What’s not as obvious is that killing high value targets in Pakistan does any good one way or the other. This dude’s blog (former Army Ranger and now studying at the Kennedy School) is pretty awesome. It clarifies/obscures in a good way quite a lot:

http://abumuqawama.blogspot.com/

Ya know, you probably deserved a “magic uprights” emblem there for changing your argument midstream. You’ve gone from suggesting that Obama was advocating attacking/bombing Pakistan to “putting troops on the right battlefield”.

Do you have the Oscar Meyer sign for baloney to tag next to your above post? It’s take intellectual dishonesty to suggest troops/right battlefield means a surgical strike. That means not Iraq. Troops don’t equate to drones. Get it? Words have meaning – that’s what your boy stated verbatim.

Chen, you and yours parse like Slick Willie. I kept waiting for the response, “it depends on what the meaning of is, is…”

honest question here…but could harboring known terrorists be considered an act of war?

Well, that matches up pretty well with Bush’s “those who harbor” rhetoric.

Tex-

Ya know, you probably deserved a “magic uprights” emblem there for changing your argument midstream. You’ve gone from suggesting that Obama was advocating attacking/bombing Pakistan to “putting troops on the right battlefield”.

I see very little difference between firing a hellfire missle from a drone and using special ops forces to take down a high value target. Both actions are surgical and take place on Pakistani soil. In any case, it takes a pretty intellectually dishonest stretch to suggest that Obama’s position was some sort of invasion or attack on Pakistan.

OT

I’m sorry to announce that the Chamber is now being blocked by my work’s filtering system, which means that I can’t access the site from my work computer. While this is probably a good thing in the big picture (as far as my productivity is concerned), there will probably be a few of you out there who may wonder why I’m not responding as quickly. That’s why. During the day, I’ll usually find a few minutes to check in and see if there is a comment held in moderation or whatever. When business is really slow, I might be able to post a thread. Well…no more. So I’m just going to take this opportunity to remind you guys that comments that contain 2+ links automatically sit in moderation until I release them. If you have a couple of links to post and you want them to show up quickly, just post them in seperate comments.

I recently bought myself a new laptop to replace my ancient desktop (that was running Windows 98, if you can believe it), so it’s possible that I could use it to check in on my lunch break or whatnot. Now I’m rockin with Vista, and I can have it with me at all times if I want to. So…we’ll see. Anyway, I just thought I’d let you guys know.

honest question here…but could harboring known terrorists be considered an act of war?

I have read your question a few times and am not sure I am understanding? Are you asking should harboring terrorists be considered an act of war?

Well, to be honest, I’m not sure I could answer that question simply without having more information. For instance, Argentina, Columbia and Mexico are harboring known terrorists – not Al-Qaida; least I hope they’re not.

My problem with Obama’s statement which I don’t necessarily disagree with (at least is some sense) is I too think we ought to be going to get them. It’s the wording of the statement I have a problem.

Musharraf is supposedly an ally (yeah, I know with friends like that, who needs enemies) who has assisted with the war on terror. I know many of the Pakistani troops have been killed in the attempt to fight Al-Qaida. If we circumvent Musharraf’s authority and announce “we are putting troops in the battlefield”, I do think we could destabilize the region – which includes not one but two nuclear powers.

honest question here…but could harboring known terrorists be considered an act of war?

No, the point of the War on Terror is to hunt down terrorists wherever they might be … except Pakistan.

Pakistan initially agreed to let us pursue Taliban forces into their territory. Musharraf changed his mind.

Obama thinks that we should hold him to the agreement. Actually, that’s to his credit.

If setting a date for surrender in Iraq is foolish, it’s sheer stupidity to say that Usama (remember him?) is safe as long as he hides in the right caves … and then say that it’s because the nation harboring him is an ally.

Obama’s follow up comments criticizing the Dims on August 7th:

“I find it amusing,” said Obama, “that those who helped to authorize and engineer the biggest foreign policy disaster in our generation are now criticizing me for making sure that we are on the right battlefield and not the wrong battlefield in the war against terrorism.”

Spin it anyway you want Chen but moving troops into a country without their consent would be considered an act of war.

Doesn’t sound to me like Pakistan or India was too crazy about that idea. Admit it; your man screwed up. He wasn’t just catching from McCain. He was being criticized from every side for his stupid comment.

Doesn’t sound to me like your man Obama can admit a mistake anymore than his lame excuse for his wife’s egregious comment about being ashamed of America for all her adult life. Isn’t that what you guys have hated Bush for – not admitting mistakes?

As usual, I think you’ve missed the much bigger picture. This was done with the help of local informants passed via the CIA with Musharraf’s approval.

Now here is the excerpt from your man, the experienced fighting lawyer, addressing the crowd August 1, 2007 at the Woodrow Wilson Center for “International” Scholars (code word progressive):

Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and put them “on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

“I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. 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,” Obama said. “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

So you can see no difference between moving troops onto the battlefield of a nuclear power and using a drone to assassinate two thugs using local intelligence?

Then I guess you won’t bitch a bit when we move troops to the Iranian battle field?

Why is that impossible for a lib? To admit a fault?