You think he stated that he supports an attack on India?

HE DIDNT SAY ANYTHING!

This kind of question will damn you if you say yes, and damn you if you say no.

You do understand that IF he did say no, then he would be called a hypocrite.

You also understand that if he said yes, he would, as you said, alienate Pakistan.

AS IT IS HE HAS SAID NOTHING, except some rhetoric.

As it is, it is becoming increasingly clear that Pakistan is NOT our ally.

Ejaz Haider, a senior editor at the Daily Times, who was at the lunch said Mr. McCain told the group that Washington would not be able to do much to stop India, as the Mumbai attacks were its “9/11.”

When last I checked, a single Senator didn’t speak for “Washington” on questions of foreign affairs. Neither, of course, does a President-elect; as Obama has said repeatedly, we have but one President at a time.

I note that Senator McCain, with Senator Lieberman in tow, had some harsh words for Pakistan:

ISLAMABAD: United States Senator John McCain has said there is enough evidence of the involvement of former Inter-Services Intelligence officers in the planning and execution of the Mumbai attacks.

If Pakistan did not act swiftly to arrest the people involved, the Senator said, India would be left with no option but to conduct aerial operations against select targets in Pakistan.

Senator McCain, the Republican presidential candidate who lost to Barack Obama, told a select group of Pakistanis at an informal lunch in Lahore on Saturday that this was conveyed to him by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New Delhi.

Ejaz Haider, a senior editor at the Daily Times, who was at the lunch said Mr. McCain told the group that Washington would not be able to do much to stop India, as the Mumbai attacks were its “9/11.”

There is no straightforward way for the US to back either India or Pakistan in their conflict. India has played the ‘non-aligned’ game for decades, and the Pakistani government hasn’t been able to control itself (e.g. the ISI) or its regional leaders (those guys cutting deals with AQ and the Taliban in Waziristan and other areas) for what, going on 10 years now?

So, what did Obama say? He said that, while India has the sovereign right to defend itself, he expect ALL mechanisms–diplomatic, economic and political–to come into play in our government’s decisions. He’s absolutely correct to say this, and he’s hardly writing New Delhi a blank check.

Mata,

Melanie Phillips can be reached. Her internet address is on the site at the beginning of her article. I am sure that it would be her pleasure to answer all your questions: melanie@melaniephillips.com

I think we read Obama’s recent statement differently. Plus, when he said during the Dems debates that if he had actionable intelligence of terrorists in Pakistan he would strike (if memory serves me correctly that was before we started hitting them) I was all for it. If Pakistan won’t get Bin Laden and his ilk, then we should.

Not quite. We’ve been using predator drone assaults in Pakistan since as far back as 2005. In Feb 2006, they tried for Zawahiri… who was late to the party. It did get some of his relatives… plus

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, it was apparent that al Zawahiri was late arriving at the dinner meeting. However, the DNA tests did show that at least five foreigners were present. One of them was a close relative of Ayman al Zawahri, while a second was bomb building expert Midhat Mursi, who, like al Zawahri (who has $25 million reward on him), had a $5 million reward on his head. Another of the dead foreigners was Abdul Rehman al-Misri al-Maghribi, a son-in-law of Zawahiri and in charge of the al Qaeda’s Information War operations. Another of dead was Abu Obaidah al Misri, who was in charge of terrorist operations just across the border, in Afghanistan’s Kunar province.

This, of course, means that your memory does not serve you correctly, blast. It also means “that one” (aka the President elect in McCain speak) wasn’t the inspiration for US air missions into Pakistani air space, as he made his Pakistan threats in the Aug 2007 primary debates.

This also applies to Dave Noble’s comment in #20 about why the right “excoriated” Obama for his comments….. the difference between Bush and Obama is that the Pak govt – most especially Musharraf – has been aware of, and formerly (and quietly) approved these endeavors.

Obama, however, promised that we did not need Pak’s approval to target enemy within their borders. Nor did he state to what extent he’d go with his “actionable intelligence”…. boots on the ground? That would never fly.

The increased frequency of the predators’ useage came as this year’s election loomed. The US knew that without Musharraf’s nod of approval (and with the potential of the PPP majority) the opportunity may be slipping away.

According to LongWarJournal these was about 10 strikes between 2006 and 2007. However it wasn’t until this month that any of these strikes were outside the tribal areas, and deeper into Pakistan territory. Five AQ leaders have been killed in these strikes this year alone.

Zardari is proving that, without Musharraf, Pak’s approval isn’t forthcoming as easily. And now they are asking that the US supply the predator technology to them instead.

BTW, blast, even I find it hard to believe this is the first time you’ve ever heard that fighters working with AQ in Afghanistan fled to Iraq pre 2003. And Zarqawi was injured in Afghanistan, fighting with Bin Laden. He fled to Baghdad for treatment and continued alliance operations there until we killed him. And he wasn’t the lone ranger, as Scott has pointed out. In fact many of the jihad movements that lived along the border shadows were useful to Saddam in the 90s.

Craig, I am unaware of any 1993 “agreement” between Bin Laden and Saddam. I am aware of such a relationship between Saddam and Zawahiri tho. I wonder where this Melanie Phillips got the data. Interesting link.

L’IRAK D’AVANT GUERRE
Mélanie Phillips
Mercredi 14 février 2007
http://leblogdrzz.over-blog.com/article-5632473.html

The English translation was done by the “Babel Fish”… so do not be surprise of the language errors in it. But still, it is very precise information on Iraq and Al Quaeda ties.

1993 – Saddam and Bin Laden managed a “agreement” which would prevent that the islamist radicals do not tackle the Iraqi mode, in exchange of a not specified assistance, including the development of weapons. This agreement included in the bill of indictment of Bin Laden by the Clinton administration in spring of 1998, was corroborated by many Iraqis and terrorists of Al-qaeda maintaining under American guard.

1994 – Faruq Hijazi, then assistant editor of the Iraqi secret services, Bin Laden face to face met. Bin Laden asked for naval mines and camps of drive in Iraq. In detention, Hijazi detailed the meeting in a maintenance carried out by interrogative American

1995 – according to internal documents of the Iraqi services initially brought back by the New York Times ” on June 25, 2004, “a former director of operations for Directorate 4 of the Iraqi Intelligence met Bin Laden on February 19”. This same Saddam year approved the request of Bin Laden to diffuse Saoudi anti propaganda on the Iraqi television of State.

1997 – Al qaida sent in Iraq an emissary in the name of war of Abdullah Al Iraqi for a drive on the massive weapons of destruction. Colin Powell quoted this proof in its presentation with UNO on February 5, 2003. The senatorial commission on the information concluded quela presentation from Powell on Iraq and terrorism was “reasonable”.

1998 – according to unearthed documents of the HQ of the Iraqi Information in April 2003, Al- qaida sent a tested confidant of Bin Laden to Baghdad for 16 days of meeting beginning on March 5. The Iraqi Information paid for its stay room 414 of the hotel Mansur Al melia and expressed the hope which the envoy would be used as connection between the Iraqi secret services and Bin Laden. The DIA regards these documents as authentic. Al-qaida terrorist had travelled towards Pakistan in 1998 with a member of the Iraqi secret services with for project exploding the embassies American and British with chemical mortar shells.

1999 – an analysis of the Center of Counter-terrorism (CTC) of the CIA makes state on April 13 of four reports/ratios of information which indicates that Saddam Hussein proposed a durable offer of lodging in Iraq. The report/ratio of the CTC is included in the examination of the senatorial commission on the Information of the pre-war period. Osama Bin Laden tried to obtain nuclear weapons for Al-qaida and turned to Saddam Hussein, one of the only sources in position to help him.

2000 – Saudi Arabia started a general alarm in all the kingdom after having learned that Iraq had agreed to help Al-qaida to tackle the US and British interests on the peninsula.

2001- of the satellite images large manpower of Al-qaida terrorists moved after the war in Afghanistan show to be rehoused in camps in the north of Iraq, financed for a share by the mode of Saddam.

2002 – a report/ratio of the NSA reveals that Iraq agreed to provide a sure reception, financing and weapons with the Al-qaida members being rehoused in the north of Iraq.

2003- the Filipino government expelled Hisham Hussein, the secretary as a second of the Iraqi embassy in Manila for its implication in terrorist activities related to Al-qaida. Andrea Domingo, director of immigration in the Filipino government, expressed that “studying the movements and activities” of the actors of the Iraqi information, including islamist radicals, a “establish network” of terrorists directed by Hussein had revealed.