What's new

Edwards says he'd attack targets in Pakistan

Neo

RETIRED

New Recruit

Joined
Nov 1, 2005
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Edwards says he'd attack targets in Pakistan

By GLENN BLAIN
THE JOURNAL NEWS

(Original publication: September 8, 2007)

Presidential hopeful John Edwards yesterday became the second Democratic candidate this summer to say he would not be bashful about attacking terror targets in Pakistan.

During a speech on terrorism at Pace University in Manhattan, Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina, promised, if elected, to take a harder line with Pakistan and, if necessary, take action inside its borders without permission.

"I want to be clear about one thing: If we have actionable intelligence about imminent terrorist activity and the Pakistan government refuses to act, we will," Edwards said during what his campaign billed as a major policy address.

Edwards' comment seemed to echo one made early last month by rival Democrat Barack Obama, who said: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President (Pervez) Musharraf will not act, we will."

Obama's comments were criticized by Republicans and even some Democrats. In response to Obama's remarks, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said: "You shouldn't always say everything you think if you are running for president, because it has consequences around the world."

Clinton's presidential campaign declined to comment on Edwards' remarks yesterday.

Obama's campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Clinton, meanwhile, attended a $100-per-ticket fundraiser in Rye Brook yesterday. The breakfast event, which was closed to the media, attracted about 500 people, including many of the region's top Democrats.

"She was more relaxed than I've ever seen her," said Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano, who introduced Clinton to the audience. "I really enjoyed listening to her. She just covered the whole gamut in a short period of time."

In his speech, Edwards blasted the Bush administration for mishandling the war on terrorism and using the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as a pretense to launch the invasion of Iraq. Bush' policies, he said, had made the nation less safe.

"Today, terrorism is worse in Iraq, and it's worse around the world," Edwards said. "It means the results are in on George Bush's so-called global war on terror, and it's not just a failure, it's a double-edged failure."

The candidate also criticized many of the Republicans in the race for president and "some running for the Democratic nomination" for accepting the Bush administration's arguments that the nation is safer than it was before Sept. 11, 2001.

Edwards called for the creation of an international organization to fight terrorism - the Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization - and promised initiatives to eliminate the so-called breeding grounds of terrorism by promoting global economic development, education and reduction of poverty.

"We need a long-term strategy to win the minds of those who are not yet our enemies, by offering education, democracy, opportunity in place of radicalism, hatred and fear," Edwards said.

Republicans scoffed at Edwards' remarks.

"John Edwards is probably more qualified to lecture on hair-care products than he is on national security," said Summer Johnson, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee.

Edwards says he'd attack targets in Pakistan
 
The Presidential hopefuls are getting to be too repetitive!

They may try, but they will be in for a rude shock.

Pakistani Army is not a rag tag Arab army. Arabs have war materiel, but have no idea as to how to use them.

Bring them on I say!
 
This is all bluff and bluster.........You'd never guess it was election year if it wasn't for all the bullshit flying around :lol:
 
This is the kind of **** we need to address rather just considering it as a part of an election compaign and we need to address it rather an offensive way then defensive, the same way we did in case of USSR in the past.
These Loudmouths should know that pakistan isnt anyones toy, whenever they wish use it and then throw it in the dustbin.
 
They don't have the balls to piss off Pakistan.

And once again, this proves my theory that Republican presidents are great for Pakistan.
 
I think each time a comment like that is made we should reduce our logistical support to their troops in Afghanistan. When they feel the noose tighten, they'd straighten up.
 
I think each time a comment like that is made we should reduce our logistical support to their troops in Afghanistan. When they feel the noose tighten, they'd straighten up.

No point really.....The guy is not really a serious contender. If someone who is IN office says something like that then you play political hardball. Otherwise you just let them bluster.
 
Good point, but of course, we can start talking about it too ;)
 
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-obama2aug02,1,7725440.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

I agree with Keys that american politicians get carried away during election years but what is worrying is that even Obama is talking in the same voice as Edwards. See from the above article. Some of his quotes are below (02 August 2007)

QUOTE [Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, under attack from a rival who portrays him as naive on foreign policy, declared Wednesday that he would use military force against Al Qaeda operatives hiding in tribal areas of Pakistan if that nation did not move more aggressively against them first.

The Illinois senator said he would take military action as president, if necessary, despite the risk of undercutting Pakistan's leader, President Pervez Musharraf, an important American ally.

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said. "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."]QUOTE


Republicans are better bet for Pakistan but even with their present publically unseen pressure Pakistan has to distance itself from USA operations in this area. I know its easier said than done but Pakistan cannot sustain in the long term the hate for US Pakistan operations in these areas which the local people feel even with the present setup.

Best Regards
 
No point really.....The guy is not really a serious contender. If someone who is IN office says something like that then you play political hardball. Otherwise you just let them bluster.

Don't underestimate him. He has been endorsed by some pretty influential groups. He could end up as vice president.
 
Election year or not, whatever these clown say has consequences around the world. Its the US we're talking about not some minor third world country...it affects our image. :hitwall:
I agree with Asim, play tit-for-tat and atleast summon US ambassador in Islamabad each time this happens.

Make clear that we can not be an ally and a target at the same time!
 
I agree with Asim, play tit-for-tat and atleast summon US ambassador in Islamabad each time this happens.

Make clear that we can not be an ally and a target at the same time!

Or rather we tell the ambassador to leave the country as this will be a more direct and offensive approach and will therefore send a clear msg to these morons that you cannot treat an ally like this and if we are not considered an ally then be it, we dont give a **** anyways.
 
Back
Top Bottom