One of the burdens left by running the longest, most-expensive, most divisive Presidential campaigns in the history of the world…is it leaves a lotta good quotes that can come back and haunt. For example, Back New Hampshire, ABC News, and protecting the nation (note: this is particularly important now that the Taliban in Pakistan are within a few miles of that nation’s nuclear arsenal, AND as that nation’s government hangs by a thread-ready for a coup from the Taliban at any moment):
GIBSON: So let me start with what is generally agreed to be, I think, the greatest threat to the United States today, and, somewhat to my surprise, has not been discussed as much in the presidential debates this year as I thought would be, and that is nuclear terrorism. And for some background, here’s ABC’s Chief Investigative Correspondent Brian Ross.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRIAN ROSS, ABC CHIEF INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT: After more than six years of trying, the United States still does not have a reliable way to spot nuclear material that terrorists might smuggle into the country, much as ABC News twice did in demonstrations without being caught. And after six years of trying, the United States has yet to capture the man who says it is his religious duty to get nuclear weapons: Osama bin Laden. And in the last 18 months, U.S. officials say his Al Qaida has regrouped using safe havens along the Pakistani border to train and dispatch hundreds of new recruits. And just as troubling, amidst all the turmoil in Pakistan, the influence of bin Laden continues to grow there, a country with many nuclear weapons.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GIBSON: Brian Ross there. Well, Osama bin Laden, as he pointed out, has said it is his duty to try to get nuclear weapons. Al Qaida has been reconstituted and re-energized in the western part of Pakistan. And so my general question is, how aggressively would you go after Al Qaida leadership there? And let me start with you, Senator Obama, because it was you who said in your foreign policy speech that you would go into western Pakistan if you had actionable intelligence to go after it, whether or not the Pakistani government agreed. Do you stand by that?
OBAMA: I absolutely do stand by it, Charlie. What I said was that we should do everything in our power to push and cooperate with the Pakistani government in taking on Al Qaida, which is now based in northwest Pakistan. And what we know from our national intelligence estimates is that Al Qaida is stronger now than at any time since 2001.
And so, back in August, I said we should work with the Pakistani government, first of all to encourage democracy in Pakistan so you’ve got a legitimate government that we’re working with, and secondly that we have to press them to do more to take on Al Qaida in their territory. What I said was, if they could not or would not do so, and we had actionable intelligence, then I would strike. And I should add that Lee Hamilton and Tom Keaton, the heads of the 9/11 Commission, a few months later wrote an editorial saying the exact same thing. I think it’s indisputable that that should be our course. Let me just add one thing, though. On the broader issue of nuclear proliferation, this is something that I’ve worked on since I’ve been in the Senate. I worked with Richard Lugar, then the Republican head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to pass the next stage of what was Nunn-Lugar so that we would have improved interdiction of potentially nuclear materials.
And it is important for us to rebuild a nuclear nonproliferation strategy, something that this administration, frankly, has ignored, and has made us less safe as a consequence. It would not cost us that much, for example, and would take about four years for us to lock down the loose nuclear weapons that are still floating out there, and we have not done the job.
GIBSON: I’m going to go the others in a moment, but what you just outlined is essentially the Bush doctrine. We can attack if we want to, no matter the sovereignty of the Pakistanis.
OBAMA: No, that is not the same thing, because here we have a situation where Al Qaida, a sworn enemy of the United States, that killed 3,000 Americans and is currently plotting to do the same, is in the territory of Pakistan. We know that. And this is not speculation. This is not a situation where we anticipate a possible threat in the future. And my job as commander in chief will be to make sure that we strike anybody who would do America harm when we have actionable intelligence do to that.
Yes, if someone would do harm to the US, then Obama said he’d kill em. He won’t put em in a cold room, keep them up for a day or two, or waterboard em to uncover the plot, but he’d readily order an attack to kill them and (as has already been done several times by President Obama) kill any Pakistan villagers who happen to get in the way.
In the next 4 years:
North Korea’s military marketplace will have more nukes available & need money…thus making the likelihood of sales more realistic
Iran will-by everyone’s estimates-begin producing as many as 40 nukes a year
Pakistan (before 2003) averaged a nuclear war showdown with India every 6-12 months, and an internal power challenge every 9-18months. Both WILL happen at least once during Obama’s presidency.
Now, will “talking” to the Taliban get them to disarm their nukes if they takeover Pakistan? Has “talking” to Iran and North Korea slowed or increased their nuclear programs? No. Put simply, Obama’s foreign policy of humble open hands ain’t workin’, and it was never likely to have worked. So what now? The clock is ticking. The Taliban are close. The Iranians are close, and the Israelis have no reason to wait.