Oops, except for the mere fact that Obama never said anything about invading Pakistan, which, is one of the places we should have invaded long before Iraq. Why? Hmm, let's see. A majority of their residents have radical views, and support terrorism, the Pakistani intelligence services were overt supporters of the Taliban, and probably still are supporting them through back channels, Pakistan repeatedly lied to the US about its ties to Afghanistan and the Taliban, their tribal areas near Afghanistan contain a lot of people sympathetic to, and advocates for terrorists and terrorism, Pakistan actually IS a nuclear nation and is just one small military coup away from being a radical Islamist nation WITH nuclear weapons, and the list could go on and on, and yet, Obama never said he would invade Pakistan.

And if McCain or Bush had suggested it, they con's would applaud the move.  Idiots.  Obama's terror-fighting plan would bring us Osama's head on a platter, and it's somehow reckless.  Invading IRAQ on the other hand... that was WISDOM.  Idiots.  The con's are all idiots!

Magnolia,

I to don't recall hearing Obama say this either....

However, if we were ever to have gotten to the root of terrorism our chance slipped away when George W Numbnuts and his little band of war profiteers decided to invade Iraq!

Second only to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan is a large purveyor of terrorism! Yet, Bush claims they are allies in the war on terror!  I encourage everyone that see this post to read "I is for Infidel" by Kathy Gannon, it give some pretty good insight as to exactly where Pakistan stands in the "War on Terror"

If the future of the world and the lives of billions were not at stake, this would all be hillarious beyond words!

This is interesting because I think what happened this week is close to what Obama was talking about.  As I recall Obama's opponents thought he was hopelessly naive for suggesting such a thing but where are they now?

How dare Media Matters report the facts!!...

It seems this website doesn't love America.

The Troglodytes are tripping over their own talking points. On one hand, Obama is too soft on Turrists, because he favors giving ALLEGED turrists some form of due process to challenge their detention. On the other hand, he's too aggressive because he may want to do something about all the turrists holed up in Pakistan. Oh, and let's not forget their latest bromide.... "Obama has a September 10th mindset". Giuliani was regurgitating that gem on Morning Joe this morning. GMAFB

George Bush was precisely as incompetent on September 12th as he was on September 10th.

Further, the U.S. senator from Illinois said, if there were "actionable intelligence reports" showing al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, the U.S. troops as a last resort should enter and try to capture terrorists. That would happen, he added, only if "the Pakistani government was unable or unwilling" to go after the terrorists.

So I suppose our troops wil just go knock on the door and wait to be invited in?  Hardly - I guess it's only an invasion when a republican calls for it.

No.  It's an INVASION when it is being done against the government of that country.  We INVADED Iraq in 2003, because it was our intent (for better or worse) to topple the government, and occupy the territory.  Pakastan's gov't would be largely unaffected by what Obama is proposing, since it involves going into the hinterlands that they don't have any control over anyway, grabbing the terrorists and getting the hell outta there.  THAT'S not an invasion.  An INCURRSION maybe, but not an INVASION.  (It's also the right and sensible thing to do.  Something that COULD NEVER HAVE BEEN SAID ABOUT IRAQ, even back in 2002.

If the government of Pakistan does not invite us in (see sarcasim about knocking on the door) - then we go in against their will - it is an INVASION.  Obama's comment does not preclude the cooperation of the Pakistani government.

Ever heard of a surgical air strike? In which comic book does that constitute an invasion?

Also, we could get Pakistan's permission to put a small Special Forces team on the ground. Nothing in Obama's comments precludes this possibility.

Let go of the talking points..... it's liberating.

the U.S. troops as a last resort should enter

That is from Obama's clarification of his original statement - nothing about surgical air strikes - he is talking about US troops entering - and if it is without the cooperation of the Pakistani government, it is an invasion.  The Washington Times reporter got it right.

"the U.S. troops as a last resort should enter and try to capture terrorists"

That's what he said. How many troops? If we drop a squad of special forces troops to capture one person, is that an invasion? If our border patrol crosses into Mexico to capture drug dealers, is that an invasion? There must be a military threshold of how many troops make an invasion. Is it five? Twenty five? Two thousand?

Isn't that a bit like John Candy's invasion of Canada in Canadian Bacon?

If we drop a squad of special forces troops to capture one person, is that an invasion?  If it is without the permission of the government - yes

If our border patrol crosses into Mexico to capture drug dealers, is that an invasion?  If it is without the permission of the government  - you bet!

When a single burglar enters you home it is considered an invasion of your property. Why? because they entered without your permission.

So we'll put you down in the column of not wanting to get terrorists.

You do realize that our special forces are probably doing this sort of thing already all over the place, and not just in Pakistan. I'm sure we've been into, and out of Iran many different times since the Shah lost power.

Again, it's not an invasion. And if Obama is talking about troops, he could also be talking about the US Air Force, aren't they troops as well? Anyway, if Bush had done something like this, or had proposed something like this, I would be on his side for this one, because if you want to get the so called evil doers, then you've got to go where they are, and right now, that's Pakistan for a bunch of them

Why would you jump to that conclusion?  See my follow up response to Nerzog below.  I am disagreeing that the reporter saying "possible invasion of Pakistan" is misinformation when that's exactly what Obama said.

So, you would agree that McCain is wrong about Obama being 'like Jimmy Carter'?

About as much as I agree with Obama saying McCain is another George Bush.

Oh - by the way if it is discovered that Bin Laden is in Pakastan, and their government decides to do nothing about it, and they refuse to allow us to go get him, I'm up for an invasion!

Going to volunteer?

Sign me up!

Don't write checks with your mouth that your body can't cash.

"the U.S. troops as a last resort should enter

That is from Obama's clarification of his original statement - nothing about surgical air strikes - he is talking about US troops entering - and if it is without the cooperation of the Pakistani government, it is an invasion.  The Washington Times reporter got it right."--Dems_sol

I think your interpretation of those remarks are unjustifiably narrow.  "US Troops" can of course apply to any members of the Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines and/or their proxy's like missiles and/or UAV's.  "Pakistan" can also easily refer to the airspace above Pakistan.

Obama's remarks do not suggest "invasion" is the only thing he is talking about.

The only tool Dems_SOL has is a hammer. Therefore, everything the Democrats say looks like a nail to him.

But his words do leave open the "possibility", as used in the WT story.

No. The article isn't debating Obama's remarks.  They are playing it as if Obama has stated he would possibly invade.  You and I are discussing the interpretation of Obama's remarks specifically.

The context of our discussion regarding what is "possible" from Obama's policies is not the same as the article.  The article mentions it as if Obama has said it is possible - not that one could interpret his remarks possibly one way or another.

I bet when the Washington Post newsroom of today screens "All the President's Men," they consider it a laugh out loud comedy.

It's certainly become a work of fiction.

 

It's as important as any Political issue in this campaign, yet it's discussed in worthless vague terms... from the three Washington Post paragraphs excerpted above: "a pre-Sept. 11 mind-set" "Islamic terrorism" "security-minded" "terrorism suspects" "detainees" and even the word "terrorism" itself, and especially the supposed name "al qaeda"... this is all just empty worthless rhetoric, when it is absent any particulars.

What particulars need to be mentioned?

When "terrorism" is invoked, then the attacks of September 11 2001 are the particular that needs to be referred to: because that's the only "terrorist attack" we could possibly be discussing, right?

And whenever any kind of defense from and/or reponse to a "terrorist attack" is being referred to, then the particular name that must be mentioned is saudi arabia.

Whether it's a Military response or defense being referred to, or a Law Enforcement response or defense, it's nothing but empty rhetoric that results, if the name saudi arabia is neglected... and even worse than simply empty rhetoric, are the errors of reasoning and speech such vague talk can lead us into... into saying Pakistan, when what you should say is saudi arabia.

Example: where it is said in the three excerpted Washington Post paragraphs, that "the Bush administration's approach to fighting terrorism has been a failure, and he [Mr. Obama] proposes an approach that mixes law enforcement, intelligence and military tools, including the possibility of invading Pakistan to pursue al-Qaeda if the Pakistani government does not cooperate"

...that's mostly senseless rhetoric, and seems strange for that rhetoric having veered into Pakistan.

When you insert the necessary particular, then the statement is is made sensible:

"the Bush administration's approach to fighting terrorism has been a failure, and an approach that mixes law enforcement, intelligence and military tools, including the possibility of invading SAUDI ARABIA to pursue al-Qaeda if the SAUDI government does not cooperate"

 

This is the worst element of our response (or lack of it) to the attacks of September 11 2001: that we have allowed George W. Bush to distract us all from his "good friends" and business partners, and thwarted any JUSTICE for those attacks... and it hasn't helped any either, how much of our privately owned and corrupted media corporations are in part owned by George W. Bush's "good friends" and business partners the saudi "royal" family... an ownership stake in News Corp. and Disney and Time-Warner and others, that exceeds 5% and may exceed 10% ownership in those media corporations... and those saudis, thay take a very active interest in the management and operation of the Western capital that they have an ownership stake in: no wonder that same media, never even mentions the name saudi arabia, when vaguely discussing "terrorism", and even when specifically mentioning the attacks of September 11 2001.

 

 

And the difference between incursion and invasion is??? Would this be similar to the Libya episode in the 80s, when we couldn't get pemission to fly over France. So Pakistan does give us permission to use their airspace to go after OBL and we disregard that and intrude.  Are we breaking International Law (as some say we are now in Iraq) or???? 20 Troops is an incursion, 100, 500, 1000??? Where is the line between incursion and invasion?

I think the difference is in the intent as most people commonly think of it.  If the intent is to conquer or plunder (often requiring an occupation)- then that is what I would call an invasion.

Historically small groups of forces crossing borders and then back were called raids as I have seen it in the past.  Of course, these days traditional uses of words are thrown out the window in the pursuit of political expediency.