Obama Agrees Not to Attack Al Qaeda From Afghanistan
This is why you don’t want someone who doesn’t like your country very much negotiating on its behalf:
President Barack Obama has promised not to attack Pakistan-based al-Qaida leaders or fighters from bases inside Afghanistan.
The surprising commitment effectively bars Obama and his successors from launching another nighttime helicopter raid like the one that that killed Osama bin Laden. That raid has proven to be Obama’s primary foreign-policy success because it killed bin Laden, scooped up much intelligence data and shocked Pakistan.
Obama’s commitment will also end the use of secretive drone-attacks from Afghanistan. Those attacks have killed hundreds of al-Qaida leaders since the mid-2000s. They’ve also been very popular with U.S voters, and usually have had tacit Pakistan approval.
The unadvertised provision is buried in the deal that Afghan president Hamid Karzai and Obama signed with much campaign-style fanfare May 1 in Kabul. It could provide a legal shield for Pakistani-based al-Qaida’s leaders, front-line fighters, terrorism-planners, allied terror-leaders, funders, terror bases and terror training-grounds.
Of the 1,844 American troops that had been killed in Afghanistan as of May 1, at least 1,275 died under Obama’s watch. That is, more than twice as many US soldiers have died in Afghanistan since Obama took office than in the 6 1/2 years of war under Bush. Obama has never been comfortable with the concept of victory and is willing to throw away hard-won advantages against Islamic terrorists, so it is fair to ask, what did these people die for?
Since they can’t be used to fight Al Qaeda in its Pakistani stronghold, maybe Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will redeploy the remaining troops to the North Pole to combat the alleged national security threat of global warming.
On tips from Marci, Bob Roberts, SR, and Conan.
QUOTABLE QUOTES:
“Election Day 2012 will not be a presidential election. It will be a plebiscite. … They will be participating in a plebiscite on the definition of America. … The usual description of presidential elections — ‘the most important in our lifetime’ — is true this time. In fact, it may be the most important election since the Civil War, and possibly since America’s founding. … [Barack Obama] described the left’s aim perfectly: to fundamentally transform America. It seeks to replace Liberty, In God We Trust, and E Pluribus Unum. That is what ‘fundamentally transform’ means. In fact, those words are proof that American values and leftist values are fundamentally opposed to one another. … For these reasons, this election is not just a choice between a Democrat and a Republican. It is between Americanism and leftism. … The left’s desire to transform America is the biggest issue. Barack Obama is to be opposed because he is a man of the left…”
–- radio talk-show host Dennis Prager
Osama bin Bama strikes again. He should have bombed Waziristan to dust and given Karzai over the the Talibums as a playtoy then left.
The concept of civilizing these sand monkies is ludicrous. All they know is seventh century tribal warfare and obedience to a Devil worshipping death cult.
I suppose you can’t call it a war if one side does the fighting, while the other does a Neville Chamberlain act.
Even so, if the “War on terror” is now over, then why is the TSA still giving out free rectal exams ?
The neocons now need to immediately call for the troops to come home.
They are being turned into sitting ducks
(bet they won’t though)
Did he mention to them that his promise is only good as long as he’s Commander in Chief – i.e. until late January next year? After that they’ll have to take it up with the new President?
What is it about Democrat Presidents that they want to give away our rights and a soverignity as a country. It is like a Democrat becomes President and the country is now his personal toy to play with and abuse as he pleases.
All of you on the Right that have a problem with Mitt Romney, please keep this action by Obama in mind and think of what he could do with four more years and no re-election to worry about!
Can’t wait for when he’s “more flexible”.
Obama agreed to nothing of the sort.
The actual text being whined about says this:
a. The United States emphasizes its full respect for the sovereignty and independence of Afghanistan. It reaffirms its commitment to the Inteqal framework, and a transition to full Afghan security responsibility. It further reaffirms that it does not seek permanent military facilities in Afghanistan, or a presence that is a threat to Afghanistan’s neighbors.
b. The United States further pledges not to use Afghan territory or facilities as a launching point for attacks against other countries.
Before you start complaining about Al Qaeda bases in Pakistan perhaps you should look at a map and see which country lies to the west of Afghanistan. That’s right. Iran.
Do you suppose Afghanistan might have some personal interest in ensuring that the U.S. can’t use Afghanistan as a base for an attack on Iran?
As for Al Qaeda, here’s what is also said:
1. The Parties reaffirm that the presence and operations of the U.S. forces in Afghanistan since 2001 are aimed at defeating al-Qaeda and its affiliates. The Parties acknowledge the great sacrifices and suffering that the Afghan people have endured in the struggle against terrorism and the continued threats to their desire for peace, security and prosperity. The Parties also pay tribute to the sacrifices made by the people of the United States in this struggle.
2. In order to strengthen security and stability in Afghanistan, contribute to regional and international peace and stability, combat al-Qaeda and its affiliates, and enhance the ability of Afghanistan to deter threats against its sovereignty, security, and territorial integrity, the Parties shall continue to foster close cooperation concerning defense and security arrangements, as may be mutually determined.
Let’s see that half-wit try spiking the football now.
Perhaps the Manchurian Moonbat Messiah only killed Bin Laden so he could take his place.
“lao says: May 4, 2012 at 9:19 am”
Do you REALLY believe that, or do you HAVE TO belive it because it’s all you have left?
Before you start complaining about Al Qaeda bases in Pakistan perhaps you should look at a map and see which country lies to the west of Afghanistan. That’s right. Iran.
Do you suppose Afghanistan might have some personal interest in ensuring that the U.S. can’t use Afghanistan as a base for an attack on Iran?
Lao
\
I have a simple response to this garbage
Who cares.
I suppose if your objective is to turn Afghanistan into some utopian peace garden, filled with rainbows and unicorns.
But from those of us who are focused on NATIONAL SECURITY, we say pursue the enemy WHEREVER he may be.
If Al Queida is holed up in Pakistan, that’s where you strike.
If they are being cradled in Iran, get them.
We have NO BUSINESS nation building.
And this act of placing our troops in further danger for this cause is proof enough
If we prosecuted the War on Terror this way, there would have been great incentive for these countries to actually be doing our bidding for us, and Al Queda would have been “bounced” from this world long ago
Sure ghost. I remember which President made bin Laden and Al Qaeda a priority.
There’s a very good reason why so many U.S. soldiers have died in Afghanistan on Obama’s watch. Because Obama increased troop strength in Afghanistan and took the fight to the enemy instead of ignoring them for 6 1/2 years.
Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, so naturally Afghanis are living in fear of what the Iranians might do. Iranian Revolutionary Guards are longtime supporters of Taliban scumbags.
So then clause 2 that I put in bold above, covers “defense and security arrangements as may be mutually determined”.
The key word being “mutually”.
Interesting Lao.
So combat deaths are a bad thing, and make the President a mass-murderer… WHEN IT IS A REPUBLICAN IN OFFICE.
But when a Chickenhawk Democrat is on office, then combats deaths are fine and can be explained away with no reprecussions to the President.
Of course, lao forgets that without the now-banned “enhanced interrogation” technicques, Obama couldn’t have found Osama, even with the help of TOTUS.
Remember how the MSM made world headlines last year when the Mullah-in-Chief went on TV and called for the violent overthrow of several middle eastern leaders so that their people could have “democracy”? Has the MSM made any mention of who slipped into those countries and is now taking control of them, thanks to Obummer? Can you say, Mulsim Brotherhood?
Did the POTUS lay the ground work for his radical, America-hating, Christian-hating, brothers to gain control of the middle east?
Sooo….. given those parameters our O’Rambo “Gutsy-Call” Narcissist-in-Chief would have been prohibited from body-bagging his one-and-only-achievement-in-office. Fitting, considering that if then-Senator-Present had gotten his way, we’d have never gotten our hands on the actionable intelligence that eventually allowed President Me-Myself-And-I to have anything to brag about. OBL would still be watching goat-porn on his TV, giggling about the continued impotence of the U.S.
Chris in N.Va. says:
May 4, 2012 at 1:26 pm
____________________
Well said my friend,well said.
There’s a very good reason why so many U.S. soldiers have died in Afghanistan on Obama’s watch. Because Obama increased troop strength in Afghanistan and took the fight to the enemy instead of ignoring them for 6 1/2 years.
Lao
Whoa
You now wish to paint Bush (and Romney)as passivist Pollyanna’s ?
After years of the media keeping a running tally of body bags ?
Rolling live tape of every wart on Cindy Sheehan’s face 24/7 ?
Every day an update of where she and her followers were.
Every drop of red paint they smeared ?
Disseminating war stories of FAKE soldiers ?
Beaming with pride, as the disgusting, potty mouthed bats of Code Pink shouted obscenities at Republicans at every turn ?
All for the “anti war” cause
But now you chuck it all to the wayside, because your tin god literally has NOTHING to run on, so he is willing to be a “war time” prez.
How principled of you, Lao
ghost, I supported the initial move into Afghanistan. I did not support the move into Iraq, particularly since that meant that the Afghanistan effort was relegated to the back burner. The cost of the Iraq mis-adventure in lives and treasure was far, far too high for the “benefits” gained.
You have a problem with keeping track of how many of our troops have been killed?
This POTUS’s word or signature is worthless. He lies with every breath.
Some of those “benefits gained” in Afghanistan
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203554104576655280219991322.html
Nation building is folly
It cannot work there
Heck, it cannot even work here.(witness the 800 billion failed stimulus)
Even when conducted by the lightworker.
[...] [Obama Agrees Not to Attack Al Qaeda From Afghanistan] Rate this: Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:GillaBli först att gilla denna post. [...]