CIA Operation Similar To Tactic Obama Advocated, Bush Criticized

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - CIA Operation Similar To Tactic Obama Advocated, Bush Criticized stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS


First Posted: 02-19-08 04:07 PM   |   Updated: 03-28-08 02:46 AM

I Like ItI Don’t Like It
Bush Cia Obama

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.
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 ...
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 ...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
429
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

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

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next › Last » (9 pages total)
- faust2001 I'm a Fan of faust2001 3 fans permalink

"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.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:02 PM on 02/20/2008
- oogabooga I'm a Fan of oogabooga 9 fans permalink

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.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:43 PM on 02/20/2008
- oogabooga I'm a Fan of oogabooga 9 fans permalink

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.

    Favorite    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.

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

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

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:55 AM on 02/20/2008
- missjane I'm a Fan of missjane 2 fans permalink

You forgot to mention Bush's pathologic hypocracy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:10 PM on 02/20/2008
- Not Blind I'm a Fan of Not Blind 22 fans permalink
photo

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.

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

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.

It's LUNACY to suggest that the U.S. plan in the mid-east is in any way dictated by Israel. The Iraq war was planned long before we were attacked by a group of crazed fundamentalist Saudis, and it had nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with Bush Jr's legacy. And now we're on the path with Iran for the same reasons. It's sickening.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:52 PM on 02/20/2008
- StephenJK I'm a Fan of StephenJK 25 fans permalink
photo

We shouldn't be supporting ourselves if the following is true:

"supporting a country that doesn't denigrate their women"

lol

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:27 AM on 02/22/2008
- StephenJK I'm a Fan of StephenJK 25 fans permalink
photo

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

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:28 AM on 02/22/2008
- musselmanm I'm a Fan of musselmanm 21 fans permalink
photo

Exactfuckingly right. This is the kind of bombing Obama was speaking of.
It is so easy for many people that do not understand the English language to misconstrue the meaning of the message he sent. This obviously includes John McMorewarmoredeathCain and Hillary Clinton.
More fear being thrown about like it is George Bush day.
If Senator Obama speaks and writes more slowly, can the many of you confused folks try to follow along with the train of thought?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:26 AM on 02/20/2008
- StephenJK I'm a Fan of StephenJK 25 fans permalink
photo

Yes. Let's try and follow along with this train of thought:

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

Iran, you're next if Obama gets his way.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:29 AM on 02/22/2008

First and FOREMOST...this WAS NOT an assasination. This was a surgical strike against an enemy. This man was not the elected leader of another country, nor was he chosen by his people to represent them to the rest of the world. He was a thug and a murderer.

At least Sen. Obama has put forth a policy/strategy regarding Terroism that is correct and proper.

I would rather he hunt down the men that were behind the attack on America individually and kill them rather than invade some other country not involved in it whatsoever.

If Pakistan is unwilling to co-operate with bringing these men to justice before a Court of Law, well then...we SHOULD do it without their consent.

Oh and By-The-Way...isn't this the same strategy that Bill Clinton supported when he was in the Oval Office regarding Osama Bin Laden??? Damn that Obama, plagerizing again.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:38 AM on 02/20/2008
- StephenJK I'm a Fan of StephenJK 25 fans permalink
photo

Yeah and we should go into every other country which harbors Al-Qaeda and bomb their shit.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:30 AM on 02/22/2008
- Dantana I'm a Fan of Dantana 3 fans permalink

After seeing who McCain would have for cabinet members, I'm convinced we need Obama more than ever.
It's not clear what Barak would do. The suggestion he had about Pakistan proved sucessfull.

We don't need another Bush wannabe or another Clinton at this point. We deserved better.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:38 AM on 02/20/2008
- wagonjak I'm a Fan of wagonjak 7 fans permalink

Leathery old McCain was on the tube this morning attacking Obama for saying he would bomb targeted terrorists in Pakistan.

Reporters were questioning him, and as far as I heard, none of them asked him about this CIA killing of a terrorist in Pakistan using the SAME METHOD Obama called for.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:34 AM on 02/20/2008
- StephenJK I'm a Fan of StephenJK 25 fans permalink
photo

Yes we deserve better than the same ol same ol:

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

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:31 AM on 02/22/2008
- tumblewind I'm a Fan of tumblewind 2 fans permalink

I personally have always wondered why they didn't do the same thing to Osama bin Laden? I am starting to believe the Bush Administration doesn't want to catch him. I am not certain exactly why they don't? But it's never stopped the CIA before if they really wanted to go after some one. So, it's almost like Bush doesn't want to catch him.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:36 AM on 02/20/2008
- Dantana I'm a Fan of Dantana 3 fans permalink

Osama is the boogey man they have to keep out their to scare the masses. When the polls drop, as they've done for years for Bush, they put out a tape from Bin Laden to remind everyone why we should be 'vewy afwade'!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:51 AM on 02/20/2008

I think you're right. My guess is that they don't want to martyr him. His death could be the trigger point for the Islamic Extremists to revolt in Pakistan, and other places. If they could do a Khalid Sheik Mohammad type of abduction so there is no body, no trial, no grave etc. they might try. It would be very unlikely, OBL supposedly has a very committed security detail, and he would probably fight to the death. Plus he's Saudi, "we" love them;)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:12 AM on 02/20/2008

More importantly, he is a member of the bin Laden family. The Bush clan and the bin Ladens have been business partners for decades. Remember that Daddy Bush was meeting with Osoma's father on 9/11? Also recall that all the bin Ladens were flown out of the country after 9/11 before the FBI could interview them? Finally, recall that Granddaddy Bush was implicated in a conspiracy to overthrow FDR and that he was indicted for supporting the Nazis during WWII? The questions isn't, "Are you paranoid?" The real question is, "Are you paranoid enough?"

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:39 AM on 02/20/2008
- Durango I'm a Fan of Durango 150 fans permalink

Bullshit! Osama is enemy # 1 and if the Bush Administration could find him they would kill him. His living is a constant reminder of the complete incompetence of Bush/Cheney et al.

And just so you remember, you heard it here first. I think Osama Bin Ladin is hiding out in Yemen. His family is Yemeni, not Saudi. And in the ME blood is very, very important. His family, even his distant family, would take risks to hide him no matter what. And while he might be sold out by the Pashtuns who also put family above all else, his Yemeni family would not.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:35 AM on 02/20/2008

Daisy Cutter got him...

can you say Daisy cutter....8)

December 2001!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:32 AM on 02/20/2008

Well, well, it turns out that the JUNIOR Senator from Illinois has a greater understanding of foreign policy issues than the SENIOR gang of hawks in the White House!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:31 AM on 02/20/2008
- sugarmoes I'm a Fan of sugarmoes 19 fans permalink
photo

we own pakistan. get over it.

bush is soft on terruh.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:36 AM on 02/20/2008
- who38 I'm a Fan of who38 71 fans permalink

Just like we own Afghanistan, right?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:45 AM on 02/20/2008
- FirstShirt I'm a Fan of FirstShirt 66 fans permalink

So this liberal change agent sees assasination as a tool of foreign policy. Interesting. If he keeps this up he will endear himself with right wing republicans.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:07 AM on 02/20/2008

isn't this "state sponsored terrorism"?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:37 AM on 02/20/2008

Interesting.....you are saying that this man was a civilian leader that was assasinated? Attacks carried out against commanders of a paramilitary/military organisation that have declared war against our country are generally considered legitimate targets and well within the rules of war. I think Obama is simply showing that he is capable of being commander in chief as well as a change agent. The fact that the republicans stopped hunting for the perpetrators of 911 quite some time ago, while pursuing a flawed mideast strategy and Obama has never taken the eye off Afganistan/Pakistan region shows that he is up to the task despite what Clinton and McCain keep rattling off like old broken records. The only reason the administration is going after these kind of people now is because we are in an election cycle.....watch for terrorist trials to coincide with elections too. Same old BS, from people parsing terms like assasination. You've got The right wing saying he is a lefty and the Clinton loosers trying to say he is far right. It would be funny if it were not such a sad commentary on American politics.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:02 AM on 02/20/2008
- Wulfstan I'm a Fan of Wulfstan 8 fans permalink

What you might want to ask yourself is
"Is it better to invade and occupy a country where there are suspected terrorists, incurring 20,000 American casualties or conduct a successful surgical strike from a robot drone?"

Or would you do nothing, like Bill Clinton, who had the chance to take out Osama bin Laden and did not?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:30 AM on 02/20/2008
- sophie I'm a Fan of sophie 2 fans permalink
photo

Here we go again, it's all Clinton's fault. Let me recall though...back when he was a president. REPUBLICANS ran the show, don't you remember?? They were all interested in getting him impeached, all interested in hearing details about his blowjobs and women. All were on his ass when he tried to do something in Africa....remember "Wag the Dog" language spewed from the likes of Senator Trent Lott? His hands were tied when it came to dealing with anything terrorist back then as the Republicans were all over themselves trying to convince the world that Clinton was a terrible man because he had an affair and LIED about it! Oh the horror! Nevermind Osama, nevermind terrorists....naaa. Back then, all they cared about was that Clinton was getting the blowjobs and they weren't! Just one thing though....half of those accusing him of fooling around had girlfriends on the side and even babies with some of them.
Try this.....BUSH has been president for the past 8 years. It was under BUSH that Al Quaeda attacked on September 11th. It was under BUSH that he started a war in Iraq which had absolutely NOTHING to do with September 11th. And it's STILL under BUSH that Osama is still out there. He can laugh at what others suggest to do when it comes to terrorism, but under his so-called leadership, more hate and more terror is heaped on this world.

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

What you might want to ask yourself is "Is it better to invade and occupy a country where there are suspected terrorists, incurring 20,000 American casualties or conduct a successful surgical strike from a robot drone?"



or you can do it the bush/american way:slaughter innocent women and babies, rape little iraq girls and then kill them. you fucking americas who support bush all deserve to die a gruesome death.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:46 AM on 02/20/2008
- Soulsurfer I'm a Fan of Soulsurfer 38 fans permalink

We're talking about a completely different tactic to effectively deal with a legitimate threat in a way that involves as few casualties as possible. The fight against AQ has always required a covert police operation, NOT large scale warfare ala W's warmongering and profiteering methods. AQ is a legitimate threat, just not nearly as big as they'd have us believe. There's money to be made here, boys, on several different fronts!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:00 AM on 02/20/2008

This is the CIA's covert endorsement of Barack Obama. Sure Barry, we'll kill somebody for you.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:34 AM on 02/20/2008
- Wulfstan I'm a Fan of Wulfstan 8 fans permalink

Is that what happened to JFK, RFK and MLK?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:46 AM on 02/20/2008

Obama and Bush more than friends ....Bush is his cousin 8th I think like Cheney is at Obamas admission his cousin...cozy isn't it
Obama is also related to two other presidents 3 senators 2 congressmen and 2 supreme court justices on his moms side.I guess he is a blueblood like Bush....I guess that makes him the same old same old.....and the status Quo
Hardly outside the loop like Clinton....he's a good ol boy! check out wargs dot com

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:40 AM on 02/20/2008
- BARRISTER I'm a Fan of BARRISTER 19 fans permalink

He is also cousin to the Rebel Leader in Kenya responsible for the recent atrocities. his grand mother took time from hoeing the field to confirm that. He sure has connections.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:29 AM on 02/20/2008
- djthedj I'm a Fan of djthedj 2 fans permalink

Do you have any idea who any of your 8th cousins are? 3rd? 2nd? Get a grip!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:34 AM on 02/20/2008

Obama and Bush more than friends ....Bush is his cousin 8th I think like Cheney is at Obamas admission his cousin...cozy isn't it
Obama is also related to two other presidents 3 senators 2 congressmen and 2 supreme court justices on his moms side.I guess he is a blueblood like Bush....I guess that makes him the same old same old.....and the status Quo
Hardly outside the loop like Clinton....he's a good ol boy!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:40 AM on 02/20/2008

it is amazing how much stupid you can cram into a single post.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:43 AM on 02/20/2008
- ashen I'm a Fan of ashen 3 fans permalink

LOL

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:40 AM on 02/20/2008
- Durango I'm a Fan of Durango 150 fans permalink

As Abraham Lincoln said about another lawyer:
"That beats me. That Blackwell can concentrate more words into the fewest ideas of any man I know."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:43 AM on 02/20/2008

"CIA Operation Similar To Tactic Obama Advocated, Bush Criticized" ....

I believe McCain also criticized Obama for it. Interesting, isn't it: Obama is in-line with the CIA, meanwhile on the other end of the spectrum McCain whose in-line with Cowboy Bush.

This only validates that a President McCain would just be 'more of the same': more years of a Dubya esq presidency --> more of the bully on the playground form of diplomacy, more of the big stick carrying and gun-toting ruler, more war-mongering, more, more, more creation of a mess here in America and a DISASTER around the world ...

I think it's fair presumption that Independants and moderate-swing-Republicans won't get fooled again, will know better this time around, and will not vote for more of the same in '08.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:10 AM on 02/20/2008
- radmul I'm a Fan of radmul 5 fans permalink

When he first said it I thought it was a good Idea but now that Bush has picked up on it I am begining to question it?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:34 AM on 02/20/2008

You think it was Bush who picked up on it? Maybe. Or maybe it was one of the many people who advise him. I'd bet on that. If not, then I guess Obama really can inspire Pubs as well as Dems!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:56 AM on 02/20/2008
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next › Last » (9 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect