McCain: Soft on Terror?

McCain Faults Obama

He also keyed in on Obama’s statements about foreign policy and his willingness to meet with leaders of rogue nations, painting him as a novice who would put the country in danger.

“Will the next president have the experience?” he asked. “Or will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan … “

Meanwhile: U.S. unilaterally bombs terrorists in Pakistan

In the predawn hours of Jan. 29, a CIA Predator aircraft flew in a slow arc above the Pakistani town of Mir Ali. The drone’s operator, relying on information secretly passed to the CIA by local informants, clicked a computer mouse and sent the first of two Hellfire missiles hurtling toward a cluster of mud-brick buildings a few miles from the town center.

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 …

Obama first stated his willingness to stage unilateral attacks on terrorists hiding in Pakistan back in July, 2007.

Can America afford the risk of someone like John McCain, who is unwilling to go after the terrorists there they are? In a time of war? When we are engaged in a generational struggle against the terrorists? Why is McCain soft on Abu Laith al-Libi? Maybe McCain will use one of his lucky charms against the terrorists.

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator on 20 Feb 2008 at 1:10 pm

    Pakistan’s Ruling Party Concedes Defeat
    …

    Pakistan’s ruling party conceded defeat to the opposition Tuesday in parliamentary elections that co…

Comments

  1. David C. wrote:

    Conducting a CIA operation without asking permission, and making a stupid public statement that could offend an ally and lessen their already not great cooperation, are two different things. One falls under the “better to ask for forgiveness than permission” strategy. The other is just dumb.

    It’s pretty hard to spin Obama’s July 2007 comments as anything but clueless in the realm of foreign policy, but good try. I hope Democrats try to argue foreign policy with McCain.

    Posted 20 Feb 2008 at 12:05 pm

  2. CDR Salamander wrote:

    Stephen,
    Come on, as a military aviation buff you know we are talking about apples and oranges here.

    This post is a bit of a stretch, and I think you know it. You can do better.

    Posted 20 Feb 2008 at 3:27 pm

  3. John the Marine wrote:

    Are you really trying to suggest that Obama is some sort of Hawk? That is almost as funny as Hillary having experience. The laughs just never end.

    Posted 20 Feb 2008 at 4:30 pm

  4. Stephen wrote:

    Guys,

    You can try to dismiss the facts above as “laughs, or a stretch, or hard to spin.” But give it up.

    McCain is on record as criticizing unilateral strikes on terrorists in Pakistan. And that’s just what we did last night. And that’s just Obama said he would do, too. Joe Klein at TIME magazine also asks McCain: Soft on al Qaeda?

    And … umm .. in terms of this being “unfair?” Have y’all ever heard of Willie Horton, or purple band-aids, or Swift boats, or waffles? We’re just getting started with John “Rabbit’s foot” (or should I say “*****-foot”) McCain.

    *Geez, that goddam shoe hurts, when it gets put on the other foot that way.*

    Posted 20 Feb 2008 at 4:36 pm

  5. canuckistani wrote:

    Sorry Stephen, everyone knows that McBain is a Steely Warrior for America, and Obama is a weak-kneed communist muslim appeaser. So stop trying to confuse us with facts.
    Anyways, why should anyone bomb Pakistan where Al Qaeda are when they could bomb Iran instead?
    At least that would help clear the stain of Reagan buying the freedom of hostages with big fat weapons deals.>:)

    Posted 20 Feb 2008 at 4:50 pm

  6. David C. wrote:

    Stephen,

    McCain is on record as criticizing unilateral strikes on terrorists in Pakistan. And that’s just what we did last night.

    And again, you are ignoring the main point. There is a difference between doing something unilaterally and talking about it publicly. By saying we are going to ignore our ally’s sovereignty we force them to respond, and their response is usually going to be negative. It’s just terrible diplomacy. It is not the same thing as just doing it without asking permission, and then patching up the hurt feelings afterward.

    And … umm .. in terms of this being “unfair?” Have y’all ever heard of Willie Horton, or purple band-aids, or Swift boats, or waffles? We’re just getting started with John “Rabbit’s foot” (or should I say “*****-foot”) McCain.

    It’s not unfair at all, it’s just a weak attack on McCain, and a equally weak attempt to pretend that Obama didn’t make a gaffe when he spoke about Pakistan.

    Posted 20 Feb 2008 at 6:05 pm

  7. David C. wrote:

    canuckistani,

    Anyways, why should anyone bomb Pakistan where Al Qaeda are when they could bomb Iran instead?

    So you support the Bush administration bombing terrorist strongholds in Pakistan? That’s a surprise. I guess you also support staying in Iraq and fighting it out as long as it takes, since Al Qaeda is there also.

    By the way, when did we start bombing Iran, I must have missed that?

    Posted 20 Feb 2008 at 6:10 pm

  8. Steve LLamabutcher wrote:

    I see we’re back to the satire posts.

    Posted 20 Feb 2008 at 7:36 pm

  9. Stephen wrote:

    David,

    I don’t know what point you’re making, or what point I’m not on, since it is my post :) … but mine is a simple one: McCain is on record as opposing going after the terrorists where they are. He is soft on terror.

    Posted 20 Feb 2008 at 7:57 pm

  10. David C. wrote:

    McCain is on record as opposing going after the terrorists where they are. He is soft on terror.

    Yeah, sure.

    I see we’re back to the satire posts.

    Apparently.

    Posted 20 Feb 2008 at 9:35 pm

  11. Grim wrote:

    I think the concept with the CIA is that it is supposed to be the arm that does what you otherwise claim you wouldn’t do. A politician is supposed to be able to say he is against “unilateral” strikes, and still use deniable assets to carry them out.

    That’s the point of having a clandestine service. It allows you to navigate difficult diplomatic waters, where open military action would cause negative blowback, while still going after the worst bad guys. It’s hard to imagine more difficult diplomatic waters than Pakistan, which is as unstable as unstable gets, and has nukes.

    Normally, I like a straight-shooter. A war — so long as it is a just war — must leave room for clandestine activity and diplomatic lies.

    Posted 21 Feb 2008 at 3:35 am

  12. Stephen wrote:

    Candidates don’t actually make policy. Presidents do. So David & Grim’s view carries some weight, re: statements of officials in power. But, Obama and McCain, as candidates, were opining hypothetically. (Can you imagine this: “Dear Pres. Bush. We are cutting off diplo. relations because a candidate in your country said something we didn’t like.”) And candidates SHOULD tell us about how they would handle covert or unilateral ops.

    Now, Grim is hinting, that “Oh well, we know McCain really would do such things if necessary.” Do I infer that correctly? Are we now clairvoyant, and can divine what “good” candidates would do (even when they say they wouldn’t) because, after all, a “bad” candidate wouldn’t (even when he says he would)?

    Posted 21 Feb 2008 at 7:53 am

  13. John the Marine wrote:

    Stephen,
    I find it difficult to fathom that Obama would unilaterally bomb Pakistan or anything else for that matter. Yes, he did make the statement but do really believe it? After all those candidates will say dardist things. Sort of like McCain is now a born again Conservative and Hillary is ready to lead. Lets face reality John McCain out of the three left, Obama, H-beast and McCain, is most likely to fight. Canuckistani can make all the silly sarcastic comments he wants. But the ferocious Canadian insinuating that Obama or the Lefty Dems will be anything but soft on our enemies is true comedy. What’s next the indomitable fighting spirit of France? Sorry, my friend, vote for change… vote for hope… and all the other feel good rhetoric. However, at the end of the day if your voting for Obama because he is going to be tough on terror then you are allowing your judgement to be clouded by your political man-crush.

    Posted 21 Feb 2008 at 8:32 am

  14. Grim wrote:

    I’m not, in fact, defending McCain; I can’t bring myself to support him. I’m merely suggesting that this particular attack may not be well-grounded.

    I’m not thinking that Pakistan would cut off diplomatic relations b/c of something a candidate said. I’m thinking that a serious candidate for President should already be considering the impact of his words; and that a President is allowed to use the CIA in this particular fashion. Doesn’t mean I think, or claim to know, that President McCain would or would not; just that this is an area where we understand that Presidents do.

    Posted 21 Feb 2008 at 10:05 am

  15. Stephen wrote:

    JTM,

    Candidate A: “I will go after the terrorists where they are.”

    Candidate B: “That is confused and inexperienced.”

    JTM: “Gimme more of that Candidate B. I know he’s the tough guy.”

    Posted 21 Feb 2008 at 10:18 am

  16. Stephen wrote:

    All,

    BTW, I am forwarding this post and comment thread to my new commie paymasters at the DNC:

    “Woot! We got a hot one, guys! Hit it hard.” :)

    Posted 21 Feb 2008 at 10:20 am

  17. John the Marine wrote:

    BTW, I am forwarding this post and comment thread to my new commie paymasters at the DNC:

    What are they paying you? With the economic down turn and all the extra dow might come in handy. Hopefully Pres. Obama will extend the tax cuts and allow you to keep ill gotten booty.

    If I may be so bold as to needle you further may I ask what other instances Sen. Obama has articulated his strong stance on the War on Terror? Being that he is a blood and guts kind of guy I’m sure the examples of his hawkish position are innumerable.

    Also, Mr. Wet Noodle McCain has of course promised to cede half the Continental U.S. to Iran and the other half to the Taliban. He certainly hasn’t avertised himself as a “Terror Warrior”.

    It seems to me that your guy has made one aggressive statement and your trying to pass him off as some kind of latter Saint of getting tough on terrorism. Come on, the guy’s middle name is Hussien! (I just threw in the Hussien thing for laughs.)

    Posted 21 Feb 2008 at 12:02 pm

  18. Grim wrote:

    “Woot! We got a hot one, guys! Hit it hard.”

    That would certainly be the Roveian strategy. Attack the perceived strength, not the perceived weakness. This would appear to be the Clinton approach with the Xerox comments — hit Obama on his strength as an orator, by suggesting it was all just empty (stolen) words.

    Posted 22 Feb 2008 at 7:19 am

« The Delegate math
Irony-free from Tom Maguire »