home

Rudy Would Seek "Permission" To Attack Al Qaida

Responding to Senator Barack Obama's statement that he would attack Al Qaida in Pakistan if Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf would not, Republican Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani said he would seek permission from Mussarraf to attack Al Qaida in Pakistan. Rudy said:

We should seek [Pakistan's] permission if we ever have to take action there . . .

And if Musharraf says no? Bush joins the party

< The Torture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Others | Video of Hillary's Breakout Session at Yearly Kos >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Rudy & Obama (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 12:05:53 PM EST
    CS Monitor:
    The report, known as the National Intelligence Estimate, has heightened concern that the US might soon step up military action inside Pakistan against Al Qaeda beyond the limited incursions that have been condoned so far by Musharraf. But violating another nation's sovereignty for the sake of an uncertain victory against Osama bin Laden could possibly lead to serious political backlash in Pakistan, and create an opening for Islamic parties to gain an upper hand. (In the 2002 parliamentary elections, Islamist parties did their best ever.)

    Another Iraq in the making?  More fuel on the fire.

    Juan Cole chimes in:

    What he [Obama] should be saying is that if he had an opportunity to deploy a Predator against Bin Laden he would do it, and that he is sure that Gen. Musharraf would cooperate. He is setting up an unlikely hypothetical, and in the hypothetical he is setting up an ally as essentially an enemy (implying that Musharraf is covering for Bin Laden or something).

    His remarks suggested that he is attached to the Bush Doctrine of unilateral and preemptive military action, which violates the United Nations Charter. In the Republican debate, the candidate that sounded closest to Obama's stance on this was Rudy Giuliani. That should tell you something.

    And he is angering the Pakistani public for no good reason. (I mean, if Musharraf, whom al-Qaeda has twice tried to kill with bombs, can't find them, how likely is it that Obama can?) His remarks are remarkably flat-footed for someone who has read the history of British colonialism in Kenya; isn't this just a variant of the White Man's Burden, a way of saying that the Wily Oriental Gentlemen aren't up to it?



    Cole is a brilliant man (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 12:13:50 PM EST
    who thankfully knows nothing about American politics.

    Parent
    Cole (none / 0) (#20)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 12:27:11 PM EST
    He also apparently knows nothing about international law, either, as you so succinctly demonstrated.

    Cole wrote:

    the Bush Doctrine of unilateral and preemptive military action, which violates the United Nations Charter.

    You correctly noted:

    Article 51 of the UN Charter recognizes the legality of such [preemptive] actions.

    On the topic of unilateralism, we might also direct Cole to Article 51 and encourage him to meditate on the meaning of the phrase "individual and collective self-defense."

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 12:39:33 PM EST
    The UN did not give Bush the green light for his war on Iraq.

    Wonder why?

    Parent

    It's a classic flanking maneuver. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Geekesque on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 12:09:16 PM EST
    JFK did it to Nixon and Clinton did it to Bush over China.

    Bush's doctrine isn't preemption--it's preventive war.  Big difference--preemptive action is much more in line with international law.

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#11)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 12:12:14 PM EST
    Iraq not a preemptive war? The Bush Doctrine is Preemptive War.

    Parent
    His point is (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 12:16:29 PM EST
    that Bush;s war violation the doctrine of preremption as it WAS understood, to wit, you are about to attack me so I hit you first.

    The classic case was the 1976 6 Day War. The Arab states were about to attack (and they were) so Israel hit them first.

    Article 51 of the UN Charter recognizes the legality of such actions.

    Iraq was not going to attack the Us, even Bush accepted that, he said the invasion was to prevent a FUTURE attack, not an imminent attack.

    Parent

    1967 (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 12:16:52 PM EST
    Iraq was a preventive, not a preemptive, military (none / 0) (#14)
    by Geekesque on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 12:15:50 PM EST
    action.

    Look up the definitions.  Whoever defines Bush's actions as stricly preemptive is obfuscating a very clear difference.

    Parent

    OK (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 12:35:59 PM EST
    If you are going by what Bush says and  not what he does:
    Preemption is 'provocation'; it is not 'prevention'. The Iraq invasion of 2003 intended to prevent, but actually provoked and promoted, international terrorism and weapons proliferation, and a general disgust and distrust of the U.S. Those things actually prevented by the Iraqi invasion can be listed as peace, cooperation, trust, honor, and the like.

    Source watch

    Wolfowitz Doctrine

    "Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to general global power."

    Preventive only if the preventers are not prevaricators. Otherwise it is naked aggression for the sake of maintaining dominance.

    Parent

    I would have taken Geek's comment (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 12:21:14 PM EST
    the way I think you took it to mean, if his comment had been made by a Bush supporter.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 12:36:46 PM EST
    Or (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 01:40:50 PM EST
    An Obama supporter.

    Parent
    Ouch (none / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 01:43:16 PM EST
    The daughter of Republican hopeful Rudy Giuliani has signaled she's backing Democrat Barack Obama for president.

    HuffPo

    Parent

    That too. (none / 0) (#29)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 02:11:07 PM EST
    From Bush's 2004 State of the Union (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Anonymous Liberal on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 12:34:49 PM EST
    "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country."

    If I were one of Giuliani's lower tier rivals, I would hammer him with that.  

    That's a good one. (none / 0) (#26)
    by RedHead on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 01:38:39 PM EST
    Talk about a gaffe.  if only the GOP candidates weren't so operationally weak.  In past campaigns, opponents would be running this up a flag and ramming down his throat.

    Parent
    Dem flip-floppers. (1.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 11:59:02 AM EST
    He's right. The absolute first step is to at least try to get permission. If Musharraf becomes obstructionist there is a much stronger case for unilateral action (though such action would still constitute a violation of Pakistani sovereignty). A case for justifiable violations of Pakistani sovereignty (i.e. preemptive self-defense) is stronger after we've exhausted diplomatic options.

    It's amazing how Democrats have flip-flopped on the topic of unilateralism. They screamed long and loud about President Bush's go-it-alone (with dozens of other countries, but don't tell Dems that) ways and the alienation of our allies.

    Suddenly, they've embraced the go-it-alone fevah and don't seem to care at all about how ally countries will like it.

    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 12:02:35 PM EST
    This is funny as heck. There was no cry for waiting for anyone to go after Al Qaida EVER.

    And there still is not, at least from Dems. The GOP seems to lack the fortitude to go after Al Qaida in Pakistan.

    You confuse opposition to the Iraq Debacle with strong support for action against Al Qaida.

    IT is clear that you do support the GOP view on this - Iraq Debacle Forevah! And never go after bin Laden.

    Parent

    One of the many reasons (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 12:08:23 PM EST
    I can't get involved with the ANSWER folks is that they actually seem to believe that going after Bin Laden is a bad idea. Not even Dennis Kucinich thinks that!

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 12:17:37 PM EST
    Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

    Parent
    I have a friend whose (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 12:18:51 PM EST
    favorite response to that is "yeah, you're allowed to be wrong."

    Parent
    Worse (none / 0) (#13)
    by RedHead on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 12:15:02 PM EST
    "There was no cry for waiting for anyone to go after Al Qaida EVER."

    not only was there no call for "waiting," everyone was angry at Rumsfeld decision to deny requests for  air support and reinforcements by CIA irregulars in Tora Bora.  

    Parent

    What About the Bush Doctrine? (none / 0) (#36)
    by john horse on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 07:07:01 PM EST
    re: "The absolute first step (in going after Bin Laden in Pakistan) is to at least try to get permission (from Musharraf).  If Musharraf becomes obstructionist there is a much stronger case for unilateral action . . ."

    So you either believe that in the last 5 or 6 years Bin Laden has been hiddng out in Pakistan that Bush hasn't bothered to ask permission to pursue him or Bush has asked for permission but Musharraf has become "obstructionist", right?

    And what about the Bush Doctrine?  Per Bush a nation that provides safe haven to terrorists should be considered a "hostile nation".  Pakistan has provided a safe haven to Al Queda.  Why aren't we treating them as a "hostile nation"?


    Parent

    Hostile Nation (none / 0) (#37)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 07:21:25 PM EST
    Pakistan has not provided safe haven to Al Qaida. Al Qaida has tried to assassinate Musharraf at least twice; he's not harboring bin Laden.

    Parent
    Not True (none / 0) (#40)
    by john horse on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 07:58:05 PM EST
    Am I missing something.  Musharaff hasn't provided a safe haven for Al Queda?

    As a result of a peace deal with tribal leaders loyal to Bin Laden, Musharraf pulled back troops who had been attacking and disrupting militants, leaving a safe haven for al Qaeda. He placed limits on U.S. operations in the tribal areas including banning American terrorist-hunting special operations forces.  According to U.S. officials the recent resurgence of Al Queda was the result of this peace deal.


    Parent

    Hmmm (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by jarober on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:01:55 PM EST
    So now the left favors unilateral attacks into sovereign nations?  Including ones that have nukes, and serious stability problems?

    In light of that, I'd just love to hear what other brilliant military plans the left has on offer.

    Iraq never had nukes, jarobster. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:03:49 PM EST
    Even you knew that.

    Parent
    Hmmm (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:16:42 PM EST
    So you oppose Bush on this issue?

    Good for you.

    Parent

    Obama has said that he will have (none / 0) (#1)
    by Geekesque on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 11:38:43 AM EST
    no trouble standing by his comment, and will gladly talk about it.

    Those criticizing him will fall into two groups/positions if they don't flip-flop:

    1.  Give the Pakistani dictator veto-power; and

    2.  Don't talk about Fight Club.

    I doubt that advocating giving a foreign dictator veto power or stating that we shouldn't tell the truth will play very well.

    You'll like this one (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 11:46:01 AM EST
    I saw that. (none / 0) (#3)
    by Geekesque on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 11:58:52 AM EST
    Your diaries are the only times I wish I was registered there.

    Obama took some flack for that comment, but the more it gets discussed, the more he benefits.  Playing chess instead of checkers (to shamelessly steal your metaphor) (and yes, I know you were applying it to the reverse situation).

    Parent

    that was on the meetings comment (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 12:03:34 PM EST
    On this, Obama has a real chance to break out, in a partisan way too. Double benefit.

    Parent
    alternate title (none / 0) (#10)
    by RedHead on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 12:09:23 PM EST
    Rudy Would Seek "Permission" From Bin Laden or No "Tanks," Rudy.

    Talk about "a new world order" !!!

    Rudy would surrender National Security authority to Foreigners !!

    Kinda like... (none / 0) (#30)
    by desertswine on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 02:28:53 PM EST
    having the UAE guarding our ports.

    Parent
    Musharraf dictator, Armando's questionable methods (none / 0) (#34)
    by Aaron on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:50:56 PM EST
    Apparently Armando doesn't have a problem referring to General Musharraf as "president". Please tell me about the free and fair elections where this military dictator, who came to power through a coup, received his mandate from the people of Pakistan? Recently General Musharraf had no problem suspending the Chief Justice of Pakistan's highest court when that judge wouldn't bend to his will, and threatened to lend legitimacy to a competing political party. That justice has now been reinstated.

    Observing his behavior of late, I've begun to wonder if Armando himself is following in the footsteps of General Musharraf on this blog. I've begun to ask myself, is Armando trying to weed out undesirable commenters through deception, provocation, and questionable courtroom inspired tricks?  It seems unlikely, but the evidence is mounting.

    After a recent exchange, I have been forced to conclude that Armando either has difficulty comprehending English text, or he's playing games with the commenters, I can find no third possibility which explains his behavior.

    Of late it seems to have become common practice for Armando to delete an entire series of comments in a thread, and then post a claim that the person he has deleted has engaged in personal attacks.  I and a number of others have found ourselves on the receiving end of what more and more appears to be a manipulation disguised as law rule enforcement.

    So I've begun to wonder, what possible motivation could Armando have for provoking commenters into attacking him personally.  The court room setting I think provides the answer.  Judges often strike whole sections of testimony for various reasons, and it seems possible, however unlikely, that Armando has taken a page from his courtroom experiences and begun employing a similar tactic for the removal and suppression of any comments or commenters which might threaten to undermine his position and political viewpoints. And since he is the judge of what should be stricken, it's convenient for him to label anything or anyone that embarrasses him personally or undercuts his arguments as undesirable and then set about provoking them into a personal attack, which are verboten on this site, which then allows him to delete all the comments said offender posted in that thread, even comments which do not violate the rules.  It's a disturbing trend that I believe threatens to undermine the integrity of this blog.

    One can only speculate upon his motives for such a tactic, but considering the evidence at hand I am forced to conclude that it is part of his political agenda, and he seems willing to engage in questionable tactics which in my estimation are certainly not entirely open, fair and above board. Tactics which I may say reflect poorly on all the contributors to this blog.

    I'm am also forced to wonder if these new questionable approaches to censoring blog comments and commenters is something that Jeralyn is aware of, and if they are being done with her countenance and blessing.

    I suspect that this comment will be deleted falling under the label of a personal attack, so I will send individual e-mails concerning this issue to all the writers and commenters who contribute to talkleft, that I'm able to contact.

    Thanks for taking the time to read this.

    Aaron (none / 0) (#38)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 07:39:01 PM EST
    I agree with Oculus' comment below.

    I do think that like all of us Armando occassionally mistakes a comment or comments as personal attack and I have said so to him before. I know that I do it myself sometimes, and he has on occasion admonished me for doing it.

    I read your comments always with great interest. You most often provide a thoughtful viewpoint on topics that has been missed or overlooked by myself and others.

    But, I think you are making an very unfair characterization of Armando here today, and are making a mistake that I, Armando, and all of us, make occasionally.

    Parent

    This is unfair, to wit, see the numerous (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:55:36 PM EST
    undeleted comments of PPJ and others.

    So When Rudy Asks For Permission (none / 0) (#39)
    by john horse on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 07:43:22 PM EST
    So when Rudy asks for permission from Musharraf to go after Bin Laden does he raise his hand and say "sir" and "may I"?