June 05, 2011
— Gabriel Malor During his first debate with Senator McCain in 2008, then-Senator Obama suggested that he would consider launching attacks into Pakistan if the Pakistanis weren't cooperating in the war on terror. McCain's reply was more "nuanced". McCain said "you do what you have to do, but work with the Pakistani government."
This debate is taking place again, only this time within the Obama Administration.
Fissures have opened within the Obama administration over the drone program targeting militants in Pakistan, with the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan and some top military leaders pushing to rein in the Central Intelligence Agency's aggressive pace of strikes.[...]
The White House National Security Council debated a slowdown in drone strikes in a meeting on Thursday, a U.S. official said. At the meeting, CIA Director Leon Panetta made the case for maintaining the current program, the official said, arguing that it remains the U.S.'s best weapon against al Qaeda and its allies.
The result of the meeting—the first high-level debate within the Obama administration over how aggressively to pursue the CIA's targeted-killing program—was a decision to continue the program as is for now, the U.S. official said.
Apparently it is Panetta on one side versus the State Department plus unnamed military officials on the other. That may be why they're having this discussion now. Panetta, of course, is on his way to the Secretary of Defense's office at the end of the month and General Petraeus will be taking over at CIA.
Petraeus is known to be as much an advocate of drone warfare as Panetta, so if the StateDept folks are going to have their shot, it's probably right now while everyone is busy measuring drapes.
U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Cameron Munter, backed by top military officers and other State Department officials, wants the strikes to be more judicious, and argues that Pakistan's views need to be given greater weight if the fight against militancy is to succeed, said current and former U.S. officials.Defenders of the current drone program take umbrage at the suggestion that the program isn't judicious. "In this context, the phrase 'more judicious' is really code for 'let's appease Pakistani sensitivities,' " said a U.S. official. The CIA has already given Pakistani concerns greater weight in targeting decisions in recent months, the official added. Advocates of sustained strikes also argue that the current rift with the Pakistanis isn't going to be fixed by scaling back the program.
There's plenty more over at the link above to the Wall Street Journal, which, BTW, always has excellent reporting from the intelligence community.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
08:28 AM
| Comments (69)
Post contains 439 words, total size 3 kb.
Posted by: NC Ref at June 05, 2011 08:39 AM (/izg2)
Posted by: Jmchez at June 05, 2011 08:44 AM (rCqs9)
Posted by: t-bird at June 05, 2011 08:45 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: Jmchez at June 05, 2011 08:46 AM (2L6J7)
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at June 05, 2011 08:50 AM (nyKxa)
So by "not judicious" does that mean they're upset we're not capturing them and trying them in a civilian court and allowing them Constitutional rights?
Bags of douche, the lot of them.
Posted by: Jon Waters at June 05, 2011 08:54 AM (sRmCO)
Lets see...
Bombing a UN member Sovereign Nation, without a Declaration of War, or treaty with said nation asking us to help them... why does this sound so familiar?
The US Presidents powers are now pretty much total... what many here do not understand is that we are assasinating CIVILIANS, often Political Leaders, with Spy controlled Military assets... in a supposedly Neutral Nation...
IMO the lack of outcry over the drone program, and its pretty blatant flouting of the Traditional Laws of War, has given Obama the belief that the Congress will just allow him to do anything he pleases... like... oh... bomb Libya for months?
This program has also givn Pakistan the ability to NOT choose sides... because we are NOT holding them responsible for what is going on inside their own borders...
We have also set a REALLY bad precedent for the future... history is not going to judge us well...
Posted by: Romeo13 at June 05, 2011 08:56 AM (NtXW4)
Posted by: Comrade Arthur at June 05, 2011 08:59 AM (ujzsT)
I agree with the drone attacks. We must hit them HARD before they go SOFT and SHRIVEL up and disappear. We must RISE to the occasion and RAM them with drones before PULLING OUT. As a member of Congress, I stand ERECT in my position of support and will continue so, despite people saying we are in a PICKLE with our Foreign Policy.
Please, no more dick jokes, okay, Ace?
Posted by: Anthony Weiner's Weiner at June 05, 2011 08:59 AM (kKXoH)
Posted by: Generalito Obama at June 05, 2011 08:59 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: Anthony Weiner's Weiner at June 05, 2011 09:02 AM (kKXoH)
Pakistan has proven to be an unreliable ally at best. Our finding OBL there and his subequent elimination should have been a gigantic black mark against them, except for the fact that that intire region hates anyone or anything that goes against their genteel islamic sensibilities.
We should have done everything we could to besmirch Pakistan's alleged support of the GWOT and called them out as being one of the facilitators of terrorism instead of one of our real allies.
Oh, and one other thing. Didn't we just take out an AQ bigwig the other day with a drone strike? If they can't find and eliminate terrorists who are hiding in their own country, we certainly should. Nobody is hiding there without someone else knowing about it. OBL was only yards from a military school in Pakistan, do you really think the locals didn't know he was there? And that someone high up in their government didn't know he was there also?
You can only hide in plain sight for so long.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at June 05, 2011 09:08 AM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: Wonkish Rogue at June 05, 2011 09:10 AM (Az0bF)
That is their burden to bear.
Posted by: GnuBreed at June 05, 2011 09:12 AM (ENKCw)
Posted by: Caiden at June 05, 2011 09:13 AM (piN8q)
Posted by: Generalito Obama at June 05, 2011 12:59 PM (FcR7P)
Yo!
Posted by: John Boehner at June 05, 2011 09:13 AM (sRmCO)
Posted by: Mr. Pink at June 05, 2011 09:15 AM (VidfH)
Posted by: Caiden at June 05, 2011 01:13 PM (piN8q)
So it's been confirmed, he's the point on SEAL Team Six?
Posted by: Unclefacts Luxury-Yacht at June 05, 2011 09:18 AM (6IReR)
Bias from Politico, Anita Dunn is a hypocrite:
Annita Dunn:
A top political adviser to President Barack Obama charged on Sunday that Republicans are so eager to wound him politically they're hoping that the U.S. economy continues to sputter.
"I thought it was almost unseemly on Friday to watch the Republicans basically rooting for failure on those unemployment numbers, reveling in the idea that things are not going well," former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said on CNN's "State of the Union." "This is a time when the American people are looking to their leaders to get together to actually meet the challenges here."
...
For her part, "State of the Union" host Candy Crowley seemed less than outraged by the fact that some Republicans might have been quietly gleeful about the bad economic news.
"It is a political season and stuff like that does happen on both sides," Crowley said dismissively.
Posted by: momma at June 05, 2011 09:18 AM (nWikJ)
so I'm trying to find the "AVERAGE JOE" letters spelled in there... I'm having difficulty with it though
Posted by: chemjeff at June 05, 2011 09:19 AM (7mSYS)
I'll worry about that when Anita gets upset at the cheerleading for losing the Iraq war her, and the rest of the liberal fuckwhistles did.
Posted by: Unclefacts Luxury-Yacht at June 05, 2011 09:21 AM (6IReR)
Really? Was J. Caldwell McWhinypants unavailable?
I'm tanned blackened and ready to go!
Posted by: Zombie Neville Chamberlain at June 05, 2011 09:23 AM (TrAxp)
Posted by: Lincolntf at June 05, 2011 09:25 AM (Z05lF)
Heh. Someone else apparently had a successful day of socking this week, too, but I missed it.
Posted by: NC Ref at June 05, 2011 09:27 AM (/izg2)
Conservatives are just so predictable. Gleefully seeking President Obama's failure as espoused by Rush Limbaugh, and agreed upon by untold numbers of his mind-numbed robots.
Progressives are forced to listen while conservatives make despicable references to pushing their things up our squeakholes. These monster conservatives are so smug and condescending about the size of their things, and openly brag about their prowess.
Most progressives are not concerned with sex, except when we're got those conservatives over the barrel, and it's our team fucking them up the ass.
Posted by: Anita Dunn, Student of Mao Philosophy at June 05, 2011 09:33 AM (cwFVA)
Completely OT but Drudge has a post up on how Team Obama is launching a program to reduce the principal on delinquent mortgages...............thus allowing those who bought more house than they could afford, or used their house as an ATM, to keep the house and not have to pay back any of the borrowed money.
I think this has been floated before and is kinda old news but Team Obama plans on using what's left of the TARP funds and do it as 2012 heats up..........you know more free stuff from Obama's stash.
Posted by: Boots at June 05, 2011 09:37 AM (neKzn)
Posted by: sexypig at June 05, 2011 09:38 AM (UmEOs)
Posted by: CCCleaner at June 05, 2011 09:40 AM (CyPWX)
Caiden,
The last year killing Bin Laden would have been significan was about 1997. Do try to keep up. You may not be interested in jihad, but jihad is increasingly interested in you.
Posted by: Beagle at June 05, 2011 09:41 AM (sOtz/)
Lawrence Eagleburger would have sorted this little slap-fight out.
Posted by: Truman North at June 05, 2011 09:52 AM (K2wpv)
Where's PETA on this?
My guess is they're all for killing the camels. PETA is not pro-animal, they're anti-human.
Posted by: Truman North at June 05, 2011 09:53 AM (K2wpv)
Lets see...
Assuming I didn't miss a /sarc
Bombing a UN member Sovereign Nation, without a Declaration of War, or treaty with said nation asking us to help them... why does this sound so familiar?
Targeted Hellfires aren't bombing.
Fuck the UN.
Pakistan's sovereignty over it's Eastern provinces is limited by their choice and inaction, not ours.
The original Go Kill Al-Queda AUMF applies
The US Presidents powers are now pretty much total... what many here do not understand is that we are assasinating CIVILIANS, often Political Leaders, with Spy controlled Military assets... in a supposedly Neutral Nation...
Always have been in this regard.
Al-Q and the Taliwhackers aren't civilians they're illegal combatants. And evil goat fuckers even if they do have a civilian following. To hell with them and anybody who gets hit by a piece of their turban. Pakistan counts as a nation only when it's convenient to us. Large parts of the ISI clearly support the Taliban so they ain't neutral.
IMO the lack of outcry over the drone program, and its pretty blatant flouting of the Traditional Laws of War, has given Obama the belief that the Congress will just allow him to do anything he pleases... like... oh... bomb Libya for months?
This program has also givn Pakistan the ability to NOT choose sides... because we are NOT holding them responsible for what is going on inside their own borders...
IMO it let's us kill those who need killing without having to invade another mountainous Asian country after fighting thru a maybe top 10 military and nuclear tipped IRBM force. Saying everyone has to choose sides isn't the same as forcing them to and we seem to be using the ambiguity successfully here for now.
We have also set a REALLY bad precedent for the future... history is not going to judge us well...
History books are full of silly crap like we shouldn't have nuked Japan. Our own idiots write nonsense without considering they'd be dead if we followed their ideas.
It was this or a leave Sarah alone whine to Ace, I'm temporallily out of dick jokes.
Posted by: Dave at June 05, 2011 09:54 AM (4SET8)
Posted by: President Smarter at June 05, 2011 09:55 AM (1fanL)
Posted by: t-bird at June 05, 2011 09:57 AM (FcR7P)
My guess is they're all for killing the camels. PETA is not pro-animal, they're anti-human.
Posted by: Truman North at June 05, 2011 01:53 PM (K2wpv)
That's my guess as well. 'Twas rhetoric.
As an aside, there was an article over at Anthony Watt's place recently revealing that some of these eco-friendly plant-based plastic bottles release methane when they decompose.
The horror!
Posted by: ErikW at June 05, 2011 09:58 AM (sRmCO)
I know he's a liberal appointed by Clinton before, but he's more of an ally than most libs.
Fuck the traitorous assholes , though.
Posted by: Crazee at June 05, 2011 09:58 AM (H3ujh)
Posted by: Crazee at June 05, 2011 10:03 AM (H3ujh)
Posted by: Caiden at June 05, 2011 01:13 PM (piN8q)
OK WTF.
"Dawdling?" 70 rounds of golf played by who? And President Fore sucks at golf almost as bad as he sucks at government.
Posted by: NC Ref at June 05, 2011 10:06 AM (/izg2)
Posted by: Mr. Pink at June 05, 2011 10:07 AM (VidfH)
History books are full of silly crap like we shouldn't have nuked Japan.
Posted by: Dave at June 05, 2011 01:54 PM (4SET
Well Dave, we shouldn't have nuked the defenseless Japanese people who only wanted to control their own destiny by defeating the imperialist American's.
Also, displaying the Enola Gay at the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum is a personal affront to all peace loving men and women of the world.
Bowing by Emperor Hirohito to General MacArthur was a sign of subservience, and President Obama has also bowed to numerous world leaders demonstrating American's new place in the world as an oppressor that should atone for its colossal mistakes. We love and admire President Obama for leading America into its new position as a failed democratic state.
Posted by: Progressives for Fucking America up the ass at June 05, 2011 10:09 AM (cwFVA)
Posted by: NC Ref at June 05, 2011 10:10 AM (/izg2)
"Dawdling?" 70 rounds of golf played by who? And President Fore sucks at golf almost as bad as he sucks at government.
Posted by: NC Ref at June 05, 2011 02:06 PM (/izg2)
Now that's just not fair. My swing coach has helped me finally get my drive past the lady's tee.
Watch your ass, Luke Donald!
Posted by: President Droopyshoulders McWormburner at June 05, 2011 10:11 AM (sRmCO)
Posted by: Joejm65 at June 05, 2011 10:16 AM (BDB5n)
Posted by: Dave at June 05, 2011 01:54 PM (4SET
Targeted Hellfires are NOT bombing??? interesting worldview there...
As to them being Illegal Combatants? CIA, is non uniformed, and NOT under Military Command... and thus under Geneva THEY are illegal Combatants as well. One of the reasons the KGB in the Cold War ALWAYS gave their people Military Ranks, was they were then able to put on a Uniform, and be covered by Geneva... if they were giving 'orders' for airstrikes and such.
So... is every Imam who says they are an Al Q supporter, even if they NEVER carried a gun, or gave any oders, an Illegal Combatant? Or... would they be Civilian Political/Religious Leaders? That LEGAL definition is important going into the future...
It amazes me that 10 years into the WOT... we're still playing like we are in Crises mode, and NOT doing the Legal and Treaty groundwork we need.
If Geneva Conventions need to be modified to fit the Modern World? DO IT! They have been changed before...
If our Court system does not fit? CHANGE IT... don't ignore it...
And if you don't like Constitutional Limits... then give everyone the chance to talk it out by Amending the Constitution.... don't just ignore it.
Posted by: Romeo13 at June 05, 2011 10:19 AM (NtXW4)
No. Freakin. Way. I would bet the national debt that he couldn't shoot bogey golf...like you said, without cheating...in his next 100 tries. His swing is only a little better than Charles Barkley's.
Posted by: NC Ref at June 05, 2011 10:28 AM (/izg2)
It's funny how every time Obama records some success that it's either a result or a continuance of Bush's "failed policies". That HAS to give these assholes serious heartburn.
Posted by: irongrampa at June 05, 2011 10:29 AM (ud5dN)
The irony is that a number of terror attacks have been launched against the West from Pakistan just as the 9/11 attacks were launched from Afghanistan (though of course they had Pakistani components too), and the reason we haven't treated them as a state sponsor of terror is that we pretend that we think they are doing the best they can when they pretend to fight terror and jihadism and Islamicism in their own country.
If Pakistan stops pretending, we stop pretending. And the next major terror attack on the West earns them a beatdown, Chinese posturing notwithstanding.
Posted by: stuiec at June 05, 2011 10:31 AM (HMdeP)
Posted by: t-bird at June 05, 2011 10:32 AM (FcR7P)
Heh.
Posted by: NC Ref at June 05, 2011 02:34 PM (/izg2)
It took me a couple seconds...
Posted by: ErikW at June 05, 2011 10:38 AM (HNe78)
Targeted Hellfires are NOT bombing??? interesting worldview there...
Using anti-tank bullets on compounds via remote operated planes is just our modern equivalent of a sniper. I'd bet all the people involved are prior service and the button pusher is on detached duty. The people in country know they aren't covered when they go in.
As to them being Illegal Combatants? CIA, is non uniformed, and NOT under Military Command... and thus under Geneva THEY are illegal Combatants as well. One of the reasons the KGB in the Cold War ALWAYS gave their people Military Ranks, was they were then able to put on a Uniform, and be covered by Geneva... if they were giving 'orders' for airstrikes and such.
So... is every Imam who says they are an Al Q supporter, even if they NEVER carried a gun, or gave any oders, an Illegal Combatant? Or... would they be Civilian Political/Religious Leaders? That LEGAL definition is important going into the future...
Anyone who advocates the downfall of Western Civilization can go straight to hell in my book. An Imam shouting death to the infidel at prayer services IS giving orders.
It amazes me that 10 years into the WOT... we're still playing like we are in Crises mode, and NOT doing the Legal and Treaty groundwork we need.
If Geneva Conventions need to be modified to fit the Modern World? DO IT! They have been changed before...
If our Court system does not fit? CHANGE IT... don't ignore it...
It appalls me but that's the world we're in. The Left exists and they'll wreck any attempt to "fix" their lawfare. I wanted W to put these Turbanistas thru the hook em, book em and cook em but we got Hamza? etc.
And if you don't like Constitutional Limits... then give everyone the chance to talk it out by Amending the Constitution.... don't just ignore it.
What limits???
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
Looks like lawyerese for Get'em to me.
Posted by: Dave at June 05, 2011 11:00 AM (4SET8)
Don't you work on a golf course?
Posted by: NC Ref at June 05, 2011 02:49 PM (/izg2)
Yeah. Shameful, huh?
Posted by: ErikW at June 05, 2011 11:09 AM (HNe78)
Posted by: NC Ref at June 05, 2011 11:11 AM (/izg2)
Posted by: starboardhelm at June 05, 2011 11:23 AM (ctMcG)
Posted by: NC Ref at June 05, 2011 03:11 PM (/izg2)
Ah, I was referring to my dumbassery on the "away to Malia" quote.
Yeah, it's pretty fun. Not a crapload of money but I get paid to exercise and work on my tan.
Best part is the free golf balls and free golf!
Posted by: ErikW at June 05, 2011 11:32 AM (HNe78)
Ah, I was referring to my dumbassery on the "away to Malia" quote.
Hey, I was trying to be cool and just gloss over that. Yeah I got a lot of free rounds at the end of the day. Had to help straighten up a bit, but I got the better end of that deal.
Posted by: NC Ref at June 05, 2011 11:42 AM (/izg2)
Posted by: David Gillies at June 05, 2011 12:37 PM (FdBA0)
Posted by: Michelle 'Big Arms' Obama at June 05, 2011 12:46 PM (e2VMT)
what many here do not understand is that we are assasinating CIVILIANS illegal combatants, often Political Leaders, with Spy controlled Military assets... in a supposedly Neutral friendly Nation...
FIFY. You're welcome. Also, illegal combatant == spy and saboteurs. They get hung if captured in a time of war.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at June 05, 2011 01:11 PM (BDH94)
Posted by: I'm in a New York state of mind at June 05, 2011 01:25 PM (4sQwu)
Posted by: New Site at June 06, 2011 12:30 AM (7NAia)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.3076 seconds, 197 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








All need to be fired.
Pakistan's views need to be given greater weight if the fight against militancy is to succeed, said current and former U.S. officials.
Pakistan needs to actually successfully fight militancy or we're going to have to blow it off the map.
Posted by: Dave at June 05, 2011 08:38 AM (4SET8)