3 Comments Add your own

• 1. Joe  |  August 21st, 2008 at 8:30 am

  I guess since you were very impressed with McCain’s “concern about Russia” for some time prior to the Georgian conflict you are equally impressed with Obama about Pakistan… right?

  Obama’s statement:

  “President Musharraf has made the right decision to step down as President of Pakistan. It is in the interests of his country and the Pakistani people to end the political crisis that has immobilized the coalition government for too long. I have long said that the central terrorist threat to the United States lies in northwest Pakistan and Afghanistan, and not Iraq. US policy must focus on assuring that all elements of Pakistan’s government are resolute in shutting down the safe havens for al Qaeda and the Taliban. There can be no safehaven for terrorists who threaten the American people.

  “A year ago, I advocated that the US move from a ‘Musharraf policy’ to a ‘Pakistan policy.’ I hope all of Pakistan’s friends will now seize the opportunity created by Musharraf’s exit to focus on the urgent issues of today: confronting the threat of extremist violence, dealing with food and energy shortages, and helping the Pakistani people build a stable, secure, democratic future, ”

  In fact, he has talked about this for a while now…

  Mar 20, 2008:

  To succeed in Afghanistan, we also need to fundamentally rethink our Pakistan policy. For years, we have supported stability over democracy in Pakistan, and gotten neither. The core leadership of al Qaeda has a safe-haven in Pakistan.
  …
  This is why I stood up last summer and said we cannot base our entire Pakistan policy on President Musharraf. Pakistan is our ally, but we do our own security and our ally no favors by supporting its President while we are seen to be ignoring the interests of the people.
  The choice is not between Musharraf and Islamic extremists. As the recent legislative elections showed, there is a moderate majority of Pakistanis, and they are the people we need on our side to win the war against al Qaeda. That is why we should dramatically increase our support for the Pakistani people – for education, economic development, and democratic institutions.
  …
  If we have actionable intelligence about high-level al Qaeda targets in Pakistan’s border region, we must act if Pakistan will not or cannot. Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, and President Bush have all distorted and derided this position, suggesting that I would invade or bomb Pakistan. This is politics, pure and simple. My position, in fact, is the same pragmatic policy that all three of them have belatedly – if tacitly – acknowledged is one we should pursue. Indeed, it was months after I called for this policy that a top al Qaeda leader was taken out in Pakistan by an American aircraft. And remember that the same three individuals who now criticize me for supporting a targeted strike on the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks, are the same three individuals that supported an invasion of Iraq – a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

  That is the foresight we need in the White House.

• 2. Joe  |  August 21st, 2008 at 8:39 am

  Oh by the way… Here is what McCain was saying about Pakistan in the recent past…

  It’s a serious situation, but there’s a lot of things we need to do. We have a lot of work to do and I’m afraid it’s a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq/Pakistan border.”

  Iraq/Pakistan border??

• 3. congressive  |  August 21st, 2008 at 6:04 pm

  What Son of Cain meant was: he believed he had already nuked IRAN completely off the face of the earth, and as a result, there is now an Iraq/Pakistan border.

  He thought he was already Commander in Chief. He just got a little ahead of himself.

Leave a Comment

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed