“Second, we have made it clear to all nations, if you harbor terrorists, you are just as guilty as the terrorists; you’re an enemy of the United States, and you will be held to account. (Applause.)”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060831-1.html

That is unless you’re an ally of the United States, then you’re an enemy-ally.

And regarding which horse to have backed in the eighties, it appears that plan didn’t work out so well. We had to invade Iraq twice in fifteen years, Iran is if anything a larger threat now, and we have two majority Shiite governments in the Middle East.

It was then, and remains today, the choice between two evils.

Which is something a number of folk- generally liberals- can’t seem to understand. Living in the real world, you’re forced to make choices between imperfects.

Alliances are formed out of convenience, not permanence. Should we still be at war with Britain, Germany, Mexico, Spain, and Japan because at one time in history, we weren’t “shaking hands and doing business with them”? Because we are doing so today, in the event that future circumstances drives them into violent conflict with the U.S….does that invalidate our decision to form friendships and alliances now?

When Saddam gassed the Kurds he was our friend fighting against the Iranians.

He was also the “friend” of Britain, Germany, Russia and France, so we were hardly alone in picking Iraq over Iran in that era.

However your use of the word “friend” is deceiving, John Ryan. In light of the Iranian hostage situation just a year or two earlier, it didn’t take rocket science for the US to favor Iraq as the best counterbalance to Khomeni. Iran presented a more obvious clear and present danger to US security. So the US supplied Saddam with military assistance and satellite intel on Iranian troops movements.

It surprises me not that you’d take pride if the DNC then favored the Ayatollah, in effect, by refusal to support Saddam… altho I find very little in that era of the “outraged” DNC Congress you allude to. Perhaps you’ll point to some of that “outrage” for us? But I warn you, a “none of the above” in that conflict will not play in your favor. Disengagement, and allowing the potential for Iran to gain power over Iraq, was not an option.

Saddam’s persistent use of chemical weaponry in his battles with Iraq (and later the Kurds) did *not* earn the favor of the US, nor the int’l community. The US instead strengthened export controls on chemical weapons to both countries.

Even the int’l community only made half-hearted condemnations during that time. The UNSC basically ignored Iran’s multiple formal complaints to that body about Saddam’s use of chemical weapons. But finally, in 1984, the UNSC issued a general presidential statement, condeming the use of chemical weapons, but refused to name Iraq specifically. A vague slap at best, and another statement that the world, while not impressed with either leader, bet on Saddam over Khomeni.

It was then, and remains today, the choice between two evils. The US and other free nations all picked the same horse to bet on. A decision that remains fraught with what ifs, and pros and cons. Which brings me to your desire to whitewash the DNC as some sort of pure entity in all this.

You might want to congratulate them on the firm stand they took a few years earlier. It can be argued that if their beloved Carter didn’t target the Iranian Shah – a US ally against the Soviet Union – and give rise to the Ayatollah (who makes the Shah’s violation of human rights games at a company picnic), the Iraq/Iran battles may not have been fought. So add that to one of your moments of liberal pride and history rewrites…

It’s not the first time.

I can’t wait until he declares the surge in Iraq was his idea all along.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20070536/

A missile is one thing. A missile with Pakistani approval is even less. But boots on the ground is an invasion, and would be an example of the same kind of “recklessness” that the left accused Bush of.

Just one more example of how ignorant of the world Obama is.

The uproar from the right is outrage at the lack of silence that proves so much “patriotic dissent” was just Bush opposition.

“We believe he was killed in this strike,” a senior intelligence official based in Peshawar, the capital of North West Frontier Province, told AFP on condition of anonymity. “It was his hide-out and information that has been shared with us says he was targeted in this strike”. There was no immediate confirmation from the US-led coalition in Afghanistan or from Washington. Pakistan’s military said it was still seeking confirmation, after claims that Umar was killed in another airstrike in the Bajaur tribal region in January 2006 turned out to be untrue. “We are facing difficulties in getting to know what kind of incident it was,” Pakistani military spokesman Major General Athar Abbas told AFP. “We have not yet received any authentic information from the area from our teams.”

~~~

Residents in South Waziristan said they heard US aircraft and pilotless Predator drones flying above the area before and after the strike, adding that there had been alarm over similar flights throughout the weekend. A group of Arabs, believed to be Egyptians, had rented a compound containing the house and a madrassa from a local tribesman, Malik Salat, residents said. “This (the attack) has been done by coalition forces, we did not do it,” another Pakistani security official said on condition of anonymity. Both the US-led coalition and a separate NATO force in Afghanistan said they were not involved in the missile strike. However, the US Central Intelligence Agency is also known to operate drones in the region.

If NATO/coalition forces aren’t responsible, perhaps the CIA is. And while the Pakistan officials did not say specifically they cooperated, they did say his hid out was “information that has been shared with us”. Does that mean they shared that info with the CIA?

One thing for sure… when the US does stuff without their knowledge, they are quite verbal about it publicly with their condemnations. And they been somewhat benevolent with drone and air strikes in the past. Lacking an official outcry of rage, I suspect they knew and passed on the info.

Isn’t this what BHO was excoriated for by the Right? Saying he would authorize attacks against terrorists within the sovereign nation of Pakistan on the basis of actionable intelligence.

Of course. But it’s different and much, much worse when Obama does it–showing no understanding of the uses of military might or the role of commander-in-chief or of the implementation of foreign relations. As to why: well, some rationalization will surely pop up.