to call our soldiers “torturers” and “weak” because of rules imposed because of liberal whining and moaning?

Seriously, the US Armed Forces cannot fire a gun or drop a bomb without the liberals passing out over it, so sure, take advantage of your hysterics to demean the dead soldiers that you helped to kill.

That’s real special.

By AmVet

December 1, 2008 5:28 PM | Link to this

Bush says some voters backed Obama ‘because of me’.

Ya think?

The master of understatement courtesy of the Mental-midget in Chief.

By david wayne osedach, san diego/ U.S.A.

December 1, 2008 5:32 PM | Link to this

Before ostracizing Pakistan one should remember that it is a nuclear power run by Muslims.

By AJC/DNC Management

December 1, 2008 5:34 PM | Link to this

If he can pull this off, and help that decent Iraq take root, Obama and the Democrats could not only end the Iraq war but salvage something positive from it. Nothing would do more to enhance the Democratic Party’s national security credentials than that.-Thomas Freakman, Treason Times.

Alright, so now that the flaming anti war pinkos that fought against America in Iraq, screaming and wailing for 5 years solid, are going to take credit for the victory before they’ve even taken office yet, I got just one question for y’all-

Where’s Bin Laden at, heroes?

Huh, huh, where’s he at?

By Taxpayer

December 1, 2008 5:37 PM | Link to this

The Bush administration got our soldiers needlessly killed right along with thousands of other innocent people and all he can do is say that he regrets that the intelligence did not turn out the way that he wanted.

By AJC/DNC Management

December 1, 2008 5:57 PM | Link to this

Taxpayer: So why is Oblahmi leaving them in harm’s way?

By AJC/DNC Management

December 1, 2008 6:04 PM | Link to this

Congratulations to de facto el Presidente Dee Magnifico Oblami on another wonderful day in office:

DOW SHEDS 679

Gosh, much more of this and there won’t be anything left to lose.

By Taxpayer

December 1, 2008 6:10 PM | Link to this

Who’s “Oblahmi?”

By @@

December 1, 2008 6:33 PM | Link to this

jay, was there any mention of the muslim extremists who were positioned inside India months before the attack? Cross border cooperation among the jihadists.

What is the goal of radical jihadists throughout the world?

We are definitely between a rock and a hard place in this Indo/Pakistan conflict. Two fragile governments subject to fall into the hands of more radical elements. Both with nuclear weapons.

I’d be curious to know what conditions were set out in the recent IMF “bailout” to Pakistan.

11 of the 16 can be found in paragraph seven. There had been talk of a cut in defense spending. Can’t tell if this covers the cut:

freezing of non-development expenditure under the defence budget for the last three quarters of the current financial year

I’m reading that Condoleeza Rice has already talked to Pakistan and is on her way to India. Stratfor speculates on what the Indian proposal might be.

It is possible that New Delhi will make a radical proposal to Rice, however. Given that the Pakistani government is incapable of exercising control in its own country, and given that Pakistan now represents a threat to both U.S. and Indian national security, the Indians might suggest a joint operation with the Americans against Pakistan.

What that joint operation might entail is uncertain, but regardless, this is something that Rice would reject out of hand and that Obama would reject in January 2009.

It’s odd that they would say that because a couple of months ago it was hinted that the U.S. might have been looking to use India to gain leverage in Pakistan.

The Pakistanis have already threatened that, in the event India amasses troops on their border, Pakistan will pull theirs from western Pakistan and deploy them in eastern Pakistan leaving the door wide open to the radical elements within the Taliban. Out goes any motivation for proposed negotiations with the more moderate Taliban. Pressure on al Qaeda within the tribal areas would decrease.

Again….from Stratfor Now, step back and consider the situation the Mumbai attackers have created. First, the Indian government faces an internal political crisis driving it toward a confrontation it didn’t plan on. Second, the minimum Pakistani response to a renewed Indo-Pakistani crisis will be withdrawing forces from western Pakistan, thereby strengthening the Taliban and securing al Qaeda. Third, sufficient pressure on Pakistan’s civilian government could cause it to collapse, opening the door to a military-Islamist government — or it could see Pakistan collapse into chaos, giving Islamists security in various regions and an opportunity to reshape Pakistan. Finally, the United States’ situation in Afghanistan has now become enormously more complex.

Obama’s made a promise. Will he be able to keep it when the stakes are real, not hypothetical?

Donald Rumsfeld once said that the enemy gets a vote. The Islamists cast their ballot in Mumbai.

By "The Corporal"

December 1, 2008 8:04 PM | Link to this

Dulce Bellum Inexperis

By @@

December 1, 2008 9:10 PM | Link to this

Alrighty Corporal. It’s just you and I down here. Check this out:

Pakistani daily The News reported Dec. 1 that Pakistan’s military is monitoring the border with India closely and has not detected any mobilization of Indian troops in the wake of the Nov. 26 attacks in Mumbai. Meanwhile, Press Trust of India quoted an Indian army official saying no orders for mobilization have been given, and the Indian External Affairs Ministry rebutted television reports that said the Indian-Pakistani cease-fire was being suspended.

With almost no strategic depth to insulate its core from any potential Indian attack, Pakistan maintains six of its nine Corps formations in Punjab. This includes offensive “Strike” Corps (I and II) designed to make pre-emptive thrusts into Indian territory in the event of war in an attempt to acquire breathing room and leverage for subsequent negotiations. At times of increasing tension with India, the overarching military imperative for Islamabad becomes the conventional reinforcement of these six corps. This would have to come at the expense of other missions such as those that Washington and New Delhi would like to see. Indeed, Pakistan already suggested as much when it told commanders in Afghanistan that it would have to withdraw forces from the western theater in the event of a crisis with India.

A twist I wasn’t anticipating. Why would we like to see troops pulled from western Pakistan to eastern Pakistan? Why the heck would India want the shift?

The piece goes on to say Strategically, defending the border with India is the military’s paramount objective because it represents the most direct existential threat. Pakistan’s 550,000-strong force is only half the size of the active Indian army, and New Delhi also fields technologically superior hardware, from the latest Russian T-90 main battle tanks to the modern Su-30MKI “Flanker” fighter. As such, Pakistan is very hesitant to pull away military units from this mission. (Islamabad has committed resources to the jihadist fight along the western border only under immense U.S. pressure. Currently centered around Swat in the NWFP, this mission has been complicated as U.S. airstrikes by unmanned aerial vehicles have inched ever deeper into Pakistani territory.)

You’re the military guy, Corporal. What, if anything is your best guess?

Hope you drop back by, otherwise I’m just typing into thin air.

By @@

December 1, 2008 10:29 PM | Link to this

Okey Dokey!

A missed opportunity for some worthwhile speculation.

Poof!!!!!!