McCain, presumed GOP nominee, has started to whittle away at Obama's shining armor.
One day after Obama scored double-digit victories in Wisconsin and Hawaii in his drive toward the Democratic presidential nomination, McCain blasted him for advocating a bombing of Al Qaeda hide-outs in Pakistan. "The best idea is not to broadcast what you're going to do, that's naive," said McCain, who also questioned the very notion of "bombing Pakistan without their permission."
Obama camp response?
In a conference call with reporters to respond, Obama foreign policy advisor Susan Rice said that McCain was "misrepresenting and distorting Barack Obama's positions" and argued that the Democrat "never suggested bombing an ally."
"McCain promises more war in Iraq," she said. "Obama will end the war in Iraq and focus on terrorists in Afghanistan."
Really now? Let's see... Obama's promise of unilateral action in Pakistan is replicated all over the news. He's repeated the same promise of unilateral action in debates.
From his Aug 1st, 2007 speech, posted on his own website:
The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal. As 9/11 showed us, the security of Afghanistan and America is shared. And today, that security is most threatened by the al Qaeda and Taliban sanctuary in the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan.
Al Qaeda terrorists train, travel, and maintain global communications in this safe-haven. The Taliban pursues a hit and run strategy, striking in Afghanistan, then skulking across the border to safety.
I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.
Technically, the Obama campaign is correct. He did not use the word "bomb". But now, in this new era of "change", we instead find ourselves regressing to the 90s and the "it depends upon what the meaning of 'is'... is" mentality.
Or in this case, it all depends on what the meaning of "if Musharraf won't act, we will" means...
Just how would Obama act on "actionable intelligence" within Pakistan borders, sans their permission? Would it be predator bombing? Manned aircraft bombing? Boots on the ground?? "Acting" means doing something.
Or perhaps he'd have us believe he's going to have a bunch of diplomats sneak across the border to meet with Bin Laden for talks in secret as "action".
I believe what Obama meant was laid out clearly, just a paragraph or two later in the same speech.
I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America. This requires a broader set of capabilities, as outlined in the Army and Marine Corps's new counter-insurgency manual. I will ensure that our military becomes more stealth, agile, and lethal in its ability to capture or kill terrorists. We need to recruit, train, and equip our armed forces to better target terrorists, and to help foreign militaries to do the same. This must include a program to bolster our ability to speak different languages, understand different cultures, and coordinate complex missions with our civilian agencies.
Obviously Obama considers Bin Ladin a direct threat... one in which he would not hesitate to use military force. So putting two and two together, if Obama enter Pakistan to confront Bin Laden with actionable intelligence, then I for one don't need him to speak the word "bomb", "predator" or "troops" to know that he is talking military action. Only the greatest of fools would assume otherwise.
We went into Iraq to depose Saddam. Obama and ilk liberals like to say we "invaded" Iraq... which they prefer to "liberated" Iraq. They don't use "pro death", opposite of "pro life", for the abortion issue - another Obama serious flaw. They use "pro choice" to minimize the death of a fetus. It's a game of words, words and more words.
Apparently whoever comes up with the best words on the campaign trail is going to win over a duped, media herded electorate. And at this sitting, we have two attorneys and a career Senator/ex POW out there pounding the concrete for the POTUS. Look around. Only two of them, both DNC, are garnishing the majority of the broadcast airwaves. So take a wild guess - who do you think is better at the "words", and getting them spread out to the voting public?
To deny such word play, and mask Obama's stated Pakistan threats, is absurd. Yet the cult-like zombie following, mesmerized by vague promises of change and sweeping social programs because they so *want* to believe, will never figure it out. I, for one am bracing to have our nation and denizens learn lessons, unfortunately, the hard way. We will find no utopia, no squeaky clean pol in Obama. We will only find a naive, pacifist fool, fresh at the onset of his career politician path, who specializes in words.