McCain Blasts Obama for Bush's Attacks in Pakistan
In his Wisconsin victory speech this evening, John McCain wasted no time in firing shots across Barack Obama's bow. Hoping to highlight the Democratic frontrunner's inexperience, McCain to partisan cheers ridiculed Obama's promises as "eloquent but empty." But in a preview of Republican duplicity to come, McCain blasted Obama's past advocacy of unilateral American attacks against Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan, attacks the Bush administration itself is now finally carrying out.
In August, as you'll recall, Barack received a hellstorm of criticism for his statements regarding attacking Al Qaeda bases in Pakistan. As part of broad - and forceful - foreign policy speech on August 1, Obama rightly took the Bush administration to task for the failure of its "no safe havens" doctrine in Pakistan. Regarding the Al Qaeda sanctuary safely nestled along the Afghan border, Obama declared, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
The White House and some of his Democratic rivals were quick to condemn Obama's comments. Despite the renewed Al Qaeda threat documented in a recent National Intelligence Estimate, then Bush press secretary Tony Snow rejected unilateral American strikes inside Pakistan without the blessing of President Pervez Musharraf:
"We think that our approach to Pakistan is not only one that respects the sovereignty of Pakistan, but also is designed so that we are working in cooperation."
As it turns out, not so much. At least, not any more.
On the very day John McCain assailed Barack Obama, the Washington Post detailed that the U.S. is now carrying out covert strikes within Pakistan without prior authorization from the Musharraf government. In an article titled, "Unilateral Strike Called a Model for U.S. Operations in Pakistan," the Post described the January 29 Predator drone attack that killed Al Qaeda leader Abu Laith Al-Libi:
The missiles killed Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander and a man who had repeatedly eluded the CIA's dragnet. It was the first successful strike against al-Qaeda's core leadership in two years, and it involved, U.S. officials say, an unusual degree of autonomy by the CIA inside Pakistan.
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.
As the Post also detailed, this long overdue shift represents the Bush administration's grudging acceptance of the reality on the ground across the border from Afghanistan. The recommended approach of the Pentagon, as well as Barack Obama, is becoming the policy of President Bush:
Top Bush administration policy officials - who are increasingly worried about al-Qaeda's use of its sanctuary in remote, tribally ruled areas in northern Pakistan to dispatch trained terrorists to the West - have quietly begun to accept the military's point of view, according to several sources familiar with the context of the Libi strike.
But you won't hear that from John McCain. The presumptive Republican nominee will play the inexperience card against Barack Obama. And McCain's deceptive attacks will include criticizing Barack Obama for a strategy that is now the policy of the current occupant of the Oval Office.
UPDATE: CNN re-aired a 2006 interview in which President Bush told Wolf Blizter he would "absolutely" give the order to kill or capture Al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan, even if the government in Islamabad objected. That, of course, didn't stop Bush from telling Fox News just 10 days ago that Obama is "going to attack Pakistan." Meanwhile, the major media remains silent on John McCain's Beach Boys parody, "Bomb Bomb Iran."
|
What about Obama's plan to invade Darfur? That will advance the vital interests of the US. Would the libs be all for this or pull back their support once the realize we would be helping Christians suffering persecution from Sudan Muslims?
Posted by Happyin Texas on February 19, 2008 9:35 PMAre you trying to make some kind of point, Happyin? Of course Democrats are for a much more forceful policy in Darfur, unlike the empty promises of the Republicans.
Most of us Democrats are religious, just like the general population. We just don't want to force it down somebody's throat.
Posted by Joey on February 20, 2008 1:26 PMChina and other asian countries have the oil contracts in Sudan, so no, we won't be doing much more in Sudan.
Posted by rayrayjones on February 20, 2008 2:05 PMsaol
Posted by sohbet on October 1, 2009 12:20 PMsaol kardesim benim :D
Posted by chat on October 1, 2009 12:21 PMtamam la ne diyon :D
Posted by yonja on October 1, 2009 12:22 PMaLeos aSkerde
Posted by sohbet on October 1, 2009 12:23 PMaLeoşş
Posted by chat on October 1, 2009 12:24 PMbaSkan geldi
Posted by chat on October 1, 2009 12:25 PMayaga kaLkın
Posted by sohbet on October 1, 2009 12:26 PMSelama durun
Posted by yonja on October 1, 2009 12:28 PMsertan
Posted by sohbet on October 1, 2009 12:29 PMmirc
Posted by mirc on October 1, 2009 12:29 PMIf they are linking from the comment, I would consider it spam. If they post a comment, and it is on topic, be glad someone saw your blog and thought enough to post to it. http://www.hayda.net/
Posted by mirc on November 2, 2009 5:27 PMthanks admin
Posted by konya chat on December 12, 2009 2:50 PMVery interesting and helpful post .. thanks for the links Darren.
Posted by Sexy lingerie on December 27, 2009 8:51 PMGreat tips for guest bloggers!