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)
- mamacat I'm a Fan of mamacat 132 fans permalink

Of course Bush criticised Obama's idea; Bush beleives in attacking countries that are no threat to us, so that al Qaeda has to go through all the trouble of sending terrorists to chase us down, instead of hiding in the mountains of the Hindu Kush. Maybe to a neo-con that makes sense. Sort of like cutting taxes on the super-rich and then spending your way into oblivion, so that the dollar collapses. Go figure.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:34 PM on 02/19/2008
- TimN I'm a Fan of TimN 19 fans permalink

"Bush beleives in attacking countries that are no threat to us..."

Yeah like he attacked the Balkans...

urrh....

Like he attacked Somalia...

uhhh....

Like he launched Operation Desert Fox...

darn it...

You know what I mean...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:38 PM on 02/19/2008
- Hitsong I'm a Fan of Hitsong 2 fans permalink

You think this uppity little shrub even knows where these places are? And if he says 3,000 Americans were killed on 9-11, I guess Britons, Frenchmen, Indonesians and Israelis must be Americans, too. How many more days left with this waste of protoplasm?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:56 PM on 02/19/2008
photo

N O, errr don't have a clue of what you mean.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:20 PM on 02/19/2008

Well, there's no oil in Pakistan, there is oil in Iraq and Iran - but that's just a coincidence....
Bush may be stupid, but he knows where oil is...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:42 PM on 02/19/2008
- springsm I'm a Fan of springsm 50 fans permalink

bush's replies and criticisms are just what you would expect of a backyard bully. He proves it every darned time he opens his mouth.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:44 PM on 02/19/2008
- Ajita I'm a Fan of Ajita 80 fans permalink
photo

Bush is attacking Obama because his advisers tell him to. The GOP powerdogs are pushing for Clinton. I forget which republican it was that said yesterday that the best thing to reunite the republican party is Hillary Clinton.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:58 PM on 02/19/2008
photo

The chimp POTUS is once again fighting on the wrong battlefield and he once again has the wrong plan for the "other" real battlefield.

After 7 years in office he's still a freaking primate on foreign affairs and war strategy.

If anyone wanted to fight the USA, they'd do it before January because GWB still doesn't have a clue.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:33 PM on 02/19/2008
- globality I'm a Fan of globality 16 fans permalink

that why it important to be right on day one

Good job Obama

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:33 PM on 02/19/2008

all I heard Obama say was that he would wage war directly with or without the nation's permission. I didn't hear about this covert operation approach. I like it though...even if Bush is doing it. It's what Bush should have done in the first place. Instead of wars and Homeland alert silliness (assuming he really wanted to deal with 9/11 I mean...and of course that is dubious at best)...he should have publicly "mooned" bin Laden (it's not like losing 2 buildings or 3100 people is the worst thing that has ever happened to us)...and sent a squad of guys to go train with Mossad. Think where we would be if: 1) all those trillions went into healthcare, social security, education and solar research...and 2) if we had quietly sought and killed the leaders of al Qaeda. How many kids would be dying to join a group that is quietly imploding? But hey...think of all the books and movies this will generate over time.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:33 PM on 02/19/2008
- flashlight I'm a Fan of flashlight 3 fans permalink

"all I heard Obama say was that he would wage war directly with or without the nation's permission. I didn't hear about this covert operation approach"

Then you were listening to the voices in your head, rather than his actual words:

"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."

Where's the "wage war w/o the nation's support" part?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:40 PM on 02/19/2008
- TimN I'm a Fan of TimN 19 fans permalink

Mr. Stein states: "[Obama] would target Al Qaeda officials in Pakistan even without the country's ACQUIESCENCE"

But, that's not what Obama said: "If...President Musharraf WILL NOT act, we will."

Nor was that the nature of the operation: "The strike...came WITHOUT THE Pakistani government's KNOWLEDGE"

If our forces acted WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE of Musharraf then he never had the opportunity to ACQUIESCE or decide that he WILL NOT act. This operation was undoubtedly conducted without the foreknowledge of Musharraf because of time-sensitive reasons and not as Obama recklessly suggested that Musharraf is an unwilling ally.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:31 PM on 02/19/2008
- flashlight I'm a Fan of flashlight 3 fans permalink

Interesting parsing, but ignorant of the situation in Pakistan.

"without knowledge" is there because Mr. Musharraf wants to maintain deniability. His official position is that US troops cannot take action in his country. He may not have had the intel details of the operation, but the fact that he kept his mouth shut about it for a month demonstrates his acquiescence, and duly vindicates Obama's policy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:46 PM on 02/19/2008
- flashlight I'm a Fan of flashlight 3 fans permalink

That wasn't quite as clear as I intended...

Whether Musharraf's tacit acquiescence was before or after the fact - the get-tough policy of Obama is vindicated.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:51 PM on 02/19/2008
- TimN I'm a Fan of TimN 19 fans permalink

If Mr. Musharraf wants to maintain deniability then he is granting acquiescence. Therefore, Mr. Stein's characterizing of the CIA operations being done "without the country's acquiescence" is false, and your comment is meaningless.

BTW I parsed nothing. I provided accurate quotes.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:55 PM on 02/19/2008
- Gatormouth I'm a Fan of Gatormouth 22 fans permalink
photo

My, my. I wonder what set the trolls off on this one. Let's see, Obama stated a position last August that at least the CIA appears to have agreed with last January, and a rather surgical strike has removed several actual enemies of ours in Pakistan without resorting to a major "preventative war", or executive action or whatever they chose to label these things. Probably because it resulted in massive losses in the "contractors" potential revenues. I bet Halliburton was pissed. Gee , guys, he was just expressing his position. Who knew?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:25 PM on 02/19/2008
- helonias I'm a Fan of helonias 222 fans permalink
photo

See what happens when kaptain karl isn't activating the jaw activation button

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:22 PM on 02/19/2008
- Gatormouth I'm a Fan of Gatormouth 22 fans permalink
photo

My, my. The Trolls are lashing out at Obama because he stated a position last August that the CIA appears to have implemented last January. Aren't we being a wee bit defensive? And such a delayed response, too. If it had really bothered them they might at least have protested in a more timely manner. I mean, in his defense (and the CIA's) it did involve a rather surgical removal of a few of our actual enemies (not an attack upon entire country). But the rub is probably that it did not involve masive profits for "contractors". Pity.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:14 PM on 02/19/2008

I can see it now, President Obama is going to receive grievous criticisms throughout his term(s) for controversial moves and in the end he will be exonerated by history. This man has foresight and the keenest intellect we've seen in the public realm in a generation.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:12 PM on 02/19/2008

Certainly better than the other choices before us.
It's same-old, same-old, or reach for something better.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:45 PM on 02/19/2008

Who hasn't said they'd like to go in with some John Wayne Marine swat team and take the guy out? Geeeeez, you article reads like the idea makes Obama a genius. Can you scrape up any other coincidences to support your candidate?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:11 PM on 02/19/2008

Yeah, Cookie, the difference is your candidate (I'm assuming you're a Clinton supporter) didn't have the guts to make similar comments and Obama was blasted for it at the time. So, he's entitled to "told ya so" retribution.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:20 PM on 02/19/2008
- Wiredwilly I'm a Fan of Wiredwilly 23 fans permalink

When you see the Woodrow Wilson Institute for Scholars & the Washington Post together in the same story ; beware.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:09 PM on 02/19/2008
- flashlight I'm a Fan of flashlight 3 fans permalink

Remember when Bush was running for his first term and they asked him who the prime minister of Pakistan was and he didn't even know?

Obama, a year and a half before the election was laying down sensible, "model"* policy ahead of the curve - more daring, and yet more reasonable, than Hillary has ever been or could ever be.

And for that perfect final touch of irony: only 2 weeks ago Bush was mocking him for the very idea the CIA was carrying out.

*The U.S. Central Intelligent Agency

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:01 PM on 02/19/2008

Spot on, flashlight. I read this story and thought there could be no possible way Clinton supporters could try to take this away from him but I was wrong. His cap is getting full of feathers and the Clintonistas are in utter denial.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:22 PM on 02/19/2008
- johnnyjust I'm a Fan of johnnyjust 6 fans permalink

This is how smart liberals are. They equate someone speaking words to someone taking action.

You see, folks...and I want to take this slow...is that the former (that would be the first guy) just talks and does nothing, while the latter (the second guy, not that metal thing you use to reach your bong) lets his actions speak for him.

Was...that­...slow...­enough...f­or...you?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:37 PM on 02/19/2008

Good point. Shame on Obama for not seizing control of the executive branch prior to getting elected (kind of like Bush did, since Gore won) and taking action immediately.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:38 PM on 02/19/2008
- flashlight I'm a Fan of flashlight 3 fans permalink

Oh man...

Just picture what this guy looks like...

Just close your eyes and picture "Johnnyjust"...

I hope he doesn't live near a college and have access to firearms.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:42 PM on 02/19/2008

I was in favor of the economic stimulus plan, and the fact that it was passed means that I deserve the credit for it being passed.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:43 PM on 02/19/2008

He's not being credited for the end result-Abu Laith al-Libi's death, he's being credited with the guts and foresight of advocating the very means that brought about al-Libi's death, despite criticism.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:04 PM on 02/19/2008
- FredOCal I'm a Fan of FredOCal 3 fans permalink

Um....what? I don't get it. I'm very slow so you'll have to explain to me exactly how smart "liberals are." Then, could you kindly explain to me how smart conservatives are? Anarchists? I love it when humanity can be so easily classifiable. Now we can figure out who to hate! Thanks!

Oh, and considering Bush is the President and Commander of the Armed Forces while Obama is a Senator with 1 out of a possible 100 votes, comparing the "actions" of the two seems a little ridiculous, doesn't it?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:54 PM on 02/19/2008

What a wingnut! W is all talk and no action.

Remember being.... a compassionate conservative, a uniter and not a divider, if any country sides with terrorists or gives sanctuary to terrorists, then they are the enemy too (except Pak?). The republithugs only talk about fiscal responsibility and morality. Then they run up record deficits and are secretly gay themselves. They lie, lie, and lie. They let FISA expire so they can fight for telecom immunity without even admitting to a crime.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:58 PM on 02/19/2008

Actually, Bush plagiarized Clinton in mocking Obama for this, and then plagiarized Obama by doing it. But actually, they all plagiarized Bill, who'd done it before, in Afghanistan before the war, and in the Sudan as well (remember the aspirin factory? he never called Khartoum to ask, did he?).

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:32 PM on 02/19/2008

You mean Bush plaigerized Obama? oh no.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:27 PM on 02/19/2008
- kellygrrrl I'm a Fan of kellygrrrl 640 fans permalink
photo

I prefer that to Bu$h parroting Cheney.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:37 PM on 02/19/2008
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