Nigerian rebels may cease fire -- because Obama asked!

[dreamingwolf]

How some people have taken a group that was attacking oil and our interests abroad and make it a bad thing for the man who got it to stop is just puzzling.

one last thing to help out people like wvu

The main militant group in Nigeria's oil-rich south said it would halt hostilities that have helped drive global crude prices higher if the government there would agree to mediation involving former U.S. President Jimmy Carter.

The militants said Carter had agreed to help negotiate an end the long-running crisis, but an official affiliated with the former president said only that he was ready to be "helpful in the quest for peace." The group in recent months has also asked for help or claimed involvement by actor George Clooney, President George W. Bush and presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/05/06/ap4976483.html

seems these terrorist regularly make wild claims, which was my point the whole time coupled with theres no positive being attached with this terror group in anyway. even carter kept them at a sticks distance.

I mean for the love of atheism they claimed George Clooney too?!?!?

[Mister Happy]

Wow. Obama didn't even say anything and the terrorists are ready to lay down their weapons.

Impressive.

Watch out Al Qaeda.

[Predicto]

Just to clarify:

I do think its bad for obama, I do think there is an element of the democratic party that supports terror groups arround the globe(as there have been, are, and will be in the republican side), and from the begining I said it was the terror group using obama not anything bad about obama. you may think your championing him with this bit, but imo theres nothing redeeming here for him. if you think its not negitive for him thats your right, keep announcing it, spread it arround. sooner or later the main stream press will have to report it and obama will be forced to distance himself from this groups rhetoric.

This thread is probably as much play as this thing will get outside the democrat underground anyways. It will be out of the news in no time, there will be no resolution to the terror groups leader from this like they hoped and they will go on with buisness as usuall and you guys will go on to promote obama on his actual qualities and real accomplishments.

Ok, I'll buy that, though I think you are overstating the risk. Objection withdrawn.

[mjah]

I think you have misrepresented this situation unless you are talking about a different occassion:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080101233.html

Criticisms sound like this (and are pretty accurate IMO):

"Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, called Obama's threat misguided. "The way to deal with it is not to announce it, but to do it," Biden said at the National Press Club. "The last thing you want to do is telegraph to the folks in Pakistan that we are about to violate their sovereignty.""

Well, first of all, it's not a surprise that other candidates for president would go after their rival for the nomination -- especially a popular one. Let's not pretend that their statements were even-handed.

Obama was basically saying the same thing the Pentagon had already recommended, in public. He was also saying the same thing Bush said, again in public, back in 2006. It was official administration policy, but Bush wasn't following his own rhetoric.

Obama revealed nothing new by saying he'd actually follow up on what the Pentagon had already recommended. That horse left the barn long ago.

Hillary was actually silent on it

Hillary was FAR from silent on it:

Presidential hopefuls attack Obama's remarks about Pakistan

"You can think big, but remember, you shouldn't always say everything you think if you're running for president, because it has consequences around the world," Sen. Hillary Clinton said during a 90-minute Democratic presidential forum in Chicago sponsored by the AFL-CIO.

[...]

Clinton countered by saying that while U.S. forces might have to pursue action inside Pakistan "on the basis of actionable intelligence," it was "a very big mistake to telegraph that and to destabilize the Musharraf regime, which is fighting for its life against the Islamist extremists who are in bed with al Qaeda and the Taliban." "Remember, Pakistan has nuclear weapons. The last thing we want is to have al Qaeda-like followers in charge of Pakistan and having access to nuclear weapons."

Never mind her later statement about obliterating Iran, which doesn't exactly jive with what she said here. She can't even get her own supposed "rules" straight, much less lecture anyone else on the topic.

And the rest of that particular statement was in direct response to Obama's comment, yet actually had little of substance to do with what Obama said. Typical Hillary. But hey -- Hillary got to pull out the terrorism fear card again. She never passes up that chance.

But the main point: Hillary took full advantage of what she thought was a good opportunity, and ended up with egg on her face. She was anything but silent on the issue.

And as for Biden:

Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware responded later in the debate, noting that the strategy Obama outlined was already U.S. policy. "Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts," Biden said. "It's already the policy of the United States -- has been for four years -- that there's actionable intelligence, we would go into Pakistan."

:laugh:

Even Biden can't pretend Obama caused any harm, by "announcing" a policy when he isn't even president yet. Isn't even a nominee yet, in fact.

[PeterMP]

Well, first of all, it's not a surprise that other candidates for president would go after their rival for the nomination -- especially a popular one. Let's not pretend that their statements were even-handed.

Obama was basically saying the same thing the Pentagon had already recommended, in public. He was also saying the same thing Bush said, again in public, back in 2006. It was official administration policy, but Bush wasn't following his own rhetoric.

Obama revealed nothing new by saying he'd actually follow up on what the Pentagon had already recommended. That horse left the barn long ago.

Hillary was FAR from silent on it:

Presidential hopefuls attack Obama's remarks about Pakistan

Never mind her later statement about obliterating Iran, which doesn't exactly jive with what she said here. She can't even get her own supposed "rules" straight, much less lecture anyone else on the topic.

And the rest of that particular statement was in direct response to Obama's comment, yet actually had little of substance to do with what Obama said. Typical Hillary. But hey -- Hillary got to pull out the terrorism fear card again. She never passes up that chance.

But the main point: Hillary took full advantage of what she thought was a good opportunity, and ended up with egg on her face. She was anything but silent on the issue.

And as for Biden:

:laugh:

Even Biden can't pretend Obama caused any harm, by "announcing" a policy when he isn't even president yet. Isn't even a nominee yet, in fact.

This is ridiculous, and I'm not even an Hillary fan.

How'd she end up with egg on her face?

I'd hope you could understand the difference between a deterent statement (e.g. Iran, if you attack Isreal, the US will make sure you pay for it), and a statement that has no deterent value and in gives useful information to the terrorists in terms of operational (e.g. they aren't as safe as they might think in Pakistan) and recruitment.

Reagan regularly threaten the USSR with annihiliation (deterent), but didn't say anything about covert actions that were happening there.

Anyway you are mixing and matching arguements. The Penatgon doesn't make policy so by them making a reccomendation nothing had "left the barn". The statement by Obama didn't do anything to current US policy. It only has/had a potential affect if he become President.

[PeterMP]

Wow. Obama didn't even say anything and the terrorists are ready to lay down their weapons.

Impressive.

Watch out Al Qaeda.

"But an Obama aide said this morning that Obama had not made such a call before today.

"Senator Obama has not commented recently on the situation in the Niger Delta region," said the aide, who spoke on the condition he not be named.

Susan Rice,a senior foreign policy advisor to Obama, also this morning released a statement calling for peace in the Detla.

"Senator Obama does urge an end to the violence in the Delta region and encourages all parties to establish a process for addressing the relevant issues and grievances in order to create the conditions for peace and economic development," she said."

That's just about what I figured. The e-mail was either made up, some sort of ploy by the rebels, or they are psychic.

[mjah]

How'd she end up with egg on her face?

In a very rare turn of events, the current administration and Obama ended up agreeing on something: public disclosure of the intention to operate in Pakistan with or without permission, if a high-value target was known to be there.

Of the dissenters, Hillary was far and away the highest-profile one. When the disclosure followed by action netted a big hit and an obvious short-term benefit, she ended up looking like the one who opposed it.

Now, she wasn't actually opposing the idea of operating in Pakistan. But she was foolishly trying to make political hay out of the idea that Obama -- who, today, has ZERO executive power in the Federal Government -- said he'd operate in Pakistan under certain conditions. As if that was somehow laying out actual governmental policy instead of speaking in hypotheticals.

But to the original point: Hillary was FAR from silent on the topic, as you suggested.

I'd hope you could understand the difference between a deterent statement (e.g. Iran, if you attack Isreal, the US will make sure you pay for it), and a statement that has no deterent value and in gives useful information to the terrorists in terms of operational (e.g. they aren't as safe as they might think in Pakistan) and recruitment.

And I'd hope you could understand that after the Bush administration made that same policy literally years ago, the cat was already out of the bag on that little Pakistan "secret." And from the guy who is actually the president! I mean, honestly. Come on.

Reagan regularly threaten the USSR with annihiliation (deterent), but didn't say anything about covert actions that were happening there.

Here's Obama's exact statement. Please point out where he, as a non-president speaking hypothetically, is giving away information about covert operations, the general nature of which were not already known or suspected.

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said. "But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. ... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."

If that can be construed as flashing the cards and somehow giving away actionable information that wasn't already known, then Hillary's "annihilate" comment is guilty of nothing less. In fact, both statements could be construed as deterrents -- if, of course, either speaker were president. :laugh:

In reality, neither comment is giving anything away. They're both deterrents -- Clinton to Imadinnerjacket, and Obama to Musharraf -- which hold zero actual sway and carry little authority at the moment because neither candidate has any ability to do anything about them. Until either is elected (and Hillary sure as hell won't be), they're throwaway lines by candidates trying to be theoretically tough on terror. :whoknows:

Of course, if one candidate lectures the other while ignoring his or her own statement, it looks ridiculous. That's what happened here with Hillary. Actually, with Hillary it was worse because she did the lecturing first, and then turned around and forgot her own "lesson."

The Penatgon doesn't make policy so by them making a reccomendation nothing had "left the barn".

Obama doesn't make policy either, so by your own logic he has done nothing wrong. In fact, he doesn't even make official recommendations -- but the Pentagon did.

And again, as I pointed out earlier: BUSH enacted and discussed the policy. The horse most definitely left the barn years ago. This was all public knowledge, known by the cannon fodder hiding in the mountains of Pakistan, well before Obama was even a candidate for president.

[PeterMP]

But to the original point: Hillary was FAR from silent on the topic, as you suggested.

Well, I was quoting a piece from the WP. I didn't actually remember. Your original point made it sound like to me you were saying people were criticizing Obama for saying he'd go into Pakistan at all, which wasn't the way I remembered it.

A quick look up showed that was wrong and included the part about Hillary being silent. I wanted to make the broader point that I thought your OP at least made it sounded like that people were ridiculing the idea (Your words: "Hillary ridicules the idea as irresponsible"), which wasn't true, but they were ridiculing the fact that he vocalized the idea, and hence the quote from Biden, whom I agreed w/ at the time and still do on this issue.

And I'd hope you could understand that after the Bush administration made that same policy literally years ago, the cat was already out of the bag on that little Pakistan "secret." And from the guy who is actually the president! I mean, honestly. Come on.

1. Irrelevant because a new President means new policies, and I wouldn't consider Bush a good example of how to affectively run any policy, including an anti-terror foreign policy.

2. You yourself said he hadn't done it ("It was official administration policy, but Bush wasn't following his own rhetoric."). So at best Obama was reminding terrorist that it was actually policy. Still not good. Better to have them think they are safe in Pakistan and not remind them that official US policy at least said they weren't.

If that can be construed as flashing the cards and somehow giving away actionable information that wasn't already known, then Hillary's "annihilate" comment is guilty of nothing less. In fact, both statements could be construed as deterrents -- if, of course, either speaker were president. :laugh:

Well, in that case, I'm not sure why they say anything about US foreign policy since they aren't President. :doh:

If she becomes President, her statement can be considered to have deterent value if she needs to play it in the future.

If he becomes President, his statement allows the terrorist to know they have to be continue to be careful about activities in Pakistan.

Is it really that hard to understand?

His statement is not a deterrent to Mushareff (at least not a very good one so I hope that he didn't mean it that way). There is no direct threat to Mushareff. A deterent statement for Mushareff would be something like:

"If the Mushareff goverment in is unable or unwilling to work with us to combat terrorism, it might become necessary for the US to seek other partners in the area and/or in the democratic institutions in Pakistan and the Pakistani goverment."

That's deterrent to Mushareff. Notice the similarity to Hillary's comment. It contains a pretty direct threat to the person/country you are trying to deter. Not that if the person doesn't do what you want, that you will do will do something that might have a negative affect on the person via a third party (especially a third party that you don't like. in that case you aren't the deterent, the third party that you don't like is the deterent, which just undermines you.).

Oh by the way, what do you think about the fact that your inspiration for starting the thread (the Nigeria rebels cease fire) appears to be bogus?

[dreamingwolf]

Ok, I'll buy that, though I think you are overstating the risk. Objection withdrawn.

well now the obama supporters who were roasting me for saying it was just terror rhetoric and nothing to do with obama have egg on their face. Do I expect them to admit it, no. thats not how they opperate.

[mjah]

PeterMP, we just aren't going to see eye to eye on this. I disagree with most of what you've said, but we'd just be rephrasing and rehashing the arguments to take it much further than we have.

Oh by the way, what do you think about the fact that your inspiration for starting the thread (the Nigeria rebels cease fire) appears to be bogus?

Well, we're all at the mercy of what's reported. Sometimes it turns out to be wrong. :whoknows:

Of course, the upshot of this news is the fact that Obama can get otherwise irrational folks to at least pay lip service to the idea of cease-fires -- WITHOUT EVEN TRYING!

[mjah]

well now the obama supporters who were roasting me for saying it was just terror rhetoric and nothing to do with obama have egg on their face. Do I expect them to admit it, no. thats not how they opperate.

Of course, then there are those of us who allowed that maybe it's just terror rhetoric -- but if it leads to a drop in terror, then it doesn't matter whose name they invoke. It's just a matter of credibility, as nobody would even think of trying to convince others that, say, Hillary made them consider a cease-fire.

[dreamingwolf]

Of course, then there are those of us who allowed that maybe it's just terror rhetoric -- but if it leads to a drop in terror, then it doesn't matter whose name they invoke. It's just a matter of credibility, as nobody would even think of trying to convince others that, say, Hillary made them consider a cease-fire.

I accept your apollogy of being so very very wrong.

[PeterMP]

Well, we're all at the mercy of what's reported. Sometimes it turns out to be wrong. :whoknows:

Well, we are, but we can be so with some intelligence. For example, I looked at this, it sounded fishy, and when a quick google search of "Obama Nigeria terrorist" didn't come up with any links where Obama actually had many any comments about the situation in Nigeria I figured the story was likely a fraud.

[PeterMP]

Of course, then there are those of us who allowed that maybe it's just terror rhetoric -- but if it leads to a drop in terror, then it doesn't matter whose name they invoke. It's just a matter of credibility, as nobody would even think of trying to convince others that, say, Hillary made them consider a cease-fire.

That's IF it results in an increase of terror BECAUSE they are actually considering a cease fire vs. for example, they simply need time to plan or material for future missions.

[Burgundy Burner]

From the stack of who lies to you...

Want to see what a typical Obama rally looks like? Take a look at last night.

http://townhall.com/blog/g/082ab837-a4f6-4a7d-bec3-2fff2d27a681

Seats 12,400.

Not quite full...

Definitely not full...

[mjah]

For example, I looked at this, it sounded fishy, and when a quick google search of "Obama Nigeria terrorist" didn't come up with any links where Obama actually had many any comments about the situation in Nigeria I figured the story was likely a fraud.

That's fair. I read reports from a couple of outlets. Even Washington Post had the report up for a time. When I saw it reported in multiple places, I went with it. New news often has very little in the way of a trail on Google, so you can get false negatives from a search. Such is life.

dreamingwolf, it takes a big man to admit that he was wrong on multiple points, and I commend you for your bravery in admitting it. I also respect your decision to "bow out" of the thread, before you, um, came back.