Gary Hart: Barack Obama was right to be candid about Pakistan

[beachmom]

From HuffPost:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/candor-in-the-age-of-spin_b_59816.html

Though there are a few, very rare occasions where the immediacy of a threat requires both swift and secret action, the Constitutional principles upon which our nation was founded require us to be as honest, as straightforward, and as candid as we can be with ourselves and with the world about what we are up to. By the hollow "dead or alive" rhetoric now conveniently forgotten, we have already announced our intentions to do what it takes. So, Senator Obama does not seem to have gone any further than the ineffective incumbent on this issue. It would be amazing if there is a Pakistani alive, including President Pervez Musharraf, who doubts that we would land the 82nd Airborne, Delta Force, Rangers, and the entire Marine Corps right on top of the bearded villain...if we could just find him...without asking permission from anyone.

It seems to me that is all Senator Obama was saying. But the broader issue, like too many others, should be the subject of serious discussion--presuming the geniuses who preside over these "debates" could find the methods for doing so: In this age of information revolution, where there are few secrets and nothing is secret very long, when should and when should not the United States announce its intentions to take unilateral action.

I admire Gary Hart's expertise on foreign policy, and I want to make it clear that this is a much bigger question than any presidential primary. What Obama said was neither a change in U.S. policy nor something we didn't already know deep down. The fact that many in the foreign policy establishment immediately rebuked him for being honest is really stunning. I'm glad that Gary Hart is not with that crowd.

Check out the Think Tank he founded, and for which John Kerry sits on the Board of Directors:

http://www.americansecurityproject.org/

I truly hope that as time goes by it is a true rival to the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and even the Brookings Institution in foreign policy thought.

[AtomicKitten]

1. I agree.

[dugggy]

30. Obama has my backing on Pakistan stance.

[AtomicKitten]

33. welcome to DU

[dugggy]

42. Thanks! Nice to be here

with people like you.

[AtomicKitten]

43. Keep your arms and legs inside the ride at all times ...

and don't forget to wear a cup!

Cheers.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Wrong. You Should Never Tell People What You'll Do - Just Do It And Surprise Them

Gee, it's worked so well for our current president!

:sarcasm:

[calimary]

3. I'd just like to see ANY of the progressive think tanks rise to be a true rival

of those dens of thieves, pirates, liars, cheapskates, and scoundrels.

[Bongo Prophet]

23. No kidding - Hart, Kerry, et al would open up some foreign policy bandwidth

More specifically, a more sane and open discussion that allowed a wider range of options would be a very good and timely thing.
Non-proliferation.
Shift in money from cold war weapons, to soft power policies
non-intervention as first resort
maybe even human rights, wow.

Agree 100% calimary

[Colobo]

4. Obama is what this country and the World needs.

[beachmom]

6. I'm glad that by speaking out he exposed the foreign policy establishment

as wanting a secretive government instead of an open government. It became abundantly clear last week.

[ProSense]

5. I don't agree!

Why didn't we bomb Libya and go after the terrorist there? Frankly, the truth is this: "without asking permission from anyone" means war.

Period. I'll accept that, but that is what it means.

[beachmom]

7. As long as you also accept that when Bill Clinton sent cruise missiles

to Afghanistan to take out OBL that this was also full out war. Or Sudan. Looking back now, although a failure, at least he tried. Bush didn't try that hard to get OBL in Tora Bora, and he sure as hell isn't trying now.

Edit: and to be clear, Prosense, this IS the policy of the U.S. now, and no matter who is elected president, it will continue to be the policy of the U.S. The question then comes down to whether you tell Americans and Pakistanis about it.

[ProSense]

9. Afghanistan is not Pakistan.

That's like comparing Sudan to Iran.

Can a covert operation be carried out without the knowledge of the other country? If possible, why announce it. If you don't get permission and march the 82nd airborne into a country without permission that's war.

The U.S. cannot go into a country like Pakistan without permission and walk away like they did in Afghanistan.

[ProSense]

10. Read Hart's last paragraph again:

The rule, it seems to me, should be this: State clear principles upon which and conditions under which we will take action to the world; notify friendly or semi-friendly nations of specific intentions where they are concerned; and otherwise behave with the candor and honesty that our founders hoped would characterize America's behavior in the world.

My guess is that other countries are/would be sympathetic to America and only deny such permission based on the internal political dynamics, but if the U.S. entered without permission that could be construed as an act of war.

[beachmom]

11. Obama said in his speech that we would only act if Musharraf wouldn't.

Which means he would be notified.

I also think you are missing the larger point which Gary Hart is making: that you need to be open about what our intentions are. It seems that your view is that we should NOT go into Pakistan without its permission UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. That point of view is completely different from any of the prez candidates who are criticizing Obama just for SAYING what they actually agree with.

[ProSense]

13. No, I understand Hart's point about openness, and I'm not making this assertion:

we should NOT go into Pakistan without its permission UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

My point is that doing so can be (most likely will be) construed as an act of war. So to be clear: we are prepared to go to war if necessary.

edited typo.

[beachmom]

14. Well, maybe I'm in the minority on these boards (and I sure was

at ol' Juan Cole's M.E. forum at YKos), but I want OBL and al Qaeda killed or captured including going into Pakistan without the government's permission, if it must be. However, I really and truly hope it would never have to come to that.

Anyway, from your many excellent posts on Pakistan, I'm beginning to believe that Musharraf will not be the leader of Pakistan for much longer.

[ProSense]

16. I agree with you there.

I want OBL captured or killed, but I do not want war with another country as a result.

[beachmom]

19. Oh, so you're saying you want someone who has the diplomatic skill

to actually get it done without war, eh? Sigh. He's not running.

[jmp]

22. "this IS the policy of the U.S. now ..."

this IS the policy of the U.S. now, and no matter who is elected president, it will continue to be the policy of the U.S.

The President sets the policy ... and I would argue that the policy has already changed since we know al-Qaeda is in Pakistan and haven't gone after them for the better part of 6 years.

China held the 24 Americans hostage for 2 weeks after the spy plane incident and got off scot-free ... a smaller country would've gotten a sole suppository for that.

There is no such thing as a blanket policy.

[Kagemusha]

8. Is Osama in Libya?

No? Next please.

[ellacott]

12. Reagan did bomb Libya

Because of Libya's alleged terrorist activities.

[ProSense]

15. I should have been clear,

Reagan bombed Libya in retaliation for attacks around the world.

1986 : U.S. bombs Libya

On April 14, 1986, the United States launches air strikes against Libya in retaliation for the Libyan sponsorship of terrorism against American troops and citizens. The raid, which began shortly before 7 p.m. EST (2 a.m., April 15 in Libya), involved more than 100 U.S. Air Force and Navy aircraft, and was over within an hour. Five military targets and "terrorism centers" were hit, including the headquarters of Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi.

During the 1970s and '80s, Qaddafi's government financed a wide variety of Muslim and anti-U.S. and anti-British terrorist groups worldwide, from Palestinian guerrillas and Philippine Muslim rebels to the Irish Republican Army and the Black Panthers. In response, the U.S. imposed sanctions against Libya, and relations between the two nations steadily deteriorated. In 1981, Libya fired at a U.S. aircraft that passed into the Gulf of Sidra, which Qaddafi had claimed in 1973 as Libyan territorial waters. That year, the U.S. uncovered evidence of Libyan-sponsored terrorist plots against the United States, including planned assassination attempts against U.S. officials and the bombing of a U.S. embassy-sponsored dance in Khartoum, Sudan.

In December 1985, five American citizens were killed in simultaneous terrorist attacks at the Rome and Vienna airports. Libya was blamed, and U.S. President Ronald Reagan ordered expanded sanctions and froze Libyan assets in the United States. On March 24, 1986, U.S. and Libyan forces clashed in the Gulf of Sidra, and four Libyan attack boats were sunk. Then, on April 5, terrorists bombed a West Berlin dance hall known to be frequented by U.S. servicemen. One U.S. serviceman and a Turkish woman were killed, and more than 200 people were wounded, including 50 other U.S. servicemen. U.S. intelligence reportedly intercepted radio messages sent from Libya to its diplomats in East Berlin ordering the April 5 attack on the LaBelle discotheque.

On April 14, the United States struck back with dramatic air strikes against Tripoli and Banghazi. The attacks were mounted by 14 A-6E navy attack jets based in the Mediterranean and 18 FB-111 bombers from bases in England. Numerous other support aircraft were also involved. France refused to allow the F-111s to fly over French territory, which added 2,600 total nautical miles to the journey from England and back. Three military barracks were hit, along with the military facilities at Tripoli's main airport and the Benina air base southeast of Benghazi. All targets except one were reportedly chosen because of their direct connection to terrorist activity. The Benina military airfield was hit to preempt Libyan interceptors from taking off and attacking the incoming U.S. bombers.

Even before the operation had ended, President Reagan went on national television to discuss the air strikes. "When our citizens are abused or attacked anywhere in the world," he said, "we will respond in self-defense. Today we have done what we had to do. If necessary, we shall do it again."

more

The U.S. did not bomb Libya after the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 747.

Has Pakistan attacked us?


edited typos

[killbotfactory]

25. Bush already attacked Pakistan without official permission

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/14/AR2006011400961.html

Are we at war with Pakistan?

[ProSense]

27. Where does it say "without permission"?

...Death to America!" and "Death to Musharraf!

<...>

At the same time, Pakistani security services have apprehended several key al Qaeda operatives in the country's teeming cities. Khalid Sheik Mohammed, reputed to have planned many of the organization's terrorist attacks, including those on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, was captured in Rawalpindi in March 2003. The previous September, the reputed coordinator of the Sept. 11 attacks, Ramzi Binalshibh, was captured in the port city of Karachi.

I think there is a lot of spin going on here.

[killbotfactory]

49. This part:

"The Pakistani government in Islamabad, however, produced a more muted response, saying it had formally protested the strike to the U.S. government but conceding there may have been people in the area whom the United States would have an interest in attacking."

If we attacked with their permission, they wouldn't have protested the strike.

[harun]

38. Your missing the point. Obama said it as a brilliant political

move that shows he has backbone and is not afraid. Him saying that has nothing to do with him doing it, because he wouldn't. If they know where he is he knows they can just tell Musharaf and he will take care of it.

[Buck Rabbit]

47. I disagree with your disagree.

Respectfully of course.

The US has already blown up a suspected Al Quida target in Pakistan without permission. Killed about 80 people if I recall and there was no resulting war.

Before the US went into Afghanistan the state department called Musharraf and told him he would support us against the Talliban who they had been the sponsors of to that point, or "you will be bombed back into the stone ages." Musharraf and staff spent 3 days war gaming out a fight with the US after which they asked what number bus would the US prefer the Talliban be thrown under. This is all in his book, and he talked candidly about it on an interview on The Daily Show of all places.

After some tough talk for the public benefit after Obama's speech, you may have noticed Musharraf went to Afghanistan and seems interested in hunting terrorists again.

In the end if we do find Bin Laden, the best approach for all parties is to take him out without informing or asking permission of the Pakistanis. This will allow Musharraf to vehemently protest and sabre rattle for his countrymen. We will then say we're sorry and promise not to kill Bin Laden again. Whereas if he Musharraf's government participated in the capture/killing he would be toast.

[laugle]

17. That old dinosaur, he's been

talking a lot lately, me thinks he has a vendetta against the Clintons......

[beachmom]

20. He predicted that 9/11 would happen. Show some respect , please. n/t

[laugle]

29. Yeah right and look what happened!! He's a creep!

Too bad he didn't predict the press would catch him with Donna Rice and ruin his chances for election. Great campaign there......he's a dinosaur!!

[Hart2008]

31. It's people like this in the party who swallowed the MSM BS about Hart who elected Bush in '88

Too bad the Washington press corps refused to publish what they all knew about G.H.W. Bush and his "office wife", Jennifer Fitzgerald:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Fitzgerald
If character was so important in '88, then the sitting V.P. using taxpayer money to subsidize his long running affair and sham marriage should have received equal coverage with the phony allegations that Hart was a "womanizer".

It was well documented that the Miami Herald has had a history of publishing CIA propaganda by the Church commission. The Miami Herald never got the story right. Donna Rice, a Phi Beta Kappa, did not stay at Hart's Washington townhouse, the Miami Herald was not responding to "challenge" from Hart, and in fact did not follow Hart, etc. Good Democrats shouldn't be rehashing old smears against a good man.

Weighing the various complaints by numerous women against Bill Clinton through the years ranging from sexual harassment, to rape and failure to pay child support, against the nonexistent similar complaints of any kind against Gary Hart, it becomes abundantly clear who the real "womanizer" is.

[laugle]

32. Boring......rehash..........

End of Story.......

[Hart2008]

36. So then stop rehashing a MSM smear here.

It is boring, and incorrect.

[Hart2008]

34. An ageist smear! Hart introduced Clinton to national politics in the McGovern campaign.

Gary Hart was George McGovern's campaign manager in '72. He named Bill Clinton as the regional campaign manager for Texas and Arkansas. Clinton never returned the favor when he was elected by appointing Hart to anything. In fact, in his memoirs, the only reference he makes to Hart is in regard to sex scandals, despite the fact that not a single woman has ever come forward by name to make any such claim against Hart.

Hart did advise Clinton during his term and performed some quiet diplomacy for him. Hart is the one who advised Clinton to send George Mitchell to negotiate in Northern Ireland. Those negotiations have born fruit and Northern Ireland is now peaceful.

Hart also advised Clinton to create the U.S. Commission on National Security for the 21st Century. Clinton created but declined to name Hart as a member of the commission. Hart became the chairman only after former Oklahoma Senator David Boren quit the job, upon the recommendation of Bill Cohen. Clinton could have cited the creation of the U.S. Commission on National Security for the 21st Century and its report in his FOX news interview defending his administration's handling of terrorism. It appears that Bill Clinton doesn't want to give Hart credit for anything. After Hart created the American Security Project, a group of Clinton hacks created a "me too" shadow think tank. Imitation is the highest form of flattery, but enough is enough.
:eyes:

So when did all of this start?

In '88 Bill Clinton met with Hart hoping to become his V.P. Clinton flunked his interview and Hart said that Clinton "didn't believe in anything." Bill Morris, a NSA analyst appointed by LBJ who resigned from the NSA over Nixon's invasion of Cambodia, wrote in his book "Partners in Power" (page 433-434) that the Clinton's sabotaged his '88 campaign. The fact that Bill Clinton remains so buddy-buddy with Bush the elder and Hillary has been such a strong supporter of Bush the younger's imperialist foreign policy hasn't changed anyone's mind about anything.

[sandnsea]

18. Hillary jeopardized international security

for a cheap political stunt. Exactly like Bush. That is what she does. She's done it before. We need to be done with this whole crop of politicians who have too much influence from the right.

[jmp]

21. Not sure I'd be taking advice from ...

Anyone stupid enough to challenge the press to "Follow me around . . . . I'm serious. If anybody wants to put a tail on me, go ahead. They'd be very bored." ... then play grab ass on a boat named "Monkey Business" with a woman other than the one he was married to.

If they handed out political Darwin Awards ... Hart would surely be a "winner".

[DrFunkenstein]

28. Or Someone Finding Novel Uses For Cigars in The Oval Office

Fact: Sex makes men dumb.

And we get sleepy, too.

[Hart2008]

35. Hart is a gentleman. No woman ever accused him of "grabbing ass", etc.

Try to find one woman who ever made such a claim.

The erroneous Miami Herald story did not cause Hart to leave the race in '87. It was a glaring double standard from the Washington Post. (The Herald reporters later admitted that they where unaware of any "challenge" from Hart, they were not following Hart they were following Rice, and the quote you referred to was made in frustration to a repeated attempt to have Hart address innuendo that Hart was a "womanizer", not that Hart claimed to have had a perfect marriage.)

In, fact, Donna Rice, a Phi Beta Kappa, very plainly stated that her relationship with Hart was not sexual. Despite being offered millions of dollars by various TV news programs, Rice has never changed that story in 20 years. She now works to protect children from online pornography and predators. She is a very classy lady. She did later state that she had been the victim of date rape, and commented on what a gentleman Gary Hart was to her.

Correct, In a sane world Gary Hart is a winner, just as Mondale and Dukakis were sure losers.

[jmp]

37. "The Herald reporters later admitted that they where unaware of any "challenge" from Hart"

http://www.unc.edu/~pmeyer/Hart/hartarticle.html

They were following Rice because of a tip. They were only interested in Donna Rice because of her alleged relationship with Hart.

[Hart2008]

45. Myth busted! The Miami Herald was stalking Rice and spying on Hart before Dionne's quote ran.

The Miami Herald purchased a ticket for a reporter to fly from Miami to Washington D.C. to find an unknown woman who was allegedly having an affair with Hart without so much as a picture to identify her:

But without a flight number - - indeed, without the address of Hart's townhouse -- it wasn't clear how to pursue it. There were five flights between Miami and Washington that Friday night. The woman was to be on one of them.
But which one? How do you spot her? The caller said she was blond, in her late 20s, with a rich Southern drawl. She was an actress with an appearance on Miami Vice to her credit. That was not enough to go on. And even if she is seen on the plane, what then?

http://www.unc.edu/~pmeyer/Hart/hartarticle.html

The story grows more incredible from there. If you seriously believe this is what happened, that that they chanced to find Rice based on that description, etc. then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. (Most likely, Hart's phone was bugged. He used an old satellite phone, which could have been monitored with the right equipment.)

The Miami Herald has a well documented past history of taking money to publish CIA propaganda. (See the Church Commission report.) Gary Hart was a major threat to the CIA, particularly those rogue elements involved in the Iran-Contra affair, chiefly George. H.W. Bush. They needed to discredit Hart, and the only thing they could think of was to invade his personal life. He and his wife had been separated and it was no secret. The problem was that a Presidential candidate's personal life had been off-limits to reporters. (There is film where Jackie Kennedy was asked if she was happily married and she said "no'. It was never aired. No reporter ever pried into why Reagan was divorced.) So they needed to change the rules for Gary Hart. What they did to Hart was unprecedented, before or since. No woman has ever come forward by name to complain about Gary Hart. (Compare that with Bill Clinton's infamous "bimbo eruptions".)

The Herald misleadingly invoked the "follow me around" quote to justify their stalking Rice and hiding in Hart's bushes. The problem is that that quote was not published until days after the Herald had bought the plane ticket to stalk rice and spy on Hart. Miami Herald reporter Tom Fiedler claims to have read the E. J. Dionne quote on a plane to join his colleagues already spying on Hart. Fiedler is claiming that the airline distributed the Sunday magazine of the New York Times early Saturday morning on the flight from Miami to Washington D.C. (Even if it were possible that the Sunday New York Times magazine was in fact available in Miami when Fiedler left, it is extremely unlikely that the airline was distributing the back section of the Sunday paper without the front section of the paper.) Regardless, Fiedler had committed to further spying on Hart prior to the publication of Dionne's quote. Fielder and the Miami Herald were not responding to Hart's "challenge", they simply used it as a justification for their gutter journalism after they had committed to course of action.

The quote Hart made to E.J. Dionne was the result of a serious of interviews Hart gave to Dionne in New Hampshire months prior to its publication. At the time Hart made the "follow me around" comment, he had not yet spoken to Donna Rice. Donna Rice had been the girlfriend of Don Henley of the Eagles. Hart was in Miami for a brief vacation to write a speech. Someone brought her to the yacht. (Someone is always bringing Rice to Hart through out the story.) When Hart learned that she was Henley's acquaintance, he invited her on board. (Henley was a Hart supporter and wrote the song "Dirty Laundry" about the media circus that followed.)

The whole "affair" was much ado about nothing:

A Gallup Poll found that nearly two-thirds (64%) of the U.S. respondents it surveyed thought the media treatment of Hart was "unfair." A little over half (53%) responded that marital infidelity had little to do with a president's ability to govern.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Hart#1988_presidential_campaign_and_the_Donna_Rice_affair

For those not old enough to remember, the media kept referring back to the incident, much like the "Dean scream" to the exclusion of covering any real issues. The Miami Herald was not the reason why Hart left the race a week later. The problem was the Washington Post, which had refused to publish the well known story about Bush's "office wife", Jennifer Fitzgerald,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Fitzgerald
but was threatening Hart with publication of a story about Hart dating when separated from his wife. The real scandal was an extreme double standard for Hart, and then for everyone else, which in this case enormously benefited the Bushes and their attack on the Constitution.

But to return back to E. J. Dionne and the quote, the rest of that article was very favorable to Hart. (If you bothered to read the full story in "The Elusive Front-Runner", Lee Hart took responsibility for much of the problems in their marriage. They have now been married 50 years. Can anyone else here say the same?) Dionne had the following to say about the matter:
"I'm the guy that Gary Hart said, "Follow me around" to, and I didn't."
http://www.newsombudsmen.org/dionne.html

This myth has been previously busted by CNN's Bill Schnieder and blogger Bill Bradley:
http://billbradley.pajamasmedia.com/2006/02/20/what_we_think_we_know.php#comments

Yet it persists.

[Sick_of_Rethuggery]

24. And here is a terrific last summary para from...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/07/EDL4RDO2J1.DTL

Such a plan is very characteristic of Obama's political instincts. He has just as little patience for the principled gridlock that comes from ideological artifice as he does for the unprincipled compromise that comes from self-serving bipartisanship. In other words, Obama regularly gives ample fodder for political extremists of all stripes to both praise and criticize. Ideological purists loathe it. Many voters seem to love it.

[TeamJordan23]

26. I think Obama can use this argument to his advantage. He just needs to elaborate more on it. nm

[harun]

39. Absolutely, the argument is going to be Obama is going to be

too aggressive going after terrorists. How is that not a HUGE win for him? I wonder if he knew how brilliant saying that was when he said it. If so he is a genius.

[closeupready]

40. If al-qaida or OBL were found in Iran, how many would support going there?

Obviously, most of us would, but would we say it ahead of time? Not now, because the dynamics of the situation are more complicated today than they were.

In other words, Obama was wrong about how he delivered his message. As we are reminded frequently, words matter, and his words were poorly chosen.

[closeupready]

41. And by the same token, do we want to send a message to other nations that unilateral invasion is oka

if you determine that enemies of your nation are residing in a foreign land?

[Douglas Carpenter]

44. previously of the top-tier I leaned slightly toward Obama but these comments were irresponsible

It is not a question of whether or not any given President may or may not take a certain unorthodox action under certain specific extreme conditions, but to say his comments regarding Pakistan (not his comments about talking to “dictators) are dangerous, irresponsible, contrary to America's interest and destabilizing to the region.

And I say this as an American who has spent more than 20 years in the Islamic world.

It is not just Sen. Obama by any means. And none of this will turn me into a supporter of Sen. Clinton prior to the nominating convention. Her comments about nukes was at least equally irresponsible.

But national leaders whether in Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority or elsewhere in the Islamic world walk a very, very tight rope. Irresponsible comments for domestic American electorate consumption get widely reported in the region. And these kind of comments do NOT help! Quite the contrary, just like Presidents Bush's "Axis of Evil" reference to Iran strengthened the reactionary elements in Iran while weakening the more liberal elements -- and almost certainly helped elect Iran's current president - irresponsible comments from presidential candidates or any leading American politician is a strike against liberal and progressive forces in the regions and a boost for hostile elements.

Just think if it was in reverse. What if, for example, a leading Egyptian politician who was possibly a future president said that he would consider military strikes inside the United States? Would that help progressive American elements or would it strengthen right-wing reactionary forces?
_________________


Pakistani protesters burn a U.S. flag to condemn U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama's remarks, in Karachi, Pakistan, Friday. Pakistan criticized Obama for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes inside this Islamic nation to root out terrorists.

By Shakil Adil, AP


AFP - Fri Aug 3, 3:32 PM ET Pakistani Muslim men shout slogans in front of a burning US flag during a demonstration in Lahore against the controversial statement of US presidential hopeful, Tom Tancredo. The US State Department denounced Friday Tancredo's suggestion to threaten an attack on Islamic holy sites in order to deter a nuclear attack on American soil, saying the idea is "absolutely crazy."(AFP/Arif Ali)

_______________

Sloganeering troubles diplomatic pros By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer -- link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070803/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_politics_diplomacy

snip:"In Pakistan, the country's Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Sher Afgan said Friday he would open debate next week on recent criticism of Pakistan from several quarters in the U.S., including remarks by Sens. Obama and Clinton and Tancredo.

It is a matter of "grave concern that U.S. presidential candidates are using unethical and immoral tactics against Islam and Pakistan to win their election," he said."

snip:"At the State Department, diplomats fear that Tancredo's remarks, coupled with those of Obama and Clinton, will be seen as a broader trend of animosity by U.S. politicians to Muslims, especially in Pakistan, officials said."

[Colobo]

46. America needs President Obama in 08, not in 2016.

[Perry Logan]

48. I don't know anyone who favors Obama.

And I've checked the whole galaxy.