home

Rudy Would Seek "Permission" To Attack Al Qaida

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 11:35:55 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

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 Would Seek "Permission" To Attack Al Qaida | 39 comments (39 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    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


    Parent
    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


    Parent
    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


    Parent
    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
    link

    Parent
    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, 20