Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The White House will not offer formal condolences to Pakistan for the deaths of 24 soldiers

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
Cali_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-03-11 08:37 PM
Original message
The White House will not offer formal condolences to Pakistan for the deaths of 24 soldiers
Edited on Sat Dec-03-11 08:41 PM by Cali_Democrat



Obama Refrains From a Formal ‘I’m Sorry’ to Pakistan
By HELENE COOPER and MARK MAZZETTI
Published: November 30, 2011

WASHINGTON — The White House has decided that President Obama will not offer formal condolences — at least for now — to Pakistan for the deaths of two dozen soldiers in NATO airstrikes last week, overruling State Department officials who argued for such a show of remorse to help salvage America’s relationship with Pakistan, administration officials said.

On Monday, Cameron Munter, the United States ambassador to Pakistan, told a group of White House officials that a formal video statement from Mr. Obama was needed to help prevent the rapidly deteriorating relations between Islamabad and Washington from cratering, administration officials said. The ambassador, speaking by videoconference from Islamabad, said that anger in Pakistan had reached a fever pitch, and that the United States needed to move to defuse it as quickly as possible, the officials recounted.

Defense Department officials balked. While they did not deny some American culpability in the episode, they said expressions of remorse offered by senior department officials and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton were enough, at least until the completion of a United States military investigation establishing what went wrong.

Some administration aides also worried that if Mr. Obama were to overrule the military and apologize to Pakistan, such a step could become fodder for his Republican opponents in the presidential campaign
, according to several officials who declined to be named because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/world/middleeast/for-pakistan-no-formal-remorse-yet-from-obama.html


Read this quote again: "Some administration aides also worried that if Mr. Obama were to overrule the military and apologize to Pakistan, such a step could become fodder for his Republican opponents in the presidential campaign"

Unbelievable. See what happens when you let the Defense Department run your foreign policy? It will always result in disaster. It also doesn't help when your foreign policy is based on preventing the Republicans from saying mean things to you.

The Pakistanis hate us for good reason. How would we feel if another country killed 24 of our soldiers on our own soil and offered no formal condolences?
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-03-11 08:38 PM
Response to Original message
1. That is stupid. And ungracious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-03-11 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. No. It is diplomacy.
The language is quite clear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-03-11 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Yep, I guess it is diplomacy.
It is stupid that we have Republicans who are such jerks that they do not understand graciousness.

Hopefully, there was a private expression of regret.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Cali_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-03-11 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Extremely stupid
How can we expect the Pakistanis to even want to cooperate with us?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ellisonz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 03:19 AM
Response to Reply #4
18. If they don't...
...the radical forces within Pakistan will assuredly take them down a notch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Swat
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hutzpa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #4
25. How many times in the past have they been
given an opportunity to corporate and still allowed terrorist to control their backyard? So using that as an excuse is not
going to cut it Cali sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-04-11 06:40 AM
Response to Reply #1
10. And will generate the next round of terrorists who hate America.
And we'll say "Who could have anticipated *THAT*?".

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-03-11 08:39 PM
Response to Original message
2. British Empire saying
Never apologize and never explain.

Seems we are following that grand example. Right to the end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Swede Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-03-11 09:00 PM
Response to Original message
6. What if Pakistan fired first like the Afghanis are saying.
Let's wait for some clearing of the fog.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ellisonz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 03:20 AM
Response to Reply #6
19. It would be very dumb to fire back too...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Cali_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-03-11 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
7. If you don't have a NY Times account, view the article here:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Pisces Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-03-11 09:32 PM
Response to Original message
8. Debbie Downer strikes again
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Cali_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-03-11 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. I know
All Obama has to do is issue a formal apology to a country that lost 24 of its soldiers to the strike. Instead he listens to the defense department and some of his aides who think an apology will leave him open to attacks from Republicans.

What a downer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MissDeeds Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-04-11 07:19 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Exactly right
With an election coming up, he doesn't want to appear 'soft' on defense. An apology is in order, but placating the Republicans seems to
be more important. Again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Pisces Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-04-11 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. I guess you have nothing to say now that he apologized and called the Pakistani President??
I'm sure you can find something else to complain about, you're very good at that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Cali_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. See here:
http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/197055-obama-calls-pakistan-leader-over-soldiers-deaths

Obama offers Pakistan leader ‘condolences’ over air strike deaths
By Erik Wasson - 12/04/11 12:41 PM ET

President Obama on Sunday tried to control the escalating diplomatic damage resulting from a Nov. 25 NATO air strike that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.

Obama called Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari to try to offer “condolences” over the deaths but the White House is making no mention of an apology. The U.S. contends that Pakistani soldiers fired on the NATO drones first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 01:56 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. A formal apologies should be based on actual facts especially who
initiated the firefight.


Unfortunately it will be difficult to establish the facts as the Pakistanis are refusing to cooperate.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/world/asia/obama-offers-condolences-in-deaths-of-pakistani-troops.html

American officials have said that both sides thought they had come under attack by the Taliban. But Pakistan has refused to cooperate with the American investigation, impeding efforts to determine what happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Cali_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 03:07 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. Any investigation by NATO and the US military will be a farce
Edited on Mon Dec-05-11 03:07 AM by Cali_Democrat
They can't be trusted at all. I think it would be better to have a UN investigation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #16
22. Actually a better definition of a farce is to post something that has been misreported

and then to continue to defend it after the exact opposite has been proven true.

I find it ironic that someone would prejudge the US and NATO as being unreliable but is happy to take the Pakistani version hook, line and sinker.

In the confusion of a fire fight anything is possible and the Pakistani version may be correct but the fact that they are not willing to cooperate with the ongoing investigation and the fact that they have not called for a third party investigation is somewhat suspicious.

The UN doesn't have the means to conduct investigations separate from their member states.

If the facts of the report were disputed then the ICRC would be the ideal third party candidate to do an impartial inquiry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 07:20 AM
Response to Reply #8
20. +1
Edited on Mon Dec-05-11 07:20 AM by jefferson_dem
Transparent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 01:53 AM
Response to Original message
14. These reporters didn't have their facts straight. President did offer condolences.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/world/asia/obama-offers-condolences-in-deaths-of-pakistani-troops.html

WASHINGTON — President Obama phoned the president of Pakistan on Sunday to offer “condolences” for the deaths of two dozen soldiers killed in NATO airstrikes along the Afghan border, the White House said.

The conversation, eight days after the attack, overcame the reservations of some Defense Department officials and favored an approach suggested by diplomats who had urged a conciliatory gesture to try to repair the strained alliance between the two countries.


Kind of undercuts your "defense department running foreign policy' comment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Cali_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 03:11 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. Any time you're engaged in simultaneous wars and conducting massive drone strikes in many countries,
You can be sure that the defense department is running US foreign policy. It's not based on defending the US from strategic threats. In actuality, the US has no real threats. US foreign policy is currently based on justifying the gargantuan US defense budget.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 07:22 AM
Response to Reply #17
21. "In actuality, the US has no real threats."
Oy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Cigar11 Donating Member (276 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
23. How do you say I'm sorry ...
for getting shoot at FIRST!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hutzpa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
24. I like this fight and I know whose side Im on
they have betrayed America for too long and it is my feeling that this administration is not going to put up with their faux rage.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
26. sorry, but fuck those double dealing bastards... how many times have they sold us out?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-11 04:07 AM
Response to Original message
27. While I'm certain the WH appreciates your tips on micromanaging foreign policy,
Edited on Tue Dec-06-11 04:23 AM by AtomicKitten
the Pakistani government hasn't been particularly truthful or helpful to the United States. It's prudent to gather the facts before shooting from the hip.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 05:56 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC