That bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri are still at large “doesn’t mean much,” the former general said Tuesday on the second day of a swing through Europe. He suggested they are far less a threat to his regime than Taliban-linked militants entrenched in Pakistan’s west.
Bin Laden and al-Zawahri are believed to be hiding somewhere in the lawless tribal areas along Afghanistan’s frontier with Pakistan.
“The 100,000 troops that we are using … are not going around trying to locate Osama bin Laden and Zawahri, frankly,” Musharraf told a conference at the French Institute for International Relations. “They are operating against terrorists, and in the process, if we get them, we will deal with them certainly.”
Back in August, Hillary Clinton and the other Democratic candidates jumped on Barack Obama for saying, ““If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”
Watch their criticism of Obama here:
Time and time again we see that Obama’s judgment is just much more on the mark with regard to our foreign policy and national security.
The following statement was submitted by Senator Obama in the Congressional Record today:
Mr. President, I wish to express my serious concern over the Central Intelligence Agency’s confirmation that videotapes depicting brutal interrogation techniques were destroyed.
First, it is important that we note the broader context of this debate. The United States of America is a nation born out of a struggle against tyranny, and our founding legal document asserts that the rule of law applies to all men and women, and all branches and agencies of government. We are not a perfect nation, but our national greatness is marked by our ability to rise above our imperfections through our allegiance to our values and to the rule of law. Time and again, America has triumphed because of the contrast we draw to tyranny. We are a nation that set captives free, shut down torture chambers, and extended freedom and international law to more of humanity.
Now, we are engaged in a new kind of conflict. And the question that we have faced since September 11, 2001, is how we are going to respond to the shadowy, stateless, terrorist enemies of the 21st century.
Tragically, the Bush Administration has too often chosen to respond to this enemy by abandoning our values and ignoring laws that it deems inconvenient. So we have seen excessive secrecy, indefinite detention, warrantless wire-tapping, and ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ like simulated drowning that qualify as torture through any careful measure of the law or appeal to human decency. For each of these new policies, we have seen dubious legal reasoning that does not stand up to the harsh light of review or the sound judgment of our Constitution.
Yesterday, we learned that in November 2005, the CIA destroyed videotapes of its interrogations of two prominent al Qaeda suspects, including a close Osama bin Laden associate – Abu Zubayadah. Media reports suggest that these videotapes depict brutal interrogation techniques, and could certainly be relevant to ongoing investigations and inquiries. Furthermore, these videotapes were not provided to the 9/11 Commission, which made a broad set of requests for classified documents – including interrogation tapes and transcripts – that would have included information about the 9/11 attacks. Read the rest of this entry »
I already put up some clips from Obama’s foreign policy leadership forum in NH. Here are some with more coverage. Right now the clips are in no particular order.
Obama says he is able to hit the ground running. He talks more about former Clinton foreign policy advisors who are now supporting and advising his campaign.
I never in my life thought I would be quoting conservative Shelby Steele for an essay in support of Obama. However, Steele does seem to like Obama’s position on talking to our enemies. He writes:
All this points to one of the great foreign policy dilemmas of our time: In the eyes of many around the world, and many Americans as well, we lack the moral authority to fight the wars that we actually fight because they are wars more of discipline than of survival, more of choice than of necessity. It is hard to equate the disciplining of a pre-existing world order–a status quo–with fighting for one’s life. When survival is at stake, there is no lack of moral authority, no self-doubt and no antiwar movement of any consequence. But when war is not immediately related to survival, when a society is fundamentally secure and yet goes to war anyway, moral authority becomes a profound problem. Suddenly such a society is drawn into a struggle for moral authority that is every bit as intense as its struggle for military victory.
America does not do so well in its disciplinary wars (the Gulf War is an arguable exception) because we begin these wars with only a marginal moral authority and then, as time passes, even this meager store of moral capital bleeds away. Inevitably, into this vacuum comes a clamorous and sanctimonious antiwar movement that sets the bar for American moral authority so high that we must virtually lose the war in order to meet it. There must be no torture, no collateral damage, no cultural insensitivity, no mistreatment of prisoners and no truly aggressive or definitive display of American military power. In other words, no victory.
Meanwhile our enemy is fighting all out to achieve a new balance of power. As we anguish over the possibility of collateral damage, this enemy practices collateral damage as a tactic of war. In Iraq, al Qaeda blows up women and children simply to keep alive the chaos of war that gives it cover. This enemy’s sense of moral authority–as misguided as it may be–is so strong that it compensates for its lack of sophisticated military hardware.
On the other hand, our great military might is not enough to compensate for our weak sense of moral authority, our ambivalence. If we have the greatest military in history, it is also true that we lack our enemy’s talent for true belief. Our rationale for war is difficult to articulate, always arguable, and distinctly removed from immediate necessity. Our society is deeply divided and there is a vigorous antiwar movement ready to capitalize on our every military setback.
Steele goes on to say:
This is not an argument for Mr. Obama’s candidacy, only for his idea. It is a good one because it allows America the advantage of its own great character.
This week, like a lot of Americans, I have Pakistan on my mind — again.
The last time was in August when that country made a cameo appearance in the 2008 presidential campaign. When Sen. Barack Obama suggested getting out of Iraq and moving “onto the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” and then pledged, if elected president, to go into Pakistan if our military was in hot pursuit of “high-value terrorist targets” (read: Osama bin Laden), his opponents pounced.
Rudy Giuliani suggested that Obama should be more accommodating of Pakistan’s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Mitt Romney said that Obama was “confused as to who are our friends and who are our enemies.” Sen. John McCain called Obama’s remarks “kind of typical of his naivete.” And Sen. Hillary Clinton said that Obama’s foreign policy views were “irresponsible and frankly naive.”
And while U.S. intelligence agencies put bin Laden in the remote tribal areas of western Pakistan, the Pakistani ambassador to the United States insisted that, if the U.S. military went into his country after bin Laden, it would destabilize the region.
You don’t say. What do you call what is happening now?
Today, United States Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) sent the following letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice demanding answers on reports that State Department officials offered Blackwater guards immunity from prosecution, which may hinder a criminal investigation into the September shooting that killed at least 17 Iraqis.
Obama has introduced legislation in the Senate to make private security contractors in Iraq subject to federal criminal law; this bill has already passed the House. Obama has also called for the head of Blackwater to testify before the Senate. In February, Obama introduced comprehensive legislation to increase oversight on private security contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan; part of his legislation requiring reporting to Congress on the role of contractors passed the Senate last month. Read the rest of this entry »
2 Comments | 
Barack Obama, Democrats, Election 2008, Hillary Clinton, Homeland National Security, Pakistan, Politics, Youtube | 
Permalink
Posted by sagereader
