McCain: Soft on Al Qaeda?

Admiral Obama has SecDef Dean working furiously as we speak -- to keep Michelle from blowing Black Hysterectomy Month right out of the old Antietam real estate office.

He said "BOMB Pakistan" not "invade."
JK must be working off the prepared text rather than the speech that was delivered. If JK read any of the reader comments in this putatively interactive forum he'd know this.

"The point is, McCain's loose, inaccurate talk continues a sad pattern he has shown on national security matters, particularly with regard to Iraq, where he is a loose cannon, ..... and he is on the record opposed to taking military action against the real Al Qaeda, which is actively working to destabilize Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and may be planning the next 9/11 in the mountains of Waziristan."

Well said. Should we expect soon a full length article in Time along these lines?

"At the very least, I hope he retracts it"

At the very least, I hope it rains beer. Both have the same chance of happening.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL2061801920080220?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Iran buoyed by the prospect of a President Barack Hussein Obama?

Who'd a thunk IS?

Maybe when the BARACK ATTACK on Waziristan completes the DNC's Secret Plan To Invade Someplace Not Iraq we can rest easy, back in the comfy Beltway zone, eh SJ?

I respect, as all Americans do, John McCain's service to his country.

But I truly think he's trying to rewrite the Viet Nam War and he simply cannot be reasonable where Iraq is concerned. He sees it as a chance to show America can indeed win a non-conventional war if we indeed throw everything we have into the mix.

The realities and nuances of what's happening the Middle East seem to escape him.

In sum, John McCain, who claims to take national security seriously, made a foolish statement to score political points last night. At the very least, I hope he retracts it and joins Obama in the effort to defeat Al Qaeda.

Hope he retracts his statement?

You keep dreamin' the dream Joe.

Good post, Joe. More accountability for McCain, please.

With Cox and Carney constantly blindly shilling for McCain, who'd have thought that actual critical thinking in regards to the maverick would come from Joe Klein on this blog?

Is this it? Is this the end of days?

He did it again today at his little press conference.

Iraq War = good
War against Al Qaeda in Pakistan = optional

Has he lost his friggin mind?

Then he called Obama niave.

Groundhog Day anyone?

I swear they are just lobbing softballs straight over the plate for Obama to just slam out of the park.

Joe, I do thank you for highlighting McCain's wrongheaded position on Iraq.

Just because he went through horrific experiences as a prisoner of war doesn't mean he is an expert on military policy.

I hope Obama starts slamming those softballs out of the part soon. McCain is defining him for the low attention voters and it is much harder to undefine. Obama needs to start defining McCain.

Good call, Joe.

St John the McCain has also flip-flopped on torture. Can we talk about that, too? You bigfeet columnist colleagues Nicholas Kristof and Froma Harrop both wrote columns praising McCain for his noble and principled stand on torture, after he had voted for what he calls the "exquisite" torture of waterboarding. And his cave-in on the Military Commissions Act has completely disappeared down the political-media memory hole.

McCain is a fraud.

Indeed, McCain is the best friend Al Qaeda could ever wish for.

First, he agreed with the Bush letting BIn Laden get away in Tora Bora and helping Bush be a surrender monkey in Afghanistan by picking up and leaving to go attack Saddam, who hated Bin Laden incidentally.

Secondly, talk of a 100 years war is just what the Al Qaeda recruiter ordered.

Third, he thinks we should just let Al Qaeda plot the next 9/11 with impunity in waziristan because we don't want to hurt Musharraf's feelings. All this talk of the nukes getting in the jihadist hands is absurd when the paki mititary is secular, the populace is modrate, and our military is helping safeguard the nukes.

Sometimes I wonder if the Bush-McCain crowd purposely screw the pooch on anti-terrorism because each terror attack improves their electoral chances and, as an added bonus, since most terror attacks occur in cities, its usually democrats who die. It's just kind of like when the republicans welcome hurricanes like Katrina and don't do squat about it because now Louisiana is a redder state because all the black people moved out.

We've spent way too much time questioning the anti-terror credentials of democrats. Its time to hold the necons feet to the fire about the many ways they are harming our country.

NEWS FLASH: We don't discuss TACTICS in public, left wing nuts -- unless you work for the NY Timid and are as phucking clueless now about Iran and Pakistan, as you were Tet and Kerry's Magic Cambodia.

Retract nothing, Senator McCain.

You've rightfully ID'd the opportunistic, Blame Them Where They Were Ignored In 1998 very lately proud DNC crapola that only the most listless of Time-CNN story warps could love.

Nam vet McCain knows that blindly pin-pricking, Clinton aspirin factory style, or carpet bombing willy nilly ala Kosovo or Hanoi (how's them vital religious regions shaping up today, Joe?) won't do any greater good than was sending Jammit 444 DAYS Remo flaming on into Waco with the partial 1st Cav in embarrassed tow, firing into the wind, killing many innocents, accomplishing nothing, vengeful for the sake of poor local police planning and 1st Responderism as though keys to the international EU and domestic UN "peace". Never mind Rwanda. Or Somalia. Or Nepal. Tibet. Zimbabwe. South Beach.

We'll need combined TROOPS ON THE GROUND (ours, Paki, NATO, and/or India) to CLEAN THE ARMED KOS KLOWNS OUT of the hinterlands terrorizing our Afghan allies (any of whom I'd gladly hire, or any reformed Iraqi, before any student union slime ball shilling for the ANSWER retro-commies in Berzerkley or Toledo).

Obama may indeed be a Kennedy clone -- only JFK with his spastic foreign policy, instead of RFK and his virtual retreat.

Some choice.

Some change.

Some legacy.

I am so glad you pointed this out. How easy is it for Obama to say, "If I had Osama Bin Laden and is leutenants pinned down in Tora Bora, unlike a previous administration, Al Qaeda would cease to exist, even if I had to pursue them into Pakistan. If my opponent is to be taken at his word, he would not."

Who's weak on terror?

"A central foreign policy discussion in the general election should be: Are our troops deployed appropriately to meet the threats we are facing? Should we have more in Afghanistan and fewer in Iraq?"

Well, redundant kudos to Joe for not joining AMC's meetup for Mac. Better questions that perhaps only Ron Paul would ask (meanwhile we have to accept the tepid courage of our dem candies):

1 Do we really face threats and should our forces be deployed anywhere in the world? Are we comfortable being an empire?
2 Are we instigating said threats, if they do indeed exist? And if so is that part of our strategy to keep the MIC running the world?
3 Why is nation-building and war in Iraq wrong but sending more troops w/the same objectives OK in Afghan (Dems)?
4 Why was Saddam a menace but the house of Saud, Mubarak, Pervez etc. are our best buds? And why post 911 didn't we attack the Bush family friends/financiers of the hijackers?
5 For that matter, how does oil relate to all this--would we be more likely to intervene in Burma, Sudan, et al if they were sitting on an evaporating goldmine?
6 WTF about preemptive warfare against weak, poor nations that posed zero threat?

And knowing all of the above as we do, knowing that Mac & Bush/Cheney are of one mind here, how in god's green earth could our party possibly nominate a woman (a la Kerry) who turned away from this logic for the sake of her career?

"firing off hot-button words like "victory" and "surrender"--words that his hero General David Petraeus has never and would never use."

Of course not, because David Petraeus has never been victorious. While he has used the word "success" while lying to Congress, David Petraeus has never actually succeeded in building up an independent Iraq military/police force/whatever other metric that will be abandoned soon.

Fortunately, the cultlike devotion of the press to their heroes has nothing to due with reality; in other words, do not expect to see anything like this AT ALL in print.

We don't question tactics in public? Is that really what you're going with Question Hillary? Certainly it would be one thing for McCain to simply say I will not discuss tactics in public. It is quite another for him to say he disagrees with a tactic that is rational and in fact currently employed.

I'm still waiting for Admiral Obama to reveal his Secret Plan to invade and conquer Al Queda In Berzerkley, er, Pakistan.

Not to mention a woman peddling the same nanny state fear card, that only an experienced person who caved on the fundamental issue of our time, can protect us. What has experience gotten us--the likes of Kerry, his road to Damascus notw/standing, another in a line of centrist foreign policy practicioners willing to sacrifice all that they held sacred b/c of a cowering fear of American joe sixpack jingoism.

And spare me naive notions comparing Obama to W. Obama is brilliant, W. is ignorant. Do you really think he won't surround himself with likewise brilliant advisors, that he won't be able to do the right thing, or is he likely to surround himself with a cabal of Cheneyesque figures plotting perpetual hegemony?

"It is quite another for him to say he disagrees with a tactic that is rational and in fact currently employed."

Military future fields planning.

Catch the KEEP YOUR LEFTY MOUTH SHUT, NEED TO KNOW BASIS non-traitor proud American maybe like Michelle fever.

Perhaps the good Senator will have his victory after all in only a few more years, and maybe we can cap the troop loss at 5,000 and maybe just a few tens of thousands of maimed and broken bodies and psyches...but don't count on it.

Why is no one reporting, by the way, on the "success" to come that is paved with the bodies of soldiers who are committing suicide on a regular basis?

"American joe sixpack jingoism" keeps YOU pretty warm and safe this long cold winter, does it not -- or do you think our troop tents IS overflowing with Clinton's graduate school friends, be it on the long docks of Japan, cold razor wire of Korea, legacy airfields of Germany, ports of the Med, or dirt roads of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Mind you, Gulf I was about a 15-minute military tube steak, certainly not enough Time for any Clinton or Obama to enter the fray, eh? Haiti perhaps? Balkans maybe? Local Cub Scouts taking letters to the troops even?

Business and economic welfare can only be the recipients of the gifts of Western freedom when it is adequately and vigilantly secured, where threatened and attacked by enemies foreign or domestic.

The libs IS sadly still trying to yet figure out in which group they truly proudly finally belong.

Why is no one reporting, by the way, on the "success" to come that is paved with the bodies of soldiers who are committing suicide on a regular basis?

///

90% of them are Guard or Reserve, which is another reason we need to lower those numbers and increase by at least an equal amount the regular armed forces units.

This is not a new phenomenon, in American military history.

The vast majority of problems in the last 100+ years of U.S. conflicts have been rooted in the part-timers and draftees, versus the full time troops.

Another reason to cut the militia ranks is the sadder and louder blow that comes from a round landing in the motor pool of a regional unit, killing people from the same home town, often siblings -- and that's been going on since Bunker Hill.

For a whole host of reasons -- training, readiness, logistics, planning -- whoever ends up being the next POTUS needs to finally correct this wrong, and tell the governors they'll just have to relinquish control of the sand baggers for the good of our national defense if not our civil defense -- which does not need to be a military deal.

Thanks for pointing out McCain's hypocrisy. It's not really surprising, but it's a nice contrast to AMC's idolatry.
But McCain absolutely should not retract his statements. He should stand firm on his retarded neocon policies, and allow public opinion to plow him over.

A billion tons of payload for Iran, but he can't spare one guided missile for Bin Laden?

Us libs knows what group we belong to: the non-panicky, heart- as well as brain-engaged, non-fear-mongering, fully human side of the species that doesn't think that sniping with schoolyard bullyisms and wacky radio show Ripe Limberger pseudo-logic is a cool way to offend just about anybody that isn't in lock step with your point of view.

Let's follow McCain's logic, and find that "success" in an already lost cause is worth, oh, say another 1000 dead Americans and another 10,000 maimed, broken-spirited soldiers, so that we can say proudly to the world, "Hey, we didn't lose. Yippee! That means we won!"

Poor QH. Just hasn't been the same since your buddy Timothy got executed and your other buddy Terry got locked up, has it?

QH said:
"For a whole host of reasons -- training, readiness, logistics, planning -- whoever ends up being the next POTUS needs to finally correct this wrong, and tell the governors they'll just have to relinquish control of the sand baggers for the good of our national defense if not our civil defense -- which does not need to be a military deal."

QH, I am shocked that you are so ready to relinquish the rights provided to us by the 2nd Amendment.
The National Guard system may need to be revamped, but to do away with it entirely is unconstitutional.

"McCain's loose, inaccurate talk continues..."

The Saint lies? What will we tell the children? What will we tell the Villagers?

"And, in fact, Obama was merely saying that he supported current U.S. policy..."

No, he's not, Joe. He is talking about police action targeted directly at Al-Queda. He is NOT talking about blasting Iran, which, had it not been that NIE a couple months ago, was central to current policy. He is totally AGAINST the folly in Iraq. I just don't know where you pulled that chestnut from out ot the fire...

Your point about McCain's "inaccurate talk" misses the point. His statements ARE fairly close to the point on the current administrations' policy.

But I do agree with you that Obama offers possibly the most sane foreign policy amongst all the candidates.

"90% of them are Guard or Reserve, which is another reason we need to lower those numbers ..."

Most in Iraq, with the exception of the mercenaries, which outnumber them, are regular troops. Many serving there are by dint of the "stop loss" policy forcing enlistees to serve longer against their will.

Quack quack, QH.

"...
The vast majority of problems in the last 100+ years of U.S. conflicts have been rooted in the part-timers and draftees, versus the full time troops."

Where the HELL did you come up with this pseudofactoid?

EVERY conflict in which we fought, INCLUDING this one, where we were ineffective, featured a guerilla movement rooted in popularity among the indigenous population.

"Business and economic welfare can only be the recipients of the gifts of Western freedom when it is adequately and vigilantly secured, where threatened and attacked by enemies foreign or domestic.

The libs IS sadly still trying to yet figure out in which group they truly proudly finally belong."

I've heard much more out of you QH, about what we should do with various, and incidentally, most, Americans who don't agree with you - and NONE of it along the lines of the freedoms you tout.

You are both ignorant of history AND a hypocrate.

I was wondering then y'all would start turning on McCain.... It's that time. Doing so while propping up Obama is laughable. Pivot left, and then left again.... One more time: Left! Oh, now we're retreating!

I can't believe you are trying to give any credibility to Obama's "foreign policy" -- if you can call it such a thing.

McCain offers neo-con madness on steroids and Obama offers tawk, tawk, tawk.... What a choice! McCain wants to make the Bush years look like a prelude to war and Obama makes Jimmy Carter look like a sound realist. Could we get two worse choices?

Obama sure sounds good until you actually think about what he is saying. What is his plan to get us out of Iraq? How does Obama intend to actually get Osama? How does he intend to get dogs and cats to sleep together? Obama talks about ends but fails to discuss the means.

Why can't we have one candidate grounded in reality? Hillary is as close as it gets and I can't stand her at all. Yeah, she's corrupt but at least she has her feet planted on the ground. That's much more than can be said for McCain or Obama.

Pretty good post, Joe.

QH: your heart's not really in this anti-Obama stuff, it it? You've got to follow your bliss, which in this case is your hatred of Hillary.

BrooklyGurl -- no one really believes you're from Brooklyn or that you're a girl.

You know that, right?

Good post Joe.....

Quoting myself from the last thread:

Hunting OBL in Pakistan" was Obama "Emperor's New Clothes" moment. He actually had the audacity to state the obvious and the shocked gasps of the King's court are still resonating....

I think the only thing he might be criticized for is staing bluntly what's been happening quietly......(until recently)

Can we please have a full article in the print magazine about how Republicans are "Still Stumbling on National Security" with big color photos?

And maybe a few FISA corrections, along with a graphic of Bush's myriad lies about the subject too?

With Hillary as President there will finally be peace as she will build the bridges to the Islamic world that we need in order to reach understanding and mutual respect for one another and with the end of the neoimperialist Bush regime there will be no more reason for people to have to rise up and fight our naked aggression.

Peace is at hand!

Hillary 08!

"Utter nonsense"?

Joe, when we attacked al Qaeda targets with predator drones in Pakistan, the nation was incensed. It is a country of 160 million people and 60 atomic bombs, and the last thing we want to do is have this mostly moderate nation turn against us. Much as we'd like to go into the frontier provinces and take out al Qaeda, the backlash could potentially be more costly than benefits gained from killing enemies. This is why Obama's statements were viewed as inexperienced and ill-advised, not just by McCain but by a whole raft of foreign types on both sides of the aisle. This was one reason why Obama was not taken seriously at the time he made those statements, and it was one reason why Hillary had such high poll numbers back then.