Sam Stein

BIO

Sam Stein

The Huffington Post

huffpolitics, bombing pakistan, bush administration and pakistant, Bush and pakistan, bush criticizes Obama on Pakistan, CIA and Pakistan, criticize obama, Obama and al qaeda, Obama and George Bush, Obama and Pakistan
huffpolitics, bombing pakistan, bush administration and pakistant, Bush and pakistan, bush criticizes Obama on Pakistan, CIA and Pakistan, criticize obama, Obama and al qaeda, Obama and George Bush, Obama and Pakistan

CIA Operation Similar To Tactic Obama Advocated, Bush Criticized

February 19, 2008 04:07 PM



On the front page of Tuesday's Washington Post was an article detailing how in late January U.S. forces, acting with autonomy inside Pakistan, were able to target and kill Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander.

The strike, which came without the Pakistani government's knowledge and helped eliminate an individual who had long eluded the spy-agency's capture, was an obvious boon in the War on Terror. But the political implications of the operation were just as fascinating.

In August, Sen. Barack Obama had made the argument that, as president, he would target Al Qaeda officials in Pakistan even without the country's acquiescence -- the type of attack that, six months later, proved to be successful.

At the time, Obama was roundly criticized for his remarks, both by his Democratic competitors for the White House and by the Bush administration.

"We think that our approach to Pakistan is not only one that respects the sovereignty of Pakistan, but also is designed so that we are working in cooperation," said then-Press Secretary Tony Snow.

And just one week ago, President Bush himself lambasted Obama's approach to foreign affairs.

"I certainly don't know what he believes in," Bush said on February 10, about Obama. "The only foreign policy thing I remember he said was he's going to attack Pakistan and embrace Ahmadinejad."

To be sure, not everything is known about the extent and execution of the CIA's operation. But, on the surface, it carries similarities to Obama's stated approach towards Pakistan's terrorism problem, the same approach Bush trivialized.

Here is Obama's August 2 statement at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars:

"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. ... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."
And here are some excerpts from Tuesday's Washington Post article.
In the predawn hours of Jan. 29, a CIA Predator aircraft flew in a slow arc above the Pakistani town of Mir Ali. The drone's operator, relying on information secretly passed to the CIA by local informants, clicked a computer mouse and sent the first of two Hellfire missiles hurtling toward a cluster of mud-brick buildings a few miles from the town center.


The missiles killed Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander and a man who had repeatedly eluded the CIA's dragnet. It was the first successful strike against al-Qaeda's core leadership in two years, and it involved, U.S. officials say, an unusual degree of autonomy by the CIA inside Pakistan.

It is an approach that some U.S. officials say could be used more frequently this year, particularly if a power vacuum results from yesterday's election and associated political tumult. The administration also feels an increased sense of urgency about undermining al-Qaeda before President Bush leaves office, making it less hesitant, said one official familiar with the incident.
Having requested the Pakistani government's official permission for such strikes on previous occasions, only to be put off or turned down, this time the U.S. spy agency did not seek approval. The government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was notified only as the operation was underway, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities.


Comments
429
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

Hint sample
View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last » (5 pages total)

Only a fool would have agreed with what Barack Obama said on attacking Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan even without the consent of the Pakistani government.

Did you know why JFK was assassinated?
Check the records of the atrocities of the CIA operations in Iraq in 1963.

Did you know why RFK was assaassinated?
Ask the CIA.

Watch the video: The Stupid Country.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:20 AM on 02/23/2008

If there were anymore trolls on this thread, we could make another 'Lord of the Rings' sequel. Smell the neocon desperation?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:26 AM on 02/23/2008

Hey Barack, Need some more political catchphrases? Please feel free to plagarize these, as they come from a proven Orator that Moved the MASSES!!!

"Words build bridges into unexplored regions."

"Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time."

"The doom of a nation can be averted only by a storm of flowing passion, but only those who are passionate themselves can arouse passion in others."

"Man has become great through struggle"

"The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force."

"The efficiency of the truly national leader consists primarily in preventing the division of the attention of a people, and always in concentrating it on a single enemy."

"If you wish the sympathy of the broad masses, you must tell them the crudest and most stupid things."

"Faith is harder to shake than knowledge, love succumbs less to change than respect, hate is more enduring than aversion, and the impetus to the mightiest upheavals on this earth has at all times consisted less in a scientific knowledge dominating the masses than in a fanaticism which inspired them and sometimes in a hysteria which drove them forward."

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."

"The man who lives in communion with nature necessarily finds himself in opposition to the Churches. And that is why they are heading for ruin - for science is bound to win."

"The great masses of people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one. Especially if it is repeated over and over."


http://hitlernews.cloudworth.com/quotations-of-adolf-hitler.php

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:31 PM on 02/22/2008

It is about who is RIGHT from day one. Those who are unable to see that his man has sound judgment are simply not assimilating the facts. Publicly they try to make him seem "inexperienced and naive", but privately, they are using his suggestions and ideas. It is for the rest of us to see beyond the political garbage and realize from his judgment thus far, this man has his pulse on how best to resolve conflicts. Further more, he is better organized, more unifying as depicted in the way he has run an outstanding campaign. This is not Obamania... this is using common sense (without the emotion & hype), to see whose performance has been more successful.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:26 AM on 02/22/2008

Zbignew Brzenski is Obama's National Security Advisor for the campaign. If you liked Carter, Bush I and Bush II foreign policies, you'll love Obama's.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:55 AM on 02/22/2008

It takes more than good advice to have effective foreign policy. Not only does the president have to be willing to heed advice, but s/he has to have good judgment and be able to pick and choose which course of action to take. Bush I had good relations with other countries, Bush II does not. Whether or not Obama develops good foreign policy will depend in part on those two things: willingness to listen and ability to make a decision. Obama has already demonstrated his ability to put together a good team of advisers (i.e., his campaign team) whom he can trust and to whom he listens. There is no reason to believe he can't do the same as president.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:13 AM on 02/23/2008

So, Obama is saying we should bomb Pakistan.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:09 PM on 02/21/2008

IF necessary, we bombed Iraq, was that necessary? No, my goodness the speech is directly above you, read it to find out what he said. Okay!!

The main point of this thread is that President Bush did exactly what Senator Obama said he would do.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:29 AM on 02/22/2008

he's saying he should bomb terrorists...can you read?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:43 PM on 02/21/2008

You're good at parsing. That much is for sure. There are Al-Qaeda terrorists in hundreds of other countries. We going to act on actionable intelligence in those countries too?

You Obamatrons put a smile on my face. A smile that says "WTF are these people thinking".

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:19 AM on 02/22/2008

Bush: "I certainly don't know... the only foreign policy thing I remember..."

What Bush doesn't know and can't remember could fill a library.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:41 AM on 02/21/2008

MikeDu, you have hit the nail on the head...

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:49 PM on 02/22/2008

And the library probably be so embarassingly huge that they'd classify the whole building under National Security...

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:19 PM on 02/21/2008

Why is anyone assinating anybody? I say, 'recall the military, and do what's right, here'. Barack's been making that promise, how true to his word will he be? Can he take his eye off The Precious?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:51 PM on 02/20/2008

I don't know. Maybe we can ask AIPAC about his views on Iran. That might indicate a little more truthiness of his motives.

Oh wait. I conveniently have a link:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/281249,CST-NWS-OBAMA03.article

For all the Obamatrons cozying up to ideas that Clinton is a closet Jew, this should be a small reality check.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:21 AM on 02/22/2008

Because Abu Laith al-Libi wanted to blow your ass off that's why. Are you an idiot or just suicidal?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:49 AM on 02/21/2008

2/20/08: Bush approval rating lowest in history 19%

http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:27 PM on 02/20/2008

Still worrying that one out of every five voters " people who are allowed to drink, buy guns and raise children - actually approve of the Missing Link President.

What would actually have to happen for these idiots to wake up and smell the coffee?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:45 PM on 02/21/2008

Off topic, but it seems like we aren't able to post on the Michelle v. Cindy story. It seems to me more like it's Michelle v. Barbie (she's always proud of her county). Either she is lying or she is an airhead.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:34 PM on 02/20/2008

Who says that you can't be both.

If you have nothing useful to say just shut up and be a good trophy wife.

Fck'm if they can't take a joke.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:49 PM on 02/20/2008

You mean the CIA practices tactics not supported by the Bush administration? No surprise there: the Bush administration has repeatedly shown no respect for the CIA (ironically headquartered in the George Bush Center for Intelligence). The White House has persistently attacked the CIA, ignored their intel, criticized its director, and even outed one of their agents. It surprises me not one bit that the Bush administration trivialized tactics practiced by the CIA.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:11 PM on 02/20/2008

I'm sorry, but when I saw "George Bush Center for Intelligence" it literally took me minutes to compose myself.

I was reminded of the scene in Zoolander when he is presented with the model for the "School for Children who can't read so good".

Must be a small building . . . I guess you had to see it.

Classic.

P.S. Before you chastise me, I know it is named for G.H.W. Bush (41) who actually knew a little something-something about the subject.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:54 PM on 02/20/2008

Chastise you? No, I live in the DC metro area and I always bristle when I see that sign. Glad to have shared that feeling with you. :)

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:57 AM on 02/21/2008

We just gave the CIA permission to do what ever they want as long as it is in the name of terrorism (When Bush tried this tactic, Democrats where up in Arms). Does anyone remember who the Directors of the CIA have been in the past? Same power, just now they can do it in secretacy. At least the president is under a watch, but Democrats know best. I'm not a Democrat or republican, Yes an Independent.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:42 PM on 02/20/2008

Thanks BushCo for helping Bin Laden and Al Quaida escape and regroup in Pakistan. Thanks for supporting a military dictator Musharriff. Let's hope Bin Laden doesn't end up in control of Pakistan's Nukes.

Heck-of-a-job BushCo.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:34 PM on 02/20/2008

Well if the things in Pakistan start to shape up, what with Musharraf's party getting beaten in the election this week, it could get ugly.

It depends on what the new guys do. IF they reappoint the judges that Mushy fired, then Mushy is in DEEP shit. He doesn't control the Army anymore, but he's still got a lot of friends there.

From the US point of view, we are screwed because of the Bushie policy of Musharraf or nobody. Bushie has only played footsie with Mushy, and not spread out to anyone else. Meaning when Mushy leaves, we have NO connections to Pakistan anymore. Yup... Heck of a job there Bushie.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:23 PM on 02/20/2008

This situation is a Groucho moment. Obama has an idea. The Republicans (and his democratic opponents) attack the idea as naive. Then it's done with success. What happened? I thought this was a bad idea. It underscores the game of politics, as proscribed by Groucho Marx (a Marxist idea?) "Whatever you're for, I'm against it."

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:03 PM on 02/20/2008

Don't panic; Mr. Bush is right on top of this.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:28 PM on 02/20/2008

There is one solution from your opponent, Mrs. Clinton.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:20 PM on 02/20/2008

"The only foreign policy thing I remember he said was he's going to attack Pakistan and embrace Ahmadinejad."--Bush on Obama

On the other hand, all we know about Bush's foreign policy is that he's going to attack Iran and embrace Musharraf.

"We think that our approach to Pakistan is not only one that respects the sovereignty of Pakistan, but also is designed so that we are working in cooperation."--Tony Snow

Yeah, when one thinks of the Bush Administration, one immediately thinks of "respect" for other nations' "sovereignty" and "cooperation."

What the Democrats and Republicans need to understand is that killing terrorists is not going to end terrorism. In other words, if you don't want to get stung by hornets, stop throwing rocks at the nest.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:02 PM on 02/20/2008

Not exactly. If you cut the head off any organization, it takes a while to recover. The problems is that the NeoCon Fascists need Obama alive and loose so they can scare us into giving them as much money and power as they want. There is far more profit in full-scale war and $100 oil than in peace. So that's why Obama scares the warmongers. He will do, seven years later, what Bush refused to do right after 9/11. He will go after Bin Ladin and his senior leadership and kill them. And as much as Cheney and Wolfowitz and the rest of the crazies want war with Iran, Obama will pursue rapproachment, like Nixon did with China and Reagan did with Russia.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:43 PM on 02/20/2008

Not exactly. If you cut the head off any organization, it takes a while to recover. The problems is that the NeoCon Fascists need Osama Bin Laden alive and loose so they can scare us into giving them as much money and power as they want. There is far more profit in full-scale war and $100 oil than in peace. So that's why Obama scares the warmongers. He will do, seven years later, what Bush refused to do right after 9/11. He will go after Bin Ladin and his senior leadership and kill them. And as much as Cheney and Wolfowitz and the rest of the crazies want war with Iran, Obama will pursue rapproachment, like Nixon did with China and Reagan did with Russia.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:44 PM on 02/20/2008

Conclusion? Junior doesn't know what is going on. His handlers hadn't briefed him on the idea, or alternately, he's a liar who couldn't let Obama score a point. You choose.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:42 AM on 02/20/2008

You forgot to mention Bush's pathologic hypocracy.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:10 PM on 02/20/2008

He's a liar that doesn't know what's going on.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:55 AM on 02/20/2008

We can blame Bush for not getting Osama Bin-Laden, and even Clinton or the Saudi royal family for supporting and sponsoring Al-Qaeda. The far more pressing issue is WHY and HOW these groups came into being. There are political, religious and economic issues throughout the Middle East that have harmed many innocent people and nations.
Many of these problems are attributable to the US and Israel (AIPAC). We've been one-sided with regard to everything that has to do with the Middle East...all in Israel's favor. We're sending 1/3 of our total foreign aid to a small country that uses our tax dollars to wage war and invade other soverign nations (Lebanon twice), steal property and homes from indigenous people, build walls to incarcerate them in small enclaves (without utilities, sanitation, or food) while illegally building homes for settlers. We've said and done nothing to abate these atrocities. While Jordan and Egypt both have treaties and diplomatic relations with Israel, they get a sparse amount of aid by comparison, nor do they have oil reserves and revenues near what Israel has.
Israel has violated numerous UN resolutions calling for an end to indiscriminate attacks on civilians, invasions of neighboring countries, halting the erection of walls and barriers that keep Palestinians virtual prisoners, halting the expansions and establishment of increasing settlements on stolen lands. Israel has conducted its own ethnic cleansing over the past 40 years, yet we continue to give excessive aid with no conditions, and view everything myopicly through Israel's best interests, rather than fairness or justice.
This war in Iraq is at the behest of Israel. We're fighting their war by proxy, and if Bush has his way, we'll be in Iran next, to placate the US Israeli lobby and Israel. They do not need our protection. Israel has proven itself capable militarily, and aggressively (like a Pit Bull) in the region.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:41 AM on 02/20/2008

Well, then Obama might not be the agent of "change" everyone thinks he is.

Here's a little foreshadowing for any objectively minded individuals:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/281249,CST-NWS-OBAMA03.article

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:28 AM on 02/22/2008

Israel doesn't:

1. Sponsor terrorist cells
2. Invade other countries without lengthy, nasty provocation
3. Restrict the human rights of their legal citizens
4. Operate without a democratically-elected government
5. Take captives for ransom
6. Restrict the visiting rights of people of all religions and backgrounds to the holy sites contained within its borders

You can scream "Israel!" at the top of you lungs as much as you like, but they keep getting preferential treatment because they aren't nearly as backward as the countries that allow or sponsor violent militaries and paramilitaries that have been attacking Israel almost nonstop since 1948.

I don't agree with every decision their leaders have made, but they have a right to defend themselves, and our country's interest in peace in that region is best served by supporting a country that doesn't denigrate their women, prop up dictators, or support terrorism.