Edwards Takes Hard Line On Pakistan, Echoes Obama's Earlier Remarks

Comments (28)

hillary wrote on September 7, 2007 1:18 PM:

Um, if we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we won't. I mean we will. I mean it's none of your business.

Greg wrote on September 7, 2007 1:31 PM:

heh -- very good.

oleeb wrote on September 7, 2007 1:44 PM:

I don't see why Obama's statement was problematic nor do I see Edwards' assertion of American action in the absence of action on the part of Pakistan as any big deal. It's good to know some of the potential nominees aren't afraid to say they would take action to stop the people who attacked our country.

American1989 wrote on September 7, 2007 2:01 PM:

I don't know, what is worse, a loose terrorist network lurking out there, whom we can track and corner, or a radical Islamic Sunni quasi-Iran government in Pakistan with control of nuclear weapons; and then they can ship them to Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas to attack our troops in Iraq and "wipe off" Isreal.

Seems to me that Edwards and Obama don't understand this part of the problem. Obama is trying to overcome his "inexperience" issue while Edwards is fighting his statement that the war on terror is a "bumper sticker".

stlounick wrote on September 7, 2007 2:15 PM:

hillary, good one.

American 1989, nuclear weapons are a nasty thing but we can't cower in abject fear of their use while folks continue to train and inject terrorism throughout the world. The risk you state is the same risk all over the world.

Dawn wrote on September 7, 2007 2:27 PM:

So what are their suggestions on how to handle the situation with Pakistan right now, where the just arrested terrorists in Germany are believed to have been trained in camps in Pakistan?

I'd like to hear something concrete about an actual existing situation.

NCSteve wrote on September 7, 2007 3:03 PM:

The odds that Musharraf will still be in office on January 20, 2009 are ridiculously small. Regardless, anyone who claims that that bombing an Al Qaeda or Taliban camp full of foreigners somewhere in the hinterlands of the Pakistani Tribal Areas is going to lead to an Islamic revolution in Islamabad is either truly naive cynically playing upon the fears of the semi-informed.

bob wrote on September 7, 2007 3:04 PM:

You are incorrect about the alternatives, American1989. The Islamists in Pakistan have maybe 10% support. The military has the real power. Neither of the two former leaders who are returning to Pakistan are Islamists.

Even without Musharraf, they aren't letting the nukes fall into the wrong hands or shipping them off.

bob wrote on September 7, 2007 3:05 PM:

Didn't Edwards agree with Clinton rather than Obama on this issue during one of the debates?

I'm pretty sure that he did. Can someone look that up?

Swopa wrote on September 7, 2007 3:23 PM:

If coverage of this speech devolves into who said what when about Pakistan, it's a big defeat for anyone who cares about stopping the Bush/Cheney/neocon agenda.

The important part of the speech is Edwards' direct statement that starting on 9/11, Bush took this country down the wrong road:

We needed new thinking and a bold vision to protect the world for our children; instead, George Bush literally gave us his father's war—-but without his father's allies or his father's sense of decency. What's more and what's worse, the so-called "war on terror" he used as his excuse for war in Iraq became his excuse for trampling our Constitution and, most perversely, for ignoring the demands of the actual struggle against terrorism....

... Tragically for America and the world, George Bush's "war on terror" approach walked directly into the trap the terrorists set for us. Islamic extremists wanted to frame the conflict with the U.S. as a war of civilizations, and the Bush Administration, stuck in a Cold War mentality, happily complied.

There is now only one key question we must ask ourselves: are we any closer to getting rid of terrorism than we were six years ago? And the terrible answer is no, we're further away. Today, terrorism is worse in Iraq, and it's worse around the world.

This is the message our side needs to be getting out into public circulation. We can hash out the specifics of Pakistan policy later.

Taylor Marsh wrote on September 7, 2007 4:25 PM:

Agreed. Besides, Pakistan wasn't even the biggest news in the speech, which beyond what Swopa cites also involved the Saudis. It's not a minor issue, especially given the arms sale now in the works. For far too long Bush has allowed our foreign policy to be predicated on deals made from weakness instead of strengths. Edwards is correct that setting conditions should be part of any arms deal, which by the way should include Israel, though no politician wants to talk about that element of a truly "new strategy" to combat terrorism. Getting back some semblance of "honest broker status" would be a start.

Mark F. wrote on September 7, 2007 4:39 PM:

Just because these statements are similar doesn't mean they're the same. And the intent certainly wasn't the same. Obama was talking about taking out high-value targets regardless of whether they presented an imminent threat. Edwards didn't say that. Read it again. Both statements were, I'm sure, very carefully worded. Don't skim. Don't add your own thoughts into the statements. Just read what was actually said. Otherwise, you're as bad as the mainstream media, who make a living being careless.

Grant wrote on September 7, 2007 4:45 PM:

mark f.
that's just bs. Barack Obama didn't say anything about taking out targets that were not a threat to the U.S. You Edwards supporters are very tricky with you parsing/lies. Bottom line is that Edwards is copying Obama. What happened to all of that substance he gained after his one term in the senate and his world tour on poverty?

Mark F. wrote on September 7, 2007 4:51 PM:

In the first place, I'm not an Edwards supporter. In the second, you're being exactly as careless as I was complaining others were being. I NEVER said that Obama was talking about taking out targets that are not a threat to the U.S. Read what I said. Read what Obama said. Read what Edwards said. But do it a little more carefully this time, OK?

Gus wrote on September 7, 2007 5:44 PM:

Thats a pretty petty detail to focus on in response to a rather significant policy speech.

I hate to sound like a crank, but as a regular reader of Sargent's posts here, I get the sneaking suspicion that a lot of his comments are initiated by information he receives from other campaigns, notably Clinton. Now its one of Clinton's strong points that her campaign has been ahead of all rivals on many levels of organization, including rapid response. I've seen other reporters in the msm and on the blogs in effect also inadvertantly mouth the Clinton party line just because Clinton had reached them first and most consistently.

But how about this; why not reveal to our readers if in fact this particular comment -- or anything you publish -- came from another source, be it a campaign spokesman or an unofficial surrogate for the campaign such as a pro-HRC TPM reader. Note that you did that about the "Edwards supporter" in the update. (I too am an Edwards supporter, though not the one who emailed in the comment).

I'm not among those who have concluded Sargent is in the bag for Clinton; I think its merely a matter of effective media outreach by the campaign. But he can do something to help us sort through it, which is to treat us like the intelligent, discerning readers we are.

Leslie in CA wrote on September 7, 2007 6:27 PM:

Mark F. is right that these are substantively different statements: "imminent terrorist activity" vs. "high-profile terrorist targets," with no mention an imminent threat. But the larger point as raised by Swopa and Taylor is also surely correct: let's not get bogged down in sniping about the details, when we should be talking about the Bush administration's absolute failure to pursue any kind of meaningful, productive anti-terrorism strategy.

Leslie in CA wrote on September 7, 2007 6:28 PM:

... no mention of an imminent threat.

DonnaG wrote on September 7, 2007 6:37 PM:

Edwards gave a powerful speech. It is clear to me that both Edwards and Obama have already analysed the mess and then turned the page toward solutions. Either or both are ready to lead this country.

Martin wrote on September 7, 2007 7:16 PM:

It is depressing to hear this kind of thing out of Edwards' mouth. And from what I can gather from most of the posts above, the idea that we should continue to violate international law any time we have "actionable intelligence" (an absurd concept) doesn't seem to bother anybody. I think it's a terribly sad commentary on the "liberal" side of the political spectrum. Does no one else who visits Josh's site as regularly as I do think the time for US state terror is over? Can anyone demonstrate by giving examples how slaughtering people from high altitude has made us anything but less safe? Forget the moral and legal aspects. Does it work??? Endless WOT anybody?

vivek wrote on September 7, 2007 10:09 PM:

bob wrote on September 7, 2007 3:04 PM:

You are incorrect about the alternatives, American1989. The Islamists in Pakistan have maybe 10% support. The military has the real power. Neither of the two former leaders who are returning to Pakistan are Islamists.

Even without Musharraf, they aren't letting the nukes fall into the wrong hands or shipping them off.

---------

Bob, you could be wrong. Because when Nawaz shariff was prime minister, Musharaf managed kargill war against India saying the war was actually by terrorists when his own army was deployed. Nawaz shariff did not know this until he got a call from Clinton.

there is no assurance that shariff will know everything that is happening in his country. coz he is not from the military.

OEST wrote on September 7, 2007 11:45 PM:

Why is that the only part of the speech you focused on?

Chima wrote on September 8, 2007 1:21 AM:

So I guess this makes John Edwards "naive" as well? Will the pundits attack him like they did Obama last month when he said the same thing? Will Joe SCarborough spend 3 weeks bashing Edwards for saying this? Will CNN rush to Hillary for comment?

I doubt it.

OEST wrote on September 8, 2007 8:06 AM:

Chima wrote on September 8, 2007 1:21 AM: So I guess this makes John Edwards "naive" as well? Will the pundits attack him like they did Obama last month when he said the same thing? Will Joe SCarborough spend 3 weeks bashing Edwards for saying this? Will CNN rush to Hillary for comment?

I doubt it.

Did John Edwards give a speech on yesterday?

Sincerely,
The Television Media

That's why they won't.

Mark wrote on September 8, 2007 10:58 AM:

Martin,

There is at least one other reader who is mortified. However, the idea that assassinations should be carried out by the US whenever they are deemed (by who?) to be in the "national interest" seems to be well accepted in all camps, even regular folks who are probably against the death penalty....the idea that this is an incredibly slippery slope does not seem to be worrying anyone either.

BlueDiamond wrote on September 9, 2007 4:28 PM:

Edwards may have stated it before , but Obama said it first. But hey, at least he wasn't acting like a hypocrite and slamming Obama like Hillary , Biden and Dodd did. So, Edwards is not a hypocrite like the Establishment.

:)

msnz911 wrote on September 9, 2007 5:44 PM:

Seems to me that Edwards will babysit terrorists; John Edwards will wait until the terrorists begin to dance on top of those mountains before he does something.
In other word, if those terrorists behave and keep their mouth shut, they will not be targeted.

Obama has said, if we see "Satan" on top the mountain, and Pakistan doesn't act, we will.

In don't know about you but I feel safe with Obama.

Terri wrote on September 9, 2007 6:47 PM:

I guess this is the most sincere form of flattery.. It's nice to see that he recognizes Obama's leadership, though it would have been nice if he at least acknowledged it.

Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton was a bit more disingenuous. When she criticized Obama for saying he'd go after al Queda if there was actionable intelligence, only two days earlier she had said this in an interview with the American Urban Network...

"If we had actionable intelligence that Osama BinLanden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured."

The true leader is apparent.

msnz911 wrote on September 10, 2007 9:19 AM:

John Edwards was reading from a paper...

Obama in contrast read from his brain cells.
He didn't need a paper to remember where he stands.

Hillary is passing gaz, that all she knows.
Ralph Nader was right. She is a political coward,” he said. "She goes around pandering to powerful interest groups on the one hand and flattering general audiences on the other.

"She doesn’t even have the minimal political fortitude of her husband.”

I don't know about you, but I fee safe with Obama

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)