O’Hanlon Teams Up With AEI’s Kagan To Advocate Pre-Emptive Strike On Pakistan
O’Hanlon Teams Up With AEI’s Kagan To Advocate Pre-Emptive Strike On Pakistan
In the wake of the recent crisis in Pakistan, Iraq escalation architect Frederick Kagan of AEI and Brookings analyst Michael O’Hanlon penned a column yesterday urging the U.S. to weigh a military option in Pakistan to secure its nuclear stockpiles:
[T]he United States simply could not stand by as a nuclear-armed Pakistan descended into the abyss. … We need to think — now — about our feasible military options in Pakistan, should it really come to that. … Pakistan may be the next big test.
As the “intellectual architect” of the Iraq “surge,” Kagan (who also advocates war with Syria and Iran) was personally invited by the White House to help “hammer out” the escalation strategy last year. O’Hanlon has backed war with Iraq since 2002 and is a chief proponent of a long-term occupation of Iraq.
In the op-ed, they recommend the use of Special Forces to secure the nukes, or a “broader option” requiring “a sizable combat force.” “Somehow, American forces would have to team with Pakistanis to secure critical sites and possibly to move the material to a safer place,” they write. “Moderate Muslim nations” would join the U.S. in organizing a combat force in Pakistan.
The duo claims it is not “strategically prudent to withdraw our forces from an improving situation in Iraq” to implement these plans. But such a plan would eviscerate the “out of balance” U.S. military, according to Gen. George Casey. The National Security Network adds:
Kagan and O’Hanlon clearly have a hidden stash of U.S. soldiers. Even if you were sending “just” 40,000-50,000, our military could not sustain that operation without taking our troops out of Iraq.
O’Hanlon and Kagan’s strategy depends on cooperation from Pakistan and “moderate Muslim nations,” but such cooperation is unlikely as President Bush’s approval rating in Pakistan is currently at nine percent and at similar levels across the Muslim world.
The White House said in July that it would consider strikes against al Qaeda in Pakistan, which drew “a chorus of protests in Pakistan” and caused greater instability. No matter the consequences, the military option is always on the table for O’Hanlon and Kagan.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
102 Responses to “O’Hanlon Teams Up With AEI’s Kagan To Advocate Pre-Emptive Strike On Pakistan”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
These guys are nuts ! Beyonce Welch
November 19th, 2007 at 2:41 pmDoes this mean the Right has lost their big talking point about Obama? You remember, the “Obama wants to invade Pakistan, the dirty warmonger” talking point?
I say we should just invade everyone. Let’s start by invading Scotland and confiscating all the whisky.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:45 pmEraserhead and the Pillsbury Blowboy… hardly the Dynamic Duo…
This country really is having a nervous breakdown.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:45 pmAh, man! They’ve left out India, Sri Lanka, and those bastards from Diego Garcia! How the hell am I supposed to feel safe knowing The D.G. is working hard to acquire a bomb of some sort….or maybe its a road flare….
November 19th, 2007 at 2:46 pmAh, man! They’ve left out India, Sri Lanka, and those bastards from Diego Garcia! How the hell am I supposed to feel safe knowing The D.G. is working hard to acquire a bomb of some sort….or maybe its a road flare….
Comment by Doofus — November 19, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
Nah, we and the Brits relocated all those people to Seychelles in the late 1970s.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:49 pmAll the years they’ve spent on the battlefield must have dulled their senses.
Maybe they played way too much Risk as kids or on the weekends.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:51 pmI’m still concerned about the Canadians in 2053. If we don’t nuke them now, they’re going to “canuke” us then.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:51 pmgeorge carlin summed it up best. just make a list, go out and start listening to people, and you will fill it with stupid people in one day. The normalish looking humans that are cretins are easier to recognize when they speak.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:51 pmAm not an advocate for violence but someone should take a baseball bat to the knees of these to idiot. Better yet, do to the AIE, Heritage Foundation and any other right-wing organization what Ann “Man” Coulter said should happen to the New York Time…”Park truck bomb out front”.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:52 pmStuck on Stupid ceases being an excuse, eventually…
November 19th, 2007 at 2:57 pmWe already have a base on Diego Garcia. But we could make it into Gitmo East if the Indians get anymore uppity.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:01 pmWhen will Fred Kagan end his search for a neck?
November 19th, 2007 at 3:01 pmAn Irishman, a Jew and a Politician walk into a blog…
November 19th, 2007 at 3:03 pmReally! What are these people thinking! How can you advocate more war when we don’t have enough soldiers for a new one and are already losing the two we are in?
November 19th, 2007 at 3:05 pmattack nuclear-armed Pakistan? These 2 are out of their f*(king minds.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:07 pmDoes anyone else get the impression that these two, besides being on a waiting list for their own personal rubber rooms, may just have a whole lot of stock in Blackwater, or a similar mercenary group? You do realize the only way we can get involved in any other military situation will be to use these completely legally unaccountable mercenary groups like Blackwater, further enriching those that the Bush/Cheney crime families owe favors to. Don’t get to comfortable with the idea of using these mercenary groups though. They could just as easily be used to take over OUR country, as they can be used to take over any other country. It’s only a matter of money, and the criminals that currently run our country have stolen more than enough of our money to finance the takeover of many countries.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:08 pmLet’s see these hillbilly pundits pull a couple tens of thousands of troops out of their collective recti to pull this insanity off.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:10 pmHow did Kagan & O’Hanlon serve our country before they tried severing it, and which one is married to Coulter?
November 19th, 2007 at 3:12 pmSo does this mean we’re going to bring democracy to Pakistan as well?
November 19th, 2007 at 3:14 pmWhy would anyone listen to these two fruitcakes??? It is time to take away their microphone and give them a nice soap-box instead.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:14 pmWar on the brain but notice both men wouldn’t serve in the Military. No wonder the World Leaders are moving on without the United States and Israel is backing away slowly from the US. With all the idiots coming out of the wood work as the GOP Law Makers rush to steal as much money as possible. Even McCain is going to Iraq for fund raiser, Lieberman is taking care of Israel’s business and Graham is going for the free male companionship. Oh that’s right the front story is the soldiers sounds nice. Rudy might want to go to Iraq for his next fund raiser.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:15 pmRemember the days when diplomacy was the keystone to international relations, and that because nations talked to each other and worked together (a true coalition of the willing) things like international terrorism were on the wane with even such things as the IRA willing to put down their arms and move forward.
Sure, we had nutjobs out there who could, and would, use terror to try and achieve their goals, but they were being marginalized.
And now, we live in a world where violence and force is seen as the one true panacea to solve all problems… and all it is doing is creating more problems. Its like juggling eggs with boxing gloves.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:17 pmO’Hanlon Can you See,
By the eve’s fading light,
Oer the empire you seek,
Kagan’s dream now is wreaking.
And the IEDs blasting gore,
Freddie calling for more,
Gave proof all the time,
That you both just are crazy.
Oh say does that well worn phrase,
November 19th, 2007 at 3:18 pmShooooot first, questions later,
Still ring in your ears,
Oh please, shove it, up your rears!
I wondered how long it was going to take before some warmongering neoconservative wingnut was calling foir an attack on Pakistan.
How about we have a premptive attack on all warmongering neoconservative wingnuts instead …?
November 19th, 2007 at 3:20 pmGood analogy, Raynman,
I think using the military to promote democracy overseas is like using a chainsaw for brain surgery.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:22 pmLA ~ I’ve got pitchforks if you’ve got torches!
November 19th, 2007 at 3:23 pmWhat’s wrong with these people? !!
November 19th, 2007 at 3:23 pmThey ought to go and try war once in their lifetime,as much as they love wars.
These people ideas fits well for a nice script of a Hollywood movie.
It is sad that they have been lisened to as experts and analysts,and given a lot of air time on major networks.
O’Hanlon should take his NeoCon buddy Kagan with him to Pakistan to fight their war overthere and get a good taste of it.
Eraserhead and the Pillsbury Blowboy… hardly the Dynamic Duo…
This country really is having a nervous breakdown.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — November 19, 2007 @ 2:45 pm
Good One TROS!!
Heck, why not Russia and China while they’re at it?
November 19th, 2007 at 3:24 pmDo people get payed to be a WAR CRIMINAL? They arm Pakistan with nuclear capability, threat Iran that hasn’t got one, back Israel that has many… BUNCH OF WAR CRIMINALS FROM THE FACIST STATES OF AMERICA!
November 19th, 2007 at 3:25 pmRU - you’re on! ;o)
November 19th, 2007 at 3:26 pmWhy is it that the more a person calls for military action and first strikes, they are the people you wouldn’t trust with a butter knife. It’s some sort of weird inverse relationship. These 2, Kristol, Krautheimer, Lieberman, Cheney, would any of them even know how to hold a gun, why is anyone listening to their ideas on military operations and policy.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:28 pmSolve a military coupe by staging a military coupe, genius!
November 19th, 2007 at 3:30 pmHere’s a typical neocon idea:
November 19th, 2007 at 3:32 pmDrop special forces troops in to secure the nukes, then ship them to Iran so we can bomb Iran for having nukes!
Did ThinkProgress put up an article when Sen. Obama last August when Sen. Obama also mentioned the possibility that the U.S. might need to act militarily inside Pakistan?:
Tough talk on Pakistan from Obama
Wed Aug 1, 2007 7:26pm EDT
By Steve Holland
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said on Wednesday the United States must be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan, adopting a tough tone after a chief rival accused him of naivete in foreign policy.
Obama’s stance comes amid debate in Washington over what to do about a resurgent al Qaeda and Taliban in areas of northwest Pakistan that President Pervez Musharraf has been unable to control, and concerns that new recruits are being trained there for a September 11-style attack against the United States.
Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.
“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will,” Obama said.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:34 pmMiliary coups is a speciality of the US. They come in with all the sweet talk about Democracy and Fredom, than they support, arm and finance the most hiddeous military dictatorships in the world (including Saddam Hussein’s). They wage a ilegal war based on lies and insist, after 5 years that they are making progress… worse, the american people buy and swallow all this crap while the country’s economy goes down hill and the country is hated and despized around the globe…
November 19th, 2007 at 3:35 pmTry to stay on topic Ivy League.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:40 pmO’Hanlon, Kagan, Pakistani nukes.
Not
Obama, AQ, high value terrorist targets.
Those two clowns ought to be put away!!!!!!!
November 19th, 2007 at 3:41 pmLooking at the pictures of those two fellas, it occurs to me that neither of them ever gets a date. …
No wonder they’re so warmongery.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:42 pmMy head reels with questions, the most obvious one being — WHY is anyone still listening to O’Hanlon???
The other questions are the same ones everyone else is asking — how can any invasion take place without military personnel, why is it a good idea to “pre-emptively” attack a nuclear weapons country, how many countries do we think we can invade before the BushCo regime ends, why are there so many talking heads with cheez whiz for brains, etc.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:42 pmDid you read their column?!
talking about Pakistan’s nuclear material:
“Somehow, American forces would have to team with Pakistanis to secure critical sites and possibly to move the material to a safer place.
For the United States, the safest bet would be shipping the material to someplace like New Mexico”
Did some kind of delusion bomb go off recently? Things have been taking a turn for the crazy.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:45 pmNext Rethuglicans will be pushing to bomb chosen American cities to achieve their political agendas. There must be some laws against advocating bombing. And these two fools, Kagan and O’Hanlon need to be charged and sitting in jail until their trials.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:47 pmSomeone needs to ask Kagan one simple question regarding logistics and all of his “fantasy wars” — with what military????
November 19th, 2007 at 3:47 pmThey sound like little kids who get can’t want they want… to bomb Iran, so the little kids pick something else.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:47 pm“O’Hanlon Teams Up With AEI’s Kagan To Advocate Pre-Emptive Strike On Pakistan”
On the one hand — we executed a pre-emptive strike on Iraq, and we all know how well that turned out. Why anyone would consider pre-emptive strikes to be a good idea is beyond me.
On the other hand, Pakistan is a bit chaotic right now. A pre-emptive strike on their country for any reason might have the same effect as 9/11 had on us. It could unite them as never before. Of course, they would all be united against US.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:48 pmKagan and O’Hanlon are two mentally deranged nazis.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:49 pmI was wondering how long it would take the war mongers to read the Pakistani mess as a “military opportunity” for us. We have become the opportunist imperialistas of the world.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:50 pmIs it my wide screen or does O’Hanlon look like his jowels are about to explode? That’s what drinking tons of the tainted Kool-Aid can do to you.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:51 pmTwo talking heads advocate invading a country that has not attacked us, for the purpose of securing weapons that don’t belong to us, with military we don’t have.
In any other lifetime, these guys would be dismissed as crackpots. But under Bushney, it seems that the inmates are truly running the asylum.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:53 pmDid ThinkProgress put up an article when Sen. Obama last August when Sen. Obama also mentioned the possibility that the U.S. might need to act militarily inside Pakistan?:
…
“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will,†Obama said.
Comment by Exley
There’s a big, BIG difference betwen going after AQ targets in the tribal areas, and attempting to “secure the nukes” that are controlled by the Pakistani government. BIG. Very big.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:56 pmWho don’t these guys want to bomb?
November 19th, 2007 at 4:00 pmJust what in the hell does this mean?
November 19th, 2007 at 4:00 pmthat guy on the right looks like Tom Waits
November 19th, 2007 at 4:02 pmDigDug,
I am not completely sure the two are unrelated. One of the reasons why we would want to secucre Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is to prevent Al Qaeda or similar terrorist organization from getting their hands on it.
Personally, I agree with Sen. Obama. We spot a high-value Al Qaeda target in Pakistan, we should go and get ‘em.
So, I assume you (and RUCerious) agree with Sen. Obama (and O’Hanlon)that there are indeed instances where U.S. military action in Pakistan would be justified?
November 19th, 2007 at 4:05 pmLeftside Annie; If I were a woman, I would not date either of them if they were the last males on the planet. Denying propagating the species from these two is a world-saver.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:08 pmNo Exley, I don’t agree with Obama or O’Hanlon.
If Pakistan wants to go get those AQ forces, let em.
If the Afghanis want to raid across the Pakistani border, let em.
We had our chance at Tora Bora and someone blew it.
I’ve read estimates you could put 50,000 troops in the region for six months and not find twenty AQ. They’ve picked a good spot to hole up.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:12 pmEwww Uncle Ho, why’d you have to go there? :P
November 19th, 2007 at 4:12 pmold_hack,
Tom Waits would be ’singing a different tune’, but you’re right; it’s a strong resemblance.
I think we should have Mike & Fred go to Pakistan and try to do this.
Not send Seals or Rangers, but these two. They can practice that ‘backdoor diplomacy’ they claim to know so well and blog us here at TP to keep us appraised or progress.
With the superior intellect and Einstein like logic they can’t fail!
November 19th, 2007 at 4:12 pmWho don’t these guys want to bomb?
Comment by Mr.Bungle
Lauras Xanax supplier.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:13 pmCaption:
November 19th, 2007 at 4:14 pmTweelde Pee & Twiddle Dumb
Exley,
“Personally, I agree with Sen. Obama. We spot a high-value Al Qaeda target in Pakistan, we should go and get ‘em.”
Regardless the cost? What if we had high value terrorist targets in say, Atlanta, Georgia. Now lets say there is no time to get law enforcement there. The only we can “get ‘em” is to order an airstrike in Atlanta. Would you support that? Regardless the cost?
Just curious how far we take this idea of “get ‘em at all costs.”
November 19th, 2007 at 4:14 pmTweedle?
November 19th, 2007 at 4:15 pmThank you for your response, RUCerious.
By the way, when you referred to “Ivy League,” was that addressed to me? If so, I believe you are mixing me up with another poster.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:15 pmThe reality is that the cat is out of the nuclear-bag and we can bomb the planet to smithereens and not get all of the nuclear material out there. I don’t want “terrorists” to get their hands on nuclear bombs either, but, if these jokers think that they can just waltz in and take control over another country’s nukes then they’re simply nuts.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:17 pmMr. Bungle,
I never said “at all costs.” Obviosuly, there would need to be some type of cost-benefit analysis….But if we spotted Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan and we had a reasonable chance to capture or kill him I can think of very few reasons why we should not undertake such a mission.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:17 pmI don’t think these two have really thought this out very well, they must be using some of that GW666 logic brain cream.
Bush/Cheney
Hague Trials ‘09
Buck Fush
November 19th, 2007 at 4:18 pmPersonally, I agree with Sen. Obama. We spot a high-value Al Qaeda target in Pakistan, we should go and get ‘em.
So, I assume you (and RUCerious) agree with Sen. Obama (and O’Hanlon)that there are indeed instances where U.S. military action in Pakistan would be justified?
Comment by Exley
I’m not sure I do agree with Obama. But if the target were valuable enough, maybe I could be convinced (certainly if it were OBL himself).
But what O’hanlon is saying is NOT the same thing. He’s talking about “securing Pakistan’s nukes”. Surely you can see that that would be a VERY different kind of operation. For one thing it would be an operation against the Pakistani government (an act of war against a nuclear armed nation), as apposed to an act against an international terrorist hiding out in a tribal village.
Surely, you can see the difference.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:18 pmTHE US IS GOING DOWN HILL… DOWN HILL… DOWN HILLL.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:30 pmThese people remind me of Hitler during the last days of the German 3rd Reich. There they are, marshalling non-existent troops and allies to defeat their enemy. Well, at least Hitler had a real enemy shooting at him in real time. These guys want to nail the final nail in the US military for their military fantasy while there is ample time to conclude a diplomatic solution. Of course, their whining will ensure that a diplomatic solution will be difficult if not impossible to conclude.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:35 pmPakistan is a country of 150 million people….half as many people as in America.
Half are under 18….half can’t read. ie. Big Dangerous Unstable Powderkeg.
Kagen was/is an ADVISOR to the Bush Administration. How will his comments be received??? in the Sovereign country of Pakistan.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:37 pmThese guys PUBLISHED thoughts are not helpfull .
Bush already gave Pakistan $100,000 in aid to Secure the Nukes.How secure will they be if the Pakistani Army freaks out, and tries to hide them from potential US special forces invaders. Maybe in some safe cave in the tribal areas. Madness!
Comment by DigDug — November 19, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
That’s the heart of the nuclear arms problem. They only way they can possibly be used, without resulting in the utter destruction of those who used them, is during an invasion or, as a means of retaliation.
Personally, I don’t think “terrorists” would be willing to risk the repercussions. Even “terrorists” don’t want their homelands turned into a radioactive waste. And any government would have to be suicidal to supply them to “terrorists”. Especially in the case of Pakistan where they have the means for local devastation but lack the ability to deter us, or other top tier nuclear powers.
I don’t think any government would ever take the risk of supplying them and, even Bin Laden, wouldn’t risk the complete destruction of all he holds dear. I could be wrong. I don’t think nukes are a “non-issue”. But, realistically, I don’t think even the most insane guerrillas will ever use one. ‘Nuclear blackmail” may be a more realistic scenario but, there again, I don’t think a terrorist organization would take the risk.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:42 pmNov. 5, ‘07:
“On Monday, President George W. Bush urged Musharraf to hold elections and give up his army post, though he gave little indication of any real change in American policy, which has bankrolled Pakistan’s military with $10 billion in aid since 2001.”
10 billion…that we know of. Of course, what’s that, about two months in Iraq? Peanuts.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:44 pmZimzone; a correction:
Tweedle pee and Tweedle poo. (:-D)
November 19th, 2007 at 4:47 pmWell done, Uncle Ho!
I’m in frequent need of correction, but all I get nowadays is coercion!
November 19th, 2007 at 4:51 pmmary; the devil made me do it. (:-D)
November 19th, 2007 at 4:52 pmSo Kagan and O’Hanlon actually believe that the US can get Pakistan to cooperate in removing it’s nukes from it’s soil
And what do they propose the Pakistanis will use to counteract India’s nukes, tiddlywinks?
Seriously, that corner these lunatic neocon chickenhawks keep painting themselves in gets tighter & tighter by the second
Oh well, maybe knowing their vile, bloodthirsty views do NOT represent the political, social and religious mainstream in this country causes assclowns like O’Hanlon & Kagan to so consistently show their rabid hatred of those liberally-biased things called “facts”, as in “what troops are going to be used for this mission?”
These wingnuts time in power grows shorter, while their easily-debunked rhetoric grows more unhinged by the day
November 19th, 2007 at 4:59 pmInvade another country.
Such a good idea.
November 19th, 2007 at 5:25 pmSomeone doesn’t seem to have read the column which is the topic of this thread. The idiots pictured above want to take charge of Pakistan’s nuclear material. They’re nuts.
November 19th, 2007 at 5:38 pmWere these two abused as childred?
Do you think the NYT runs these op-eds to simply discredit the AEI–you know like having a circus freek show?
November 19th, 2007 at 5:38 pmComment by Southern Man — November 19, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
Um. “TP’s post” is a reference to a NYT op-ed. I think most people would agree that the leading paper in the U.S. is worthy of notice.
November 19th, 2007 at 5:39 pmIt was posted here a few months ago that it was a matter of days before we were to bomb and invade Iran. So now I’m supposed to believe the sources from TP that say we are going after Pakistan.
Comment by Southern Man
Where in the TP article does it say we ARE going to bomb Pakistan? It’s just highlighting a couple right-wing nutjobs that want us too.
November 19th, 2007 at 5:40 pmTP did not say we were going after Pakistan. Kagan and O’Hanlon are ADVOCATING a preemptive military action in Pakistan. Even if this course of action is viewed by our Military as CRAZY and Impossible, the threat by a Bush Advisor is throwing gasoline on an unstable dangerous situation in Pakistan. I worry more about the Pakistani peoples reaction to this inflammatory rhetoric.
November 19th, 2007 at 5:40 pmI think these two have been sodomizing each other so often and so severely that they have become delirious.
Don’t forget their track record = just awful.
November 19th, 2007 at 6:05 pmComment by Southern Man
By the way Southern Man, before you start posting on this thread you might want to go clean up your mess on the Novak thread. There are a number people calling you a liar for claiming that 75% of your income goes to taxes.
So you may want to run on over there and explain yourself a little better.
It’s like your mom always tells you: clean up one mess before you start making another.
November 19th, 2007 at 6:14 pm“There are a number people calling you a liar for claiming that 75% of your income goes to taxes.”
Don’t state lotteries tickets count as taxes if the proceeds go to fund schools?…..lol
November 19th, 2007 at 6:26 pmMorons! Blood thirsty as*licking morons! Is there any country these chickenhawks don’t want to bomb? Let’s start there.
November 19th, 2007 at 6:43 pmthese guys are seriously F***** UP!….talk about lunacy.
November 19th, 2007 at 6:48 pmSouthern man…….you state that TP posted a thread say the US was getting ready to bomb Iran…this was about the same time that those 6 nukes were flown over the country.coinsidence?..I think not….Now as for Iran……did you stop and think that they lost the surprise when the public found out about their plans……and when they saw the publics reaction to this plan….they back away.This admin would like nothing more than to start another war.
November 19th, 2007 at 6:54 pmFreddy Kagan, another pudgy pundit itching to send someone else to fight.
November 19th, 2007 at 7:00 pmThey still haven’t gone to war with Iran.
Comment by Southern Man — November 19, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
Three reasons why no bombing Iran by the US
1 - exposed in public by Progressives, Real Libertarians, Seymour Hersh
2 - No more money. China is telling it’s citizens to sell anything based on the dollar cheap
3 - Russia
November 19th, 2007 at 7:07 pmComment by Brain From Planet Arous — November 19, 2007 @ 7:07 pm
4 - Fear of being torn to bloody bits by an angry mob.
November 19th, 2007 at 7:11 pmIraq escalation architect Frederick Kagan of AEI and Brookings analyst Michael O’Hanlon
But, who will tell the American public about these completely useless, scumbag, un-American phu(ks?
November 19th, 2007 at 7:17 pmmoron (s)
November 19th, 2007 at 7:20 pmwouldn’t musharraf,being a military leader, already have his nukes well guarded anyway? - and well hidden away from potential theiving pricks? - i mean,these are not the sort of things you leave lying around.
November 19th, 2007 at 8:08 pmleave it to SM to give southerners a bad name. please, SM, stop making the south look like retardo-land with your idiotic knee-jerk responses. have that looked at.
November 19th, 2007 at 8:29 pmIts time to send the entire Kagan KKKlan and see how their bloodlust holds up in realtime action.
November 19th, 2007 at 9:11 pmLet’s bomb everybody in the world. Kill them all. If you extend the neocon agenda to its ultimate extreme, you see just how insane they are.
Could any of our elected officials point this out? No, they can’t add two and two. They are led, hook, line, and sinker, by every media powerhouse. If any of their staffs are reading this, please THIMK. Ever seen that before? Doubtful. Please listen to the voters. Don’t we count?
November 19th, 2007 at 11:04 pmI think Sen. Biden in Philadelphia had a sound, pragmatic view of what the policy regarding Pakistan should be. It has been nicely summed by by David Corn here: http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/ davidcorn/ 2007/ 11/ biden-makes-bush-look-bad-on-p.html
Beware the false choices!!
November 19th, 2007 at 11:30 pm4 - Fear of being torn to bloody bits by an angry mob.
Comment by pete — November 19, 2007 @ 7:11 pm
And that’s just the Repukes running for office in 2008, not even counting the rest of the country and world.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:35 pmFOOLS !!
∞
November 20th, 2007 at 2:35 am“No matter the consequences, the military option is always on the table for O’Hanlon and Kagan.”
November 20th, 2007 at 2:43 amWould that be the table in Kagan’s mother’s basement?
To these two propagandists, “Pakistan is the next big test” means “Pakistan is the next big country we are going to screw up”
November 20th, 2007 at 4:46 pmBootlicking, asskissing, chickenshit, chickenhawk, warmongering, cowards talking sh*t again. What a super pile of dung.
November 22nd, 2007 at 2:23 pm