Tweet
As Yglz points out, Sarah Palin said something completely sensible — "Sarah Palin told a customer at a Philadelphia restaurant on Saturday that the United States should “absolutely” launch cross-border attacks from Afghanistan into Pakistan in the event that it becomes necessary to “stop the terrorists from coming any further in," says CBS — and now John McCain retracted it:
Sen. John McCain retracted Sarah Palin’s stance on Pakistan Sunday morning, after the Alaska governor appeared to back Sen. Barack Obama’s support for unilateral strikes inside Pakistan against terrorists
"She would not…she understands and has stated repeatedly that we’re not going to do anything except in America’s national security interest," McCain told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos of Palin. "In all due respect, people going around and… sticking a microphone while conversations are being held, and then all of a sudden that’s—that’s a person’s position… This is a free country, but I don’t think most Americans think that that’s a definitive policy statement made by Governor Palin."
Pitiful. Before I wondered what McCain actually believes about the place of Pakistan in the war against al-Qaeda. I suppose it remains unclear, unless McCain wants to be taken at face value that it’s not in "America’s national security interest" to follow al-Qaeda operatives into Pakistan. But, as Sarah Palin evidently believes, that flies in the face of common sense. Does McCain really want to run for president on the basis of a "hit ‘em where they ain’t" policy against al-Qaeda? Or is this just a cynical attempt at sticking his thumbs in his ears and refusing to admit that his critique of Obama as unprepared to lead boxes him into a position of total absurdity with regard to the terrorist movement that he says we’re in a "generational" war against?
12 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
Or is it a case of an overly-partisan critique?
Tell me that you really believe that McCain isn’t willing to go after al Qaeda.
Why is that our leaders and the American people seem completely unable to connect that U.S. forces are in other peoples land, kicking down their doors, creating millions of refugees, demanding that they do what we see fit. Jesus Mary and Joseph. How can anyone wonder why people in this part of the world are not so fond of us?
We are on their lands.
Hi, Leen.
Do you recall us being any presence in, of even threat to, Afghanistan or Pakistan prior to September of 2001?
Might you ever want to deal with what McCain actually says, instead of your rationalizations for his statements? Recall that many a well-meaning individual reacted to Bush’s 2001-2003 insanity by saying, “Well, he surely doesn’t mean THAT…”
After we abandoned Afghanistan their plight disappeared from the News in the states and funds dried up.
According to my friend Haroon who was 4 years old when Russia invaded, the Afghani people feel a great deal of anger about being abandoned and being subjected to the radical elements in the Taliban.
He is convinced that the only way to deal with the Taliban is to be inclusive of the individuals in the Taliban who are not as radical or violent as others. That the Taliban needs to be brought to the table. That this would temper the violence
So, because we helped them and then ceased to help them they’re angry atm us rsther than the Taliban and the Taliban’s Pakistani and Saudi sponsers? This makes sense to you?
Did I not hear McCain say that you act rather than talk in regard to going after al-Qaeda? Am I failing to understand, Spencer?
As a matter of fact, you are. That’s what’s known as empty rhetoric. McCain postured while Obama offered plans for Afghanipakistan. The most substantive thing McCain said about the region in the debate was that he was relieved Petraeus is in charge of Central Command.
Anyone who thinks we weren’t in Afghanistan prior to September 2001 should watch “Charlie Wilson’s War” just for laughs.
Oh, and please recommend my Oxdown diary.
I read the book, but was referring to the decade or so prior to 2001.
I get it. If I’m quoted him correctly, then he doesn’t mean it.
Excuse the typo.