Rachel Maddow Schools Noah Oppenheim
Attention liberals and progressives: This is how you shut down Republican foreign policy talking points. During the "Face Off" segment on "Race for the White House" today, Rachel absolutely eviscerated every pre-packaged argument Noah Oppenheim had to offer about McCain's supposed strong suit.
Download | play 
Download | play
Here is just a small taste of the smackdown:
Maddow: "Noah, when it gets down to concrete issues, and when it gets down to making a judgment call, I think if people are looking at Bush and McCain in deciding to go after Osama bin Laden by invading and occupying for five years a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 -- or -- actually going after Osama bin Laden where he is, probably in Pakistan, I think people will probably go with the latter judgment.
Oppenheim: "Are you suggesting an invasion of Pakistan?"
Maddow: "He hasn't said he would invade Pakistan. He said he would go after Osama bin Laden where he is instead of outsourcing the fight against al Qaeda to General Musharraf who happily took our billions of dollars worth military aid and then gave al Qaeda and the Taliban safe haven in the tribal regions. So go after bin Laden or fight Iraq? I'd take the former."
Ouch. Remember when President Bush said this in his 2004 State of the Union address?:
"America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country. "
The same people who defended President Bush and attacked Senator Kerry back then are now attacking Senator Obama for stating that, as President, his policy will be to pursue Osama bin Laden wherever he is, even if that means we have to go into Pakistan against Musharraf's wishes. How is that possibly a controversial concept? Are these right-wingers really arguing that we need a "permission slip" in order to hunt down the man responsible for 3000+ Americans?
Thank the media gods for Rachel Maddow.
My jaw dropped yesterday as I watched her eat him for lunch with complete ease. Oppenheim and his ilk are just spinning out of control. They don't know better than to trot that stuff out when they're up against Rachel? How stupid can they get?
you go girl. when will she get her own show?
Is the left now getting even more arrogant than the right in ignoring international law when hunting down terrorists?
Are we saying screw Pakistan now? Or is it just better compared to what's being done now in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Amen!!!
Rachel is da bomb!!
I say Rachel runs for Pelosi's seat this fall!!
Wow that was a pretty bad beating
Its about time liberals stopped letting these neoconderthals bully everyone around with no challenges. Rachel is brilliant and my opinion is that Obama should make her his press secretary. McCains argument is false. He claims that just because he was in the military and was a POW that he is capable of making sound decisions. His record shows anything but that capability. When the debates begin, the race will end as soon as McCain starts talking.
Now THAT was good! And kudos to John Harwood for backing her up. Now if only the democrats in congress would grow a spine.
Ah yes, after watching the vid it's getting clearer that even Obama will run as 'not Bush' on many issues.
Enjoy voting for the least bad choice.
i watch/listen to r. maddow simply because she is passionate,prepared and articulate. she has an understanding of the linguistic framing and political gaming. she will even get better with time.
there is a pro oil drilling expose on cnn right now that uses terrorism and all the fireworks of fear..it's our salvation from chaos.
"we were warned, we are out of gas"...i love how these little scare faux docudramas dramas paint our leadership as altruistic.
My first thought is always, why would anybody listen to someone who supported Bush, anyway?
They have absolutely no credibility.
Rachael missed a good opportunity, when he talked about Obama saying he would strike in Afghanistan.
Bush has done exactly that, several times, since Obama made that comment.
How about the name of her show be called "Smackdown with Rachel Maddow"?
Nikola @ 3:
Sorry, but I'm with Obama on this one. I think ANY country has the right to launch a strategic military strike into any country to kill a person that killed a few thousand of its people. Especially when the host country (Pakistan) is not cooperating. Obama has NEVER said he would invade Pakistan with a large military force. He does reserve the right to have a Special Ops force or military stroke from the air.
Nikola @ 8:
I, for one, will relish it.
Nikola @ 3:
Yeah, that's what I got out of it too. Invading Pakistan to find OBL when Pakistan wasn't involved in 9/11 battle plans won't fly. If we did though, we could blame Bush for setting the preceident that it was OK.
She's good, but she needs to do someting with her hair: Long and blond like the babes on Fox.
Is MSNBC taking up Faux's tactics? I don't know how they "Photoshopped" Noah in real time, but his face is obviously far too big for his head.
Most notably, perhaps, is that his mouth is much bigger than his cranium.
Without watching this clip (I'm sure Maddow explained reality to this boy) I can only wonder where right wing ideologues find their strength in peddling fantasy.
Surely being told you dont have a clue and then continuing this charade daily would drive anyone over the edge. How they can rinse and repeat is beyond comprehension
"Bring it on" neo con wingnuts.
The left is building the best defense system yet, beginning with Rachel Maddow.
Mister Anderson @ 13:
Wow. Just wow.
maybe there is more money in the works for pakistan
http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/index.php?sid=382836
She doesn't need a TV show, she needs to run for President! Go Rachel GO!!!!
Nikola @ 3:
Can you refer me to the moment where the UN objected to the US invasion of Afghanistan? It didn't happen because our objective was clear. Liberals aren't saying screw Pakistan for the same reasons Republicans said screw Iraq...let that be quite plain.
this administration is so hypocritical, like the bush administration would go after Osoma bin laden where ever he lives.... yea right
so instead of going after a man who helped master mind a attack on American soil the bush republicans would rather let osoma bin laded go...
remember this little line, bush said once ( oh i don't know where he is and i don't really think about him that much) if not a direct quote it is pretty close to the gist of his comment made by the man who should be hunting that man and his party leaders.
but the Taliban do live on, intentionally? i don't know but osoma bin laden dose live on and they are growing stronger thanks a lot to our republicans, and our country is going bankrupt now
the Taliban must have studied Ronald Regan economics the Taliban is not as dumb as bush would have us believe, and if bush believes that they are, well what dose that say about bush and his clones?.
MR Obamma has a idea how to handle this mess that the neo republicans put us in and i am dam sure going to vote for him.
and Rachel! you go girl i have heard you speak on the radio and you are defiantly a smart woman and you have your facts straight.
hard to argue fiction against facts that is why the republicans look so weak against you ... truth prevails when lies are brought to light i prey the lord helps us all see the truth not the fiction bush and co liars have been stuffing down our throats for way too long
Floyd McLaughlin Seattle Washington
On a side note...I wonder what would happen if Rachel Maddow ended up on a show like O'Reilly or Limbaugh?
13 Mister Anderson Says
That sounds good on the surface
But what if other countries followed suit?
China's been blaming violence surrounding the Olympics being held in China to Tawainese interests.
Using your rationale they could perform military strikes against Taiwan.
And it was basically the rationale a year or two back when Israel attacked the Palestinians.
Look, there is an ironclad political double standard for logical cogency. Bu'ushists can simply claim anything they wish absent any requisite consistency or coherence. They are permitted to dance between the deductive raindrops like Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly without so much as getting hit by a microgram of moisture. "Liberals," OTOH, are required to present 20 volume peer-reviewed, heavily-footnoted tomes in support of the most minor point.
I love Rachel Maddow, I'd follow her anywhere.
Rachel is great. I really loved watching the show. She really had him dumb founded. They will have to get there early to get one up on Rachel. I am willing the bet this white house is shitting in their pants now that Iraq agrees with Obama's time table to leave. All of the republican spin makes them look dumb, dumber and so on. It is so embarrassing the way the republicans are acting. I have been praying that Obama does well on his trip because the republicans and Mcflipper are ready to bounce. They just can't take it.
I LOVE this woman. How refreshing, to have someone actually CUT THROUGH THE BULLSHIT and bring reality to the conversation.
Just too many holes in this idiot's arguments, and too many holes in ANY repug/fascist/neocon mcAncient supporter's arguments.
It's nice to have someone bring logic and clarity to the conversation. This dope looked like a real clown in his attempt to make any sort of point.
Eat 'em alive Rachel!! You are wonderful, and "just what the doctor ordered" for this cancer in our media and our country.
jjasonham @ 22:
Explain the reasons, please.
jjasonham @ 24:
simple never allowed to complete a sentence....never
allowed to frame an idea....that's many won't go on
defeated before you step in the ring
So Rachel Maddows is good at playing schoolmarm
But
Has she ever played doctor?
ysbaddaden @ 25:
Yes, but China is evil, while the inherently good US of A can do anything.
This is really sad.
jjasonham @ 24:
She would be drowned out by shouting or her mike cut.
Southern Yankee @ 28:
The two salient, fully encapsulating words (if unintended in separation from the one meaning 'flummoxed'): "dumb founded"
Poor guy, never had a chance.
ysbaddaden @ 32:
Gynecologist?
;)
i just think it's interesting that obama is expected to be
"concrete" and absolute on matters that are changing
daily... months before he will be in office. some of this is boxing in strategy.......the (R) loves this strategy.
you can see they want very much to reduce this trip
abroad to that "rock star" frame.....he must avoid that
at all cost....
teehee... Truth smacks down lies every time...
Wonder what flavor the KoolAide will be next week?
NeoCons are SO predictable...
I saw this last nite and was so impressed by Rachel. She knocked Noah flat on his ass and made him like it. See certainly deserves her on show.
samsuncle @ 40:
It's been said that she is on the very short list.
When the guy chuckles he's done. It is like when a boxer is hurt during a fight he begins to smirk at his oppenent and then he gets knock out shortly after that.
Nikola @ 30:
Sigh. Remember that event that set this all in motion? 9/11, I believe it was? Osama Bin Laden was determined to be the mastermind of that event. It was a criminal act of terrorism toward the US and tracking Bin Laden down for prosecution was more than enough reason to start a war in Afghanistan. Many people knew Saddam and Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and the whole WMD reasoning was false. Iraq is the perfect example of shitting on international law in the name of terrorism, which is why the UN was in an uproar, and we never had their full blessing. If intelligence came out that Pakistan was harboring Osama or nurturing Al Qaeda, AND Pakistan did all it could to prevent the US from tracking them down, then an invasion would be justified. That's logical. It's not just some random rally cry like Iran.
Phylter @ 12:
PERFECT!!
She is the intellectual equivalent of the heavy weight champion of the world.
ysbaddaden @ 25:
Uh oh, here goes the Far Left's version of the "domino effect" again.....
What other living person in the world is as dangerous as Osama Bin Laden and is responsible for as much death and destruction than him other than the government of Sudan? Your China-Taiwan analogy doesn't carry any water. At BEST, it can only be compared to the Palestine-Israel conflict. And that's a issue between two nations, neither of which pose a threat to the world regardless of what Bush says. Osama Bin Laden is a global threat and has been for some time. Because he has killed and will kill, we are justified in killng or capturing him where ever he hides.
As far as I'm concerned, EVERY nation has the right to strategically hunt him down and kill and capture him regardless of where he hides. If Bin Laden was staying in some 1BR apartment in some dense urban environment, I would not support Obama launching some military airstrike where there could be a large amount of civilian casualties to kill one person. But the guy is living in a sparsely populated area in a very remote region of Pakistan. The only people that would be killed are Al-Qaeda and Taliban members along with the Pakistani tribesmen who are knowingly hiding him.
My rational is based on common sense. I would rather have the precedent that you can kill and capture the likes of Osama Bin Laden no matter where they hide, instead of saying to any future would-be Bin Ladens that life is one big game and you can do whatever you want and no one can touch you if you cross a certain line that is regarded as out of bounds. It's like some guy breaking in your house and killing your family and being told by law enforcement that they know he's hiding in South America but they can't go and bring him to justice because some government officials within a South American nation are not cooperating and won't extradite the guy. You're going to just sit at home and take that crap if you have the opportunity to bring the guy to justice yourself?
I'm as anti-war as anybody, but even I know that Far Left kumbya crap only goes so far.
I LOVE this woman. She is so intellegent, well informed and well-spoken that the opposing side can't even keep up w/her....and therefore, look like the babbling idiots that they are (NOAH). It's because of HER that i've started watching Countdown again. Thanks, Rachel!
Sorry, I think you're seeing/hearing what you hope she said. In my opinion SHE was the one who got schooled for about 80% of this debate. He was right on on Obama's lack of specifics, war-mongering talk re. Pakistan, and the biggest point of all--people are projecting their HOPES of what Obama would/could be, rather than what he actually is.
Obama isn't even close to a real Progressive. He's pro-nuke, pro-coal, pro-bomb Pakistan, pro-increase the military, pro-Patriot Act, pro-Iraq war funding, pro-Lieberman, pro-FISA, anti-Alito/Roberts filibuster, pro-Reagan/Rumsfeld, pro-ethanol. On and on...
Noah Oppenheim has recently popped to the top of my "You Suck" list. I prefer Pat Buchanan, which is *really* saying something. Where'd they get that smug prick?
personally i find it very difficult to figure out what the policy is for the u.s. in afghanistan.....it appears to me
to be occupation/permanent bases why resources/caspian sea and some say encircling of china...here's an opinion
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&It...
Jim @ 47:
I think you are seeing/hearing what you want to see/hear and what right wing pundits want you to see/hear.
"Are these right-wingers really arguing that we need a “permission slip” in order to hunt down the man responsible for 3000+ Americans?"
What do you mean hunt down? We know where he is, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue!
Oh, wait...you said the man responsible for the deaths of 3000+ Americans not the one responsible for the deaths of 4000+ Americans. Nevermind.
Have we learned nothing from the tangle that is Iraq? One does not disenfranchise a people in their own land without inviting consequence to one's self in one's own land. Our support of a tyranny in Saudi Arabia generated the events of 9.11. Our retribution endeavor in Afghanistan has only served the interests of narco-warlords. Iraq is currently experiencing the calm before the storm, though the price of our aggression and occupation for oil will generate consequences for generations. All of this choices were made in complete disregard for the people of the nations involved. There is no more absurd and ungracious notion than 'acceptable collateral damage'. though it seems, sadly, to be the only concept that the United States has successfully demonstrated to the rest of the world. Our mistake has been to empower and support the tyrant Musharraf. It would compound all of these errors to further disenfranchise the people of Pakistan by ignoring them with cries of 'acceptable collateral damage' in the pursuit of revenge and retribution. Revenge and retribution are ungracious choices that serve no one. Choose them and understand that we invite more instructive consequences. We might choose more carefully. As smart as Rachel is, I hope she does not lose sight of what we might have learned from the last 30 years. The same might be said of Obama.
jjasonham @ 43:
First of all, what does "preventing the US from tracking them down" mean? You have to let US special forces into your country so they can deal with the people they want? What if Pakistan says no? What if they say that their own mechanisms are doing everything possible to find Bin Laden and are not trying to prevent the US?
Is that justification for another bomb run?
And the situation is far from that, I though Pakistan was an "ally" in the war on terror.
Some countries just want to, you know, protect their sovereignty and not let just any military force dole out justice on their own. But since when does the US care about sovereignty...
Remember:
Right-wing, trailer trash, idiots have been running this country for the last eight years. Karl Rove's Koolaide "Twilight Zone" reality has been on the MSM, spewing out it's false religion and the 28% continue to lap it up and ask for more. The rest of the country gets it now. November will see a giant tidal wave of blue sweep over this nation and flush the ugly chickenhawks down the toilet for good.
Come back in another 20 years.
45 Mister Anderson
No, pragmatism you remember how soon after boosh invaded Iraq, with the "War on Terror," people like Putin, and even tin-pot dictators in peripheral states were committing abuses in the name of their own, "War on Terror?"
And my only domino effect
Is flatulence
I hate those nasty pizzas.
I'm more for intelligence and the use of commandos than military strikes.
Hooray! I was wondering when we'd invade another country. It's been like what 5 years? The American people are getting bored over here. We need some cool CNN graphics with tanks and shit again. On to Pakistan!!!!!
Ruthless People @ 51:
Nice:P
Rachel is swell - very bright, very well prepared and very articulate.
Osama bin Laden, however, is very dead. How would/could a person with advanced kidney disease survive in the rugged mountains of any ME/SE asisn country for 7 years? Plus, Bhutto said ( in an interview with David Frost, I think) that he was murdered.
All of the videos of "him" in the recent past (but there haven't been too many) were clearly videos of impersonators - unless he had plastic surgery to change all the basic features of his face.
Our "Dear Leaders" work very hard to keep him alive in our hearts and minds so they can keep us afraid - be very afraid.....
"Jim", While I agree that Obama is not a "True Progressive" in many ways. I cannot imagine anyone thinking that Oppenheim was anything less than destroyed by Maddow. She swatted away every phony baloney point he made, and he looked really stupid. The trump card was the part where he was talking about the bomb pakistan stuff, and she noted that Bushco invaded iraq for basically no reason, they had nothing to do with 9/11, and Osama is still at large.
Game, set and match.
“ . . . his policy will be to pursue Osama bin Laden wherever he is, even if that means we have to go into Pakistan against Musharraf’s wishes. How is that possibly a controversial concept?”
I’m with Nikola on this one. SilentPatriot, Maddow and certainly Obama are buying into American exceptionalism as much as the right has done. In much of the rest of the world such unilateral actions – invasions, or worse, bombings – are actually controversial concepts and there are many international laws that prohibit such actions – including the Charter of the UN in which the US still maintains a membership. The US Government and many of its citizens – including the above mentioned – seem to place no value on such agreements unless it suits their purposes. Everybody’s with Bush on this one: “America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country.” So instead of ‘bomb, bomb, bomb Iran’, it’s bombing wedding parties in villages in the tribal areas of Pakistan. Randy Newman was so right when he wrote Political Science back in the early 70s:
No one likes us-I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens
We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us-so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them
That seems to summarize the sophistication of American foreign policy. And apparently there is no respite from it, no matter who gets elected.
Nikola @ 3:
Nikola
Extremely well said. What many progressives do not seem to realize [or if they do, they do not seem to care] is that the neoliberal policies of Obama are just as pernicious as those of their neoconservative colleagues. As you correctly note, it does not seem to matter to many Americans if the United States flouts international law since American Exceptionalism remains paramount to their beliefs. I basically heard this same argument during the Vietnam conflict when JFK sent "advisers" to help the Vietnamese and LBJ needed to prop up the corrupt Ky regime for humanitarian reasons. If the U.S. were to bomb and invade Pakistan, it would be just as illegal as when the United States illegally bombed and invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama's reasons to invade Pakistan and to send more troops into Afghanistan may seem more palatable than that of Bush and McCain but it is still just as wrong as well as being viewed as war crimes against those unfortunate countries.
Military strikes require some kind of authorization, especially when they start to run long.
Better to send hardened professionals with professional pride.
If conditions aren't to their favor, they melt away only to strike when it is.
This is far better than sending some kids from places
Like Gooberville Texas.
Mister Anderson @ 13:
Do you really mean "ANY" country? Does that mean Iraq has the right to dispatch hit squads to the US to eliminate our leaders responsible for the aggression that killed thousands and thousands of their people?
obama's itinerary....on a map
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/19/barackobama.uselections20081
The real reason Bush doesn't think about OBL.
http://complete911timeline.org/entity.jsp?entity=unocal
I love Rachel!!!! She's the best!!! She's getting her own show soon - Yippee!!!!
constituent @ 64:
We can get the details of the dates and exact locations from mcCains blog.
ysbaddaden @ 55:
For that to ring true then you would have to believe that Obama is like Bush. And judging my Bush's latest actions in regards to North Korea and Iran, then Bush is no longer like Bush. You can't make this broad argument that because one man doing a thousand wrong things in a certain situation or issue should prevent one man from doing a thousand right things in a certain situation or issue. Just like you can't argue that Osama Bin Laden is the exception to all of our rules and regulations in regards to our invisible lines that act as our borders.
ysbaddaden @ 55:
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Admit it, Ysby, you are all about that "Far Left kumbaya crap."
Oh man, Saturday morning...
Rachel always exposes their weak rhetoric as the idiocy that it is. Why she doesn't have her own show is beyond me.
Rachael: What would you call that, Noah?
*crickets*
Noah: uh... do I have to answer that? Are we still on the air?
Plac Ebo @ 63:
Plac Ebo
Good point. Unfortunately, that sensible example would not probably occur to most Americans, as they most likely believe that the only interests that count are those of the United States.
Plac Ebo @ 63:
The problem with Iraq is that they didn't have the means to retaliate which is why we could push our way in there, do what we want, without the threat of any consequence to our homeland. We know a nation like Iran does have the means to retaliate and inflict severe consequence on the United States which is why military action against them is a last resort to the wise. We know that China is every bit military capable to strike us as we are to strike them, which is why we ignore all of their human rights abuses and their role in the genocide in Darfur.
I know I'm in the minority, but I understand why nations like Iran and North Korea want a nuclear weapon. I don't believe for a second that they actually intend to use it without being provoked because they understand the concept of "mutually assured destruction." They only want one so they get the respect of China on the world stage instead of getting the respect of Iraq. Objectively speaking, if Iraq was a whale instead of a gold fish, then they could and would reserve the right to cause as much harm to the US as the US as caused to them. But they aren't, so they won't.
permanent bases agreement signed 2005 with afghan.
taliban is no longer weak....if that indeed was the mission
we missed our opportunity..now will be making deals to
protect pipelines
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&It...
I don't understand why, when Oppenheim says Obama will "bomb Pakistan" the moderator or others involved don't ask exactly what he means by that. Is he saying Obama would arbitrarily "bomb" all of Pakistan? The major cities? The mountain regions?
Maddow asks a straight forward question relating to Hellfire Missiles and he tries to dodge the obvious answer by saying we "have permission," as if Obama would start bombing without any regard for the Pakistani government or even a strategy. (I also wonder how McCain would respond if asked how he would deal our military locating Osama Bin Laden and if he would "bomb Pakistan" whether they grant permission or not.)
This is nothing more than the standard misdirection we see on a daily basis from the right wing and it's hard to believe most Americans will continue to buy into it.
Gotta love Oppenheim's closing (~6:48): "sending Hellfire missles into the tribal regions with the permission of the Pakistani military and intelligence services" ... the bogosity meter peaks yet again, GOPher:
Having requested the Pakistani government's official permission for such strikes on previous occasions, only to be put off or turned down, this time the U.S. spy agency did not seek approval. The government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was notified only as the operation was underway, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities. -- http://tinyurl.com/5q8rtj
The Right Wing method for appearing on cable news shows: interrupt, fillibuster, rudely try to dominate the air time, even when the host is directing questions at another guest. It certainly didn't work here. Oppenheim was owned.
Leadership @ 4:
Not only would Maddow put impeachment on the table she would drag Bush by his gonads out of the Oval Office to the table.
Nikola @ 53:
"Preventing the US from tracking" down terrorists doesn't necessarily mean standing in the way physically standing at the border and blocking any one from coming in. It can be indirect as well. Pakistan is our ally. It could easily work with the US militarily around the border. Having a US presence there to hunt down international terrorists in my mind is not violating the sovereignty. In fact, having a Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other militants growing within their borders is a direct threat to the sovereignty of Pakistan, yet their own troops and forces are having trouble squashing this threat. We know what terrorist organizations' motives are. We know what can happen if they're left unchecked. Why do you think that everyone blames Iraq for the movement of Al Qaeda to Pakistan? If we had focused our resources on Afghanistan, we definitely would have dismantled much of Al Qaeda's growth. Hindsight would tell us to nip them in the bud as quickly as possible, and the rate at which that's happening now in Pakistan is minimal at best.
Furthermore, why do you keep alluding to the fact that Obama just wants to bomb the hell out of Pakistan if he doesn't get what he wants? The "bombing" part of the equation came in when McCain referenced Obama's speech in one of his own speeches. To quote Obama:
"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. 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. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will....
I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America. This requires a broader set of capabilities, as outlined in the Army and Marine Corps’s new counter-insurgency manual. I will ensure that our military becomes more stealth, agile, and lethal in its ability to capture or kill terrorists. We need to recruit, train, and equip our armed forces to better target terrorists, and to help foreign militaries to do the same."
To me that describes more of a Special-Ops style operation.
Pelosi had the nerve to show up at Netroots Nation without a bag over her head. Still, Al Gore showed up and upstaged her.
The most damage to the guy's argument occured when Rachael stated McCain's statement's about how easy this war will proceed. Right then and there Rachael basically said McCain's judgement and experience are not all that good.
Rachel Maddow rocks! The woman knows her shit!
Mister Anderson @ 73:
Just so I understand, your position is that: ANY country has the right to launch a strategic military strike into any country to kill a person that killed a few thousand of its people, as long as the target country isn't strong enough to retaliate. Is that correct?
I understand a lot of what you're saying. It's the justifications- where does it end? It's still a "might makes right" world? Regarding the planet's future, it's easy for me to be a pessimist.
If I opened a chain of pizzerias
With whip-wielding, leather-clad waitresses
And called it Dominas
Would Domino sue me?
(I'd like to see how many complaints from patrons would they get that their orders were taken wrong.)
Woolley @ 6:
they will have to wake him first
jjasonham @ 79:
Bomb or special-ops, it's still intrusion on a nation's sovereignty. Perhaps I misunderstand, but Obama would do it even if Musharraf says no. The best you can say about a sentiment like that is that it's less bad than practicing nation-building in Iraq.
Plac Ebo Says: "Just so I understand, your position is that: ANY country has the right to launch a strategic military strike into any country to kill a person that killed a few thousand of its people, as long as the target country isn’t strong enough to retaliate. Is that correct?"
I don't think what you're suggesting pertains to "ANY country" or even "any country," but I do think that if a terrorist organization attacks any sovereign nation, killing thousands, then hides out in another country...and we know where they are...that country should be prepared to turn them over or get the fuck out of the way.
Every time I hear people touting McCain's "experience" I'm reminded of the fact that the man graduated 694 out of 699 in his class, crashed at least 4 planes, then spent the majority of his time during the Vietnam War in captivity.
Based on this criteria, we need to find a fairly dumb convict who isn't much of a pilot and elect he or she as President.
Dalton - I was responding to claims made by "Mister Anderson." You need to ask him what he means.
Maddow is tha shiznits ....
RancidVenison @ 16:
Nope - he looks like your average neocon Republican - his big mouth writes checks that his sorry A$$ can't cash...
Dalton @ 87:
Apparently only when the US wants something. (accused) war criminals are often hiding in plain sight, be it in Serbia, Moscow or a neutral country through asylum. Does that mean we can all invade and send our special ops teams to capture them without going through legal means? Even if frustrated with the obvious lack of political will in such country to do something? No, we can't.
Only the US.
Plac Ebo @ 83:
No, that is not correct.
OBL has demonstrated that he is one of a kind in world history (can inflict a serious amount of death and destruction on a global level without being primarily supported and sponsored by any government), he should be killed or captured where ever he stand in my opinion. You're trying to make the larger argument about the use and improper use of military force. Historically speaking, guys like Osama Bin Laden were a law enforcement problem. Because he is capable of inflicting such massive harm on a global scale, he has risen to a military problem force wise. If Al Qaeda as a organization is defeated, I personally don't believe another like organization will rise up to take their place as a global threat even though their will always be terrorists and terrorism. A guy blowing up a car in a crowded area is one thing. A guy knocking down skyscrapers, attacking the pentagon, and possibly hitting the White House or Capitol (United 93) all in the same day is a different kind of monster and should be treated as such.
I'm not taking the bait of trying to compare and contrast apples to oranges in your arguments.
Osama Bin Laden should be killed or captured where ever he stands by any person, any group, or any nation that has a opportunity to kill or capture him on behalf of the world. If the United States can succeed where Pakistan has largely failed, Obama shouldn't hesitate to pull the trigger.
Now, on your secondary argument about whether or not Iraq coulda, woulda, shoulda attacked the United States for Bush invading them.......my answer is YES because they were a sovereign nation and we unjustly invaded them. I personally don't have a problem with the people of Iraq feeling that it's okay to kill those they see as invaders and occupiers....even if it is American troops because American troops should not be there in the first place. My secondary argument is that Bush wouldn't have pulled that stunt against a nation that could properly defend itself and retaliate.
The right to defend yourself and use the threat to inflict severe consequences on those who wish to harm you all the same should NEVER end. Bush was a idiot who invaded a nation without cause. It happened, we need to work ourselves out of it, and it should NEVER happen again and probably will not in terms of the US. I support the death penalty. I know the primary argument against it is that our legal system is so flawed that sometimes a innocent person can be killed. Even though that is true, that doesn't mean the death penalty should not be used in a case where we know with 100% certainty the defendant is guilty of the crimes charged. Likewise, just because Bush abused his power and invaded a weaker nation does not mean that there are not cases where military force is not only justified, but it may be required.
Military force should ALWAYS be the last option. But it should always remain a option. It's up to the President of the United States to determine which cases require military force and which do not, and it's up to Congress to double check his or her work prior to giving him/her the go ahead. And it's up to the American people to double check both and hold accountable any politician that gets it wrong on when and where to use military force. I agree, you can't invade Iran just because you think they have a nuclear weapon. I do agree that you can hunt down and kill OBL for his past crimes against humanity.
Dependent upon the gender, of course
I'm more into kumenya than kumbaya.
Nikola @ 86:
Whatever you say. I'm not trying to change your mind. If you see this as a potential for nation-building exercise in Pakistan, then by all means...that's your belief. I don't see it that way. You're projecting the current administrations motivations for action onto an Obama administration. I don't see what America has to gain from Pakistan by going after militant terrorist groups in their country. There is no false pretense about that. There is no fudging of intelligence there. Have a great saturday people!
Mister Anderson @ 93:
Shallow arguments. In haste and frustration I'd even call them idiotic and hypocritical.
You either have international law and respect it, or you don't. You can't call upon it when it suits you and ignore it when it doesn't.
jjasonham @ 95:
What? Apparently you don't understand me at all. I don't see it as a nation-building effort for Pakistan, neither could the US do it if it wanted to. I'm saying just because it isn't exactly as bad as the things this administration has done, that doesn't make it alright.
I absolutely love her!!!
bin Laden is the best thing that ever happened to the Republican party. After all, it's not as though he blew up buildings in Houston, Tx.
why on earth would they kill their golden goose?
Nikola @ 3:
listen to the paid troll now!
flippity floppity!
4 Leadership Says: Amen!!!
Rachel is da bomb!!
Does that mean we should drop her on Pakistan?
alzuben @ 100:
Yet another discussion I'm labeled a repub troll. People here can be so disgustingly disappointing...
ysbaddaden @ 101:
perhaps we should fire you out of a cannon?
Nikola @ 102:
perhaps you shouldn't behave like one...or reflect their idiotic arguments.
were we wrong or arrogant for attacking Afghanistan? I don't think anybody in the world...except the Taliban would agree with you.
When I think you are accusing anybody of being as arrogant as the current administration, you should check your propaganda at the door.
Mister Anderson - what Nikola said:
Nikola @ 96:
Plac Ebo @ 105:
so then, it's your contention that Pakistan is observing international law by sheltering a wanted criminal and terrorist training operations within it's boarders?
are you now also claiming we violated international law when we invaded Afghanistan?
I would love to hear this argument! =)
jjasonham @ 95:
LOL -
How are you going to rebuild the nation of Pakistan by launching a missile in a remote, largely unpopulated, area that even the Pakistani government does not control???? What, we will have to send the best and brightest landscapers over there to replace that divot? Obama has never implied or uttered the word invasion.
Sending in Delta Force or launching a missile from a Predator Drone does not constitute and invasion. It sure in the hell won't bring down the government anymore than Mexico launching a missile in the Arizona desert would bring down the United States government.
I'm not projecting anything. OBAMA's position has been for some time is that if he ever receives any ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE on the whereabouts of OBL, he will not hesitate to strike and kill him. He said it. I didn't. But I do agree with him.
The current administration does not agree with Obama being that they have largely decreased their efforts to kill or capture OBL. Obama is to the right of Bush on this issue.
I think this might actually be a debatable issue. When you win elections by assassination, you're hanging on by a thread....just the same as if you steal an election through fraud.
I think you're wrong on this Nikola although I do respect your opinion. What is going on in Afghanistan bears little relationship with what is happening in Iraq. That is why it has the support of NATO. As long as the Pakistanis are providing a safe haven for both the Taliban, various other extremists and Al Qaeda, all of whom have their own agendas there will be little prospect of restoring some sort of representational government to this area. Musharraf bought domestic peace at the expense of his neighbors and unless you can offer some realistic plan for dealing with that situation diplomatically I think some application of force will be required.
alzuben @ 106:
First, we had UN approval and international support to invade Afghanistan. We still do.
Second, legally speaking, Pakistan has every right to harbor OBL. I believe the United States and every other nation in the world reserves the right to kill or capture OBL where ever he stands if given the opportunity whether it breaks international law or not. In this particular case, which is why the Far Left is the Far Left and not in the middle because you guys and gals would actually like to give rights to OBL who has confessed his guilt unlike most detainees at Gitmo, I know the the rest of the world will forgive our action and understand our position.
If they don't, oh well. The same world that is gathering in China (human rights abuser, enabler of the Darfur genocide) to celebrate the Olympics doesn't have the moral authority to judge us on killing OBL within Pakistani borders.
Like I said, that Far Left kumbya stuff has its limits. The real world isn't black and white, right and wrong, legal and illegal. Barack understands that perfectly which is why I support him being that he is willing to break eggs, but he's only going to break eggs to feed the hungry and not feed the rich like Bush.
OUCH............PWNED!
I'm still waiting to see some evidence that bin Laden had something to do with 9/11. After the events of 9/11, bin Laden said
"I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself."
When the US demanded his extradition from Afghanistan, the Taliban agreed to exttradite him but demanded evidence. The American response was "we don't need to show you any f**king evidence.
A few months later, US soldiers alledgedly find a video tape of Osama bin Laden sitting with some of his financial backers, boasting about the success of the 9/11 operation. That video tape was widely circulated by the media around the world.
And it was almost instantly recognized as con job. It turned out the Osama bin Laden in the video was a look alike, but what gave him away was that this Osama was right handed while the real Osama is left handed.
Once you learn that the prosecution is consciously manufacturing evidence, you've got to conclude that its because they don't have a case.
Let's just say that if I was on the debate team, I'd sure as hell quit if Rachel Maddow wasn't on my team!
alzuben @ 106:
if i remember correctly, bush promised us the proof of bin laden's involvment and then never showed us any. to this day the fbi lists him as the most wanted terrorist, but makes no mention of the 911 attacks(i just double checked this at http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm)
so to all who back the hunt for the evil osama/usama, you're basing this solely on the word of the bush administration and their cronies. why?
the real attackers died in the planes, remember?
Plac Ebo @ 105:
The Far Left exploits law like the Far Right exploits the Bible.
"We can't allow two loving people of the same sex to marry and raise a family with full benefits because the Bible says so."
"We can't kill or capture OBL behind a invisible line because the law says so."
"We can't reduce the amount of illegal handguns on the street of densely populated areas where they are used to kill large numbers of people each year because the Constitution says so"
Life works in REAL TIME. It doesn't stop or stay constant at the point and time a book of laws is written. And they're written by men who have demonstrated throughout history we are not as smart as we think we are. So when the Far Left and Far Right make stupid, ALL OR NOTHING, BLACK OR WHITE, academic arguments to justify their positions against one another......the majority of us situated in the middle suffers.
I know the people on C&L like polls, so please tell me the latest poll results of the American people on breaking international law to kill OBL with a military strike that won't constitute a invasion or long-term occupation? Are you going to follow the will of the people. Or will you follow the law as written years before the concept of a OBL?
Ron @ 34:
Maybe, in say two years, former TV pundit O'Rielly will go on Rachael's show. LOL
Jack Canuck @ 112:
You're basing your case on the fact that Bin Laden is left handed? You might want to check out a few other facts on that. In the middle east the left hand is not one you use for everyday purposes. It is used to wipe your arse and as a consequence most middle easternerns gesticulate with their right hand. Want to issue a mortal insult over there then offer to shake with your left hand. Brother if that is the extent of your case you fail. Oh and by the way Bin Laden has claimed 9/11 as his organization's work on numerous occasions. He has never denied.
I don't agree that Pakistan has the legal right to harbor international criminals.
...and I do believe if captured, OBL deserves rights. You can call me a leftist...but I think everybody has the right to have their side of the story heard in a court of law. I know that is a triviality that most people on the planet would rather ignore. I hardly think that observance of the law makes me a leftie. I hardly think there is anything indecent in treating your worst enemies with a certain measure of decorum. After all, we're not barbarians are we...well at least not all of us.
who says this sort of thing??? Dick Cheney, sociopaths?
that limit seems to be where it bumps up against your bigotry and ignorance.
Dr. Girlfriend @ 114:
as I remember, OBL took responsibility for the Cole bombing...so he should have been Public Enemy No. 1 already.
Bush is a distant Public Enemy No. 2.
I suggest to everyone email MSNBC asking them WHEN are they going to give Rachel Maddow a show. She is by far the best and brightest the media has to offer. And she loves to kick right wing ass!
Peter G @ 117:
the FBI also claims him to be left handed. indeed he has denied it http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/
alzuben @ 104:
The logical dissonance in your head must be deafening.
You obviously missed the millions of people protesting US involvement in a self started as early as 2001.
Afghanistan like Iraq did not attack us, the only salving grace of the US involvement there is that it was not a full straight invasion like we did in Iraq.
The US gave an ultimatum that bypased all known international laws to the Taliban.
The ironic part is that most American seem to miss the part that Al-Quaida used the same logic to attack the US as we have used to attack Afghanistan and Iraq: because they felt threatened and thus fully justify to attack what their perceived their threats.
This is what happens when people with the mentality of an 11-yr old get to be in charge: we all get to jump on board the hand basket to hell.
Dr. Girlfriend @ 122:
one thing is for sure. You don't commit the world's most infamous act of terroism and then deny responsibility for that act.
Dr. Girlfriend @ 114:
What I was always interested is in the paper technology that some middle eastern countries posses. Their passports seem to be able to survive catastrophic events, even when black boxes get pulverized... those Egyptian passports and what not manage to survive. Imagine if that technology fell in the wrong hands!
Mister Anderson @ 115:
Well, if we use your logic we should all be eating shit afterall 1 trillion maggots can't be wrong, and speaking Mandarin since 1 billion Chinese seem to prefer it .
There is a very dangerous path that you are about to embark if you start using popularity contest to justify actions that go against the rule of law. Mob rule is far more rule than outdated laws IMHO.
which logical dissonance is that? the one you haven't demonstrated? It seems my logical dissonance only exists in your imagination.
perhaps I missed them because they were being drowned out by the billions who supported us.
I never said Afghanistan did attack us. But they were harboring OBL...and we had issues with him predating 9-11.
Did we or did we not have UN and majority world approval to invade Afghanistan?
I must have missed the part where Al-Queda made this argument.
and thus, you have effectively demonstrated the arguments of an 11 yo
alzuben @ 119:
oddly enough, the FBI's most wanted page makes no mention of the USS Cole attack either. am i alone in finding this to be odd?
The Dude @ 125:
did any of the other cargo survive from either plane? It seems inexplicable to me that a fire that could melt steel would leave anything but slag.
Dr. Girlfriend @ 128:
yes, I would say that is conspicuously odd. But then, I believe the FBI stopped serving Justice....and the American citizen long ago.
alzuben @ 130:
i agree with that sentiment. i thought the fbi was originally supposed to investigate government corruption and lawbreaking.
I hate it when Rachel and Keith Olbermann and other lefties buy into the official gov't story about 9-11. It so cheapens their arguments. And it's embarassing.
Why does the boorish, "we'll kick yer ass!" rightwing suddenly get all sensitive and overly-considerate when it comes to attacking Al Qaeda strongholds? Even Mittens "Double Gitmo" Romney got all aghast at Obama suggesting military action be taken in Pakistan if needed. These people are selectively and mysteriously delicate in international affairs. In fact, they're fucking backwards.
The Bush Administration's "Preemption Doctrine" it declared years back is bullshit, but that's mainly because it was expanded and warped. The doctrine should have been limited to Al Qaeda. Why shouldn't we be allowed to confront them anytime, anywhere? They attacked us multiple times, so we needn't wait for them to attack again; preemption against them is plenty suitable.
Of course, we should aim to minimize civilian casualties. And we should give the "host" countries first crack at cleaning up their own backyards. But if they refuse or fail to assist, it's up to the USA. Who else is going to do it?
All of these sudden-humanitarians screeching about "invasion" of Pakistan act as if any missions done there would resemble the fullscale invasion of Iraq. As others here have pointed out, bombing or shooting at a few caves isn't going to crush the Pakistani populace.
Also, Afghanistan had nothing to do with 911
golden goose
Oppenheim is a Lieberman,
I love Rachel Maddow enough to get her last name right, which is more than I can say for SilentPatriot.
That was a nice smackdown.
I did blanch a little when Rachel talked about Obama supporting "the rule of law," a claim which is drastically undercut by his vote for the unconstitutional FISA law.
Oppenheim is a weasel and knows it.
Nikola @ 53:
It's Pakistan's own intelligence service, The ISI, that has a long history of supporting the Taliban and their Al-Qaeda allies. We set that relationship up in the 1980's and it continues today.
Fact is, the ISI and other elements of the Pakistani government are protecting Bin Laden. Our supposed ally, Pakistan, is a multi-headed hydra and can't be trusted to do the right thing.
If Pakistan is receiving military aid from us, they have an obligation to help us. If they won't, we have every right to covertly hunt Bin Laden down ourselves. We should not do anything that puts innocent Pakistanis in danger, but an assassination team or drone is appropriate.
We also need to work to bring democracy to Pakistan and unfortunately, Bush's crminal support of Mushareff set that effort back a decade. If democracy is established there, The ISI's influence will me lessened. That's why they murdered Bhutto.
It's time to end this madness. The families of 9/11 victims deserve justice.
constituent @ 74:
Don't you worry I am sure if things don't go right they will blame the democrats no matter what happens.
Bush attacking Iraq after 9/11 is like FDR attacking Albania after Pearl Harbor. Oops, FDR retaliated against the right guys.
In the past, we have gotten assurances from Pakistan that Osama bin Laden is not in Pakistani territory. Ergo, wherever he is when we track him down, is not Pakistani territory.
Peter G @ 117:
You don't get it. This whole "war on terror" is a fraud. Moreover, its transparently a fraud, and I don't know how it is not apparent to everyone.
How do you know what you think you know? I know what bin Laden made that statement at that time because it was covered by the international press, and was a public statement. If it were not true, why did he make it? Was he afraid of an American retaliation? Then why order the attack?
More questions. Why did those THREE towers collapse?
I challenge anyone to create a computer simulation of the events of 9/11 inputting all the known forces involved and the basic laws of physics and come out with the result that we saw on 9/11.
I tell you, that without thermite bombs pre-planted in those towers, those collapses could not have occurred.
I think deep down, everybody knows that, but few will actually say it.
And I'd like to add, that most of the evidence that has been presented has been statements obtained through the torture of prisoners and have no credibilty and no value in an actual court of law. That's why they try so hard to stay out of any real courts, and keep trying to create kangaroo courts of their own.
Hate to nitpick, but her name is misspelled in the header for this post. It should be "Maddow" and not "Maddows." Thank you.
yakfitguy @ 140:
Would you please explain that logical jump, please? I'd say that if you send someone military aid in return for their help and they don't give it, you stop sending them military aid. Where in that premise is a right to conduct a covert manhunt?
jjasonham @ 24:
Two neo-con exploded heads.
Leadership @ 4:
Not a bad idea, but I don't think it's feasable. Rachel's home is in Massachusetts, I believe, and Pelosi's district is in California. Even if she moved, I don't believe she would have enough time to establish residency to run for a California office.
Jack Canuck @ 144:
Right handed, left handed.
Doesn't matter.
The fact that Americans blame OBL for this attack is reason enough to doubt it and of course he will claim credit.
When have Americans ever told the truth when justifyng a war?
Comments are closed on this entry