We Don’t Attack Our Allies
share_data={max_recipients:20}
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Phillies: We Don’t Invade Our Allies
“It’s very simple. Invading a foreign country is an act of war,” Libertarian Presidential candidate George Phillies said in answer to fellow candidate Barack Obama. “I am shocked that an allegedly serious Presidential candidate would call for invading Pakistan. Not only is Pakistan an ally, but it is a nuclear power.”
Under pressure from Republican opponents and fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton that he appeared too soft on terrorism, on August 1 Senator Obama said* that the United States might invade Pakistan to pursue Al Qaeda members. Obama said “I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear…If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”
Phillies strongly disagrees. “Thank goodness Obama is not our President. It has always been understood that when you invade a foreign country you are potentially at war with them. President of Musharaf of Pakistan is honor-bound to defend his country. He cannot afford to look weak. Apparently these issues are beyond Senator Obama’s understanding of foreign affairs.” Phillies asks Mr. Obama, ‘What is your working plan if the Pakistanis respond to our act of war with their own acts of war? They might arm the guerrillas now fighting our forces in Iraq. They might send their army to deny us bases in Afghanistan. Worse, Pakistan knows that their nuclear arsenal is not secure against an American strike. Any militarist can start a war. Stopping one is far more challenging.’
In a recent statement on pursuing Al Qaeda, Professor Phillies said that the United States needs to stop fighting “the last war,” and update its tactics. “Finding Mr. Bin Laden is a job for spies, not a job for tank divisions. The Afghan people have been governing themselves for a very long time. They will not long tolerate foreign occupation, even ours. Only a Libertarian President will give the Bin Laden problem to the right people.”
*For the text of Senator Obama’s speech:
http://www.barackobama.com
/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php To support the George Phillies campaign, please visit
http://phillies2008.org/do
nation.
Contact Information:
Carolyn Marbry,Press Director
pressdirector@phillies2008.org
(510) 276-3216
http://phillies2008.org
Less
aynrkey
bostonteapartygoer
Kenn Jacobine
mattdharris
Mike Seebeck
Miche
paulie
Jim Davidson
ponggod
Stuart Richards
Steven Greffenius
Todd Andrew Barnett
“But we do attack Ron Paul”
That was my first thought too, Matt. Apparently Ron Paul is not viewed as an “ally” by certain party loyalists.
Robert,
I resemble that remark.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
Did I miss a nominating convention or something? This press release seems to imply that George is the LP Presidential candidate, rather than a candidate for the LP nomination. Maybe it’s just me, tho…
It’s what popped into my head, that doesn’t mean it was necessarily fair, but I thought it was worth saying.
To me the propriety of the statement depends on the article used. Phillies is a LP candidate, but he isn’t the candidate.
Pakistan is also a military dictatorship which shouldn’t be the USA’s ally.
I would agree with you, matt. Unfortunately, he did not say he was “a” candidate. He said:
““It’s very simple. Invading a foreign country is an act of war,” Libertarian Presidential candidate George Phillies said in answer to fellow candidate Barack Obama.”
Perhaps it’s a nit, but it does need to be picked.
I understand your point; there is perhaps a small measure of ambiguity there, but certainly no intention to portray our candidate as the only Libertarian candidate.
Expressly saying “A” Libertarian candidate would have been grammatically incorrect. Read the entire sentence. I did not use the definite article “the,” so there is absolutely no implication that he is the only one. If I had, I could certainly understand your objection.
I also did not refer to Obama as “a” fellow candidate,” either, yet you do not choose to read into that that Obama is THE ONLY fellow candidate.
Just as additional information, it’s a common convention, even before the nominations come down, to refer to the candidates this way.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/05/clinton-draws-boos-from-bloggers/
CHICAGO (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton refused Saturday to forsake campaign donations from lobbyists, turning aside challenges from her two main rivals with a rare defense of the special interest industry.
MR,
I wouldn’t worry about it too much. The content of the press release virtually guarantees that it won’t receive even the minimal coverage occasionally accorded to LP presidential race releases.
Hint: The press normally doesn’t give a tinker’s damn about what a candidate thinks — only about what he does. Major party frontrunners are an occasional exception, if they change their tune or trot out something extremely heterodox, but the exception is not the rule … and even then, a release attempting to attract attention to it will normally be framed in action terms (“the candidate said in an interview with …;” “the candidate told the East Armpit Elks Lodge, at their Thursday meeting”).
For example, I think it’s very important to note how Mr. Knapp reported faithfully everything Kubby said about dropping the race to support Ron Paul’s GOP candidacy, a classic example of doing as opposed to thinking.
Carolyn,
Wow. Poor press release writing skills are common, even among “press directors.” Non-existent press release reading skills are less so, especially among press directors.
1) Mr. Knapp did not faithfully report everything Kubby said. Mr. Knapp faithfully reported part of what Kubby said.
2) Mr. Knapp did not report Kubby “dropping the race.” As a matter of fact, both the interview in which the disclosure of the Paul endorsement took place (see below), and the press release itself, (accurately) reported precisely the opposite.
3) Mr. Knapp’s release (partially) reported Kubby’s statements — in the context of reporting that they had been made in an interview elsewhere, i.e. exactly the kind of “action hook” I describe above. It’s by no means the best hook, but any hook is better than no hook.
If your candidate is lucky, you’ll learn from your mistakes with this release. If my candidate is lucky, you won’t.
Best regards,
Tom Knapp