McCain and bin Laden
| Tue Sep. 30, 2008 9:59 AM PDT
McCAIN AND BIN LADEN....Our story so far: Barack Obama says that if he had actionable intelligence about Osama bin Laden's whereabouts in Pakistan, he'd take him out. John McCain says that's naive and reckless. Then, a couple of days ago while ordering a cheesesteak, Sarah Palin jumped in and said she'd take him out too. Huh? So on Monday Katie Couric asked the two of them whether Palin had gone off the reservation. Answer: that's a silly gotcha question. The issue isn't whether McCain/Palin take out bin Laden, it's whether they'd say that they're willing to take out bin Laden. "Never would our administration get out there and show our cards to terrorists," Palin said, "in this case to enemy, and let them know what the game plan is."
Got that? They'd do it, but they'd never publicly say they were going to do it. But Judah Grunstein points us to this interview with McCain from a year ago:
Q: So if you were president and you knew that bin Laden were over there, you had a target spotting, you could nail him, you'd go get him?
McCain: Sure. Sure. We have to, and I'm sure that after the initial flurry, that whoever our friends are, wherever he is, would be relieved because, as I mentioned to you before, he's still very effective in the world, very, very effective.
So long ago, before all of this nonsense hit the campaign trail, McCain himself was saying the exact same thing as Obama: if we knew where bin Laden was, of course we'd take him out — and then pick up the pieces afterward. Needless to say, this will come as no surprise to the government of Pakistan, which has never been under any illusions about this. (And neither have the terrorists, regardless of what Palin burbles about it.) But it's a useful attack line for McCain, so I guess we'll keep hearing it.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
Submitted by cleek (not verified) on Tue Sep. 30, 2008 10:09 AM PDT.
oh sure, he's changed positions a few times and lies constantly about everything. but he's an honorable foreign policy expert. and a POW. you have to respect him for that.
What they're trying to say is that if you ask a simple question and we give you an answer, you shouldn't necessarily believe that answer because you shouldn't have asked that question in the first place, and if we had known you were going to ask that question we would have given you a different answer that wouldn't have actually answered your question, but would satisfy our objective of not giving you the real answer because we don't want you to know what that is because then the terrorists will have won.
I'm not sure which is more painful to watch -- Palin struggling & failing to answer simple questions, or McCain supervising the interview & then hijacking the entire affair in order to answer those questions for her. Desperate doesn't begin to describe things.
" But it's a useful attack line for McCain, so I guess we'll keep hearing it."
How is this useful? It is idiotic and I imagine for most people, appalling. Proudly proclaiming our intention to kill Bin Laden whereever we find him is a unambiguous political winner. What is McCain thinking?
Submitted by Stewart Dean (not verified) on Tue Sep. 30, 2008 10:59 AM PDT.
Consistency is the hobgoblin of petty minds.......
Has anyone else noticed that Cindy McCain has restyled her hair dramatically AFTER Sarah Palin started getting big hugs from John McCain? Perhaps Cindy was concerned with the comparison of the youthful Sarah as showing Cindy's age, at least in the wandering eyes of her hubby. DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN?
I'm not sure which is more painful to watch -- Palin struggling & failing to answer simple questions, or McCain supervising the interview & then hijacking the entire affair in order to answer those questions for her. Desperate doesn't begin to describe things. Posted by: junebug
It's rather, what's the word, sexist? It's like watching a husband and wife being interviewed and the husband thinks his wife is too stupid to answer the questions, which of course is true in this case. However, the "husband" is none too bright himself.
The question is, why is it a useful attack line?
Saying, "If I know where Osama bin Laden is, I am going to kill him" is not revealing any big secrets. That has been U.S. policy toward bin Laden since the Clinton administration.
Who would disagree with that?
dmh and James are right--it's not a useful attack line at all. It gives Obama an opening to appear tougher than McCain on a foreign policy issue, and of course Obama is also right on the merits. So why does McCain keep it up, when it's a clear loser of an attack line? Because he's a stubborn ornery old man who's dug himself a hole and can't stop digging, a la not talking to the Prime Minister of Spain.
Sarah Palin:And if you want specifics, with specific policy or countries, go ahead and you can ask me. You can even play Stump the Candidate, if you want to.** Offer does not include actually answering questions about specifics. For example, this quote was a response to "...give us specific skills that you have to bring to the White House..."
If John McCain is caught lying all the time and isn't consistent about his own policy positions, then how can the public know what he would do as president? How can they trust ANYTHING he might say?
Well, we all know politicians sometimes lie and change their positions. But, what McCain is doing is getting ridiculous.
John McCain's lying and contradicting his running mate (the top of his ticket) is bordering on disgusting behavior.
He's devaluing the entire Democratic process where the electorate has to trust a great deal that their candidates will tell them roughly what they think and plan to do.
John McCain can't be trusted any more. For a politician this is the beginning of the end.
Submitted by KathyF (not verified) on Tue Sep. 30, 2008 11:43 PM PDT.
Not only that, but McCain has often been heard singing about bombing our enemies!
I hear he is teaching Palin the words to "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran".
