Skip to content
Categories:

Why doesn’t McCain want to go after al Qaeda terrorists?

Post date:
Author:

Following up on an earlier item, John McCain seems to think he can score some cheap points against Barack Obama by claiming that he wants to “invade” Pakistan. Indeed, McCain is so pleased with himself, he keeps repeating the line, over and over again, as evidenced by an interview this morning in which he insisted, falsely, that Obama “wants to bomb Pakistan.”

Now, as we talked about earlier, the charge itself is a special kind of stupid. First, Obama did not recommend “invading” Pakistan. What Obama did say is that he would be willing to authorize strikes against “high-value terrorist targets,” even in Pakistan, as part of an aggressive counter-terrorism campaign. Obama said he would not wait for permission to do so, which, it just so happens, is already in line with current U.S. foreign policy.

But there’s an even more important angle to this. By McCain’s logic, Obama’s policy should be rejected, and we shouldn’t pursue al Qaeda terrorists like Abu Laith al-Libi. From today’s WaPo:

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, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities.

Officials say the incident was a model of how Washington often scores its rare victories these days in the fight against al-Qaeda inside Pakistan’s national borders: It acts with assistance from well-paid sympathizers inside the country, but without getting the government’s formal permission beforehand.

So, following the Obama model, we were able to kill a dangerous terrorist. Following the McCain model, al-Libi would be alive in Pakistan today.

In one of those lines I really wish I’d written, Atrios added, “As someone suggested in comments, it appears that McCain will chase Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell, unless of course those gates are in Pakistan.”

Honestly, I’ve tried to look at this to find an angle that would make sense of McCain’s attack, but I just can’t think of it. He’s not only lying, which is bad, but he’s also rejecting current U.S. counter-terrorism policy and making himself appear soft in the process. If there’s any logic to this at all, it’s hiding well.

Michael Cohen added:

Is John McCain going to criticize the Bush Administration for “bombing Pakistan?” Something tells me that ain’t going to happen. In fact, this type of limited attack, based on actionable intelligence is exactly what Obama suggested in a speech last Fall.

Do you think maybe McCain and his staff should read the FRONT PAGE of the Washington Post before they launch an attack like this?

Two other quick thoughts. First, McCain appears to be in an “attack first, think second” kind of mode. It’s not pretty to watch — this guy frequently comes across as confused and lacking clarity of thought. Incidents like this one only make the Dems’ jobs easier.

And second, it’s possible the Obama campaign has already taken advantage of this, but if they haven’t, it’d be a real shame to let this opportunity slip by. What better way to set the tone for the rest of the campaign than to smack McCain around on terrorism policy? Hell, ideally this would be part of Obama’s stump speech indefinitely: “My Republican opponent believes we’d be safer if we let al Qaeda terrorists walk freely around Pakistan. I don’t know if John McCain remembers the events of 9/11, but I give Americans my word that, as president, there would be no place on Earth al Qaeda members could hide….”

Comments

  • Lance

    says:

    But, but, but…

    You’re upsetting our good allies the Pakistanis.

    brrr!

    McCain is trying to imply he understands foreign policy better than Obama. Sadly, he’s just proving the opposite.

  • Danp

    says:

    CNN needs to read liberal blogs. Wolf and Dana on Situation Room were just now talking about McCain’s comments last night about “invading Pakistan”. Dana said that Hillary Clinton agrees with McCain on the issue, and Wolf said that Bush has made comments that he might make a strategic strike if he had any actionable intelligence. Too bad they don’t follow the news.

  • NonyNony

    says:

    McCain appears to be in an “attack first, think second” kind of mode.

    He’s panicking. He’s trying to defend himself on his right flank domestically and he sees Obama taking his “Independent” label and neutralizing that as a defense in the general. The weirdos on the Right have spent so long painting Hillary Clinton as slightly to the left of Mao and Lenin that McCain thought he’d at LEAST have the “commie-pinko-liberal” card to play in the general. Obama, though he isn’t objectively any more “moderate” than Clinton, neutralizes that and topples McCain’s own “moderate” cred to boot.

    I actually find it amusing to watch. Because ole’ “Straight Talk” made his bed – he’s the one who came up with the whole “Straight Talkin’ Maverick” persona. Now, as his “Straight Talk” begins to unravel into incoherence, he’s hopefully going to reach a point where even his bestest buddies on the blathering heads shows can’t buttress his phony “Straight Talkin’ Maverick” persona and his campaign will collapse into a heap of hipocricy so blatant and obvious that even Chris Matthews won’t be able to defend him.

    .. that last sentence is probably hyperbole. I doubt that old “Straight Talk” will ever reach a point where even Chris Matthews won’t be able to defend him.

  • toowearyforoutrage

    says:

    Replied too quick. Thought of something better….

    To ACCURATELY paraphrase from one of George “Dubya” Bush’s straw men:

    “Which terrorist would John Mc Cain prefer that we not have killed?”

  • Common Knowledge

    says:

    “If there’s any logic to this at all, it’s hiding well.”

    McCain initiates a lying, non-sensical attack on Obama. The media repeats the lie without question and without analysis, because McCain is a “straight-talker” and Democrats are by definition “weak on terrorism”. A significant number of voters believe the lie because they don’t pay much attention.

    There’s your logic.

  • Ajaz Haue

    says:

    Is It Time for Hillary Clinton to Quit?

    With ten successive defeats, the Clinton Camp must be wondering about the future of their campaign. Even if Hillary wins Texas & Ohio (which seems very unlikely), she will not be able to lead in the delegate count. So her camp needs to have a reality check.

    Perhaps it is time for the elders of Democratic party to suggest to Hillary that her continuing the campaign will be devisive for the party and it is time for her to concede. She has run a good competitive campaign, she was leading in the polls for the longest time, but the Obama movement has overtaken her and gone well past. It is time for Al Gore and other Democratic stalwarts to step up and bring this to a close.

    If Hillary quits now, she will leave on good terms with Obama and will enable the Democratic nominee to preserve cash and energy for campaign against McCain. Also, she may have an important place in an Obama Administration. She could be Secretary of Health implementing the all important healthcare plans that both she and Obama talk about so much.

    Also, with Obama’s relatively less experience in world affairs, his Administration must leverage Bill Clinton’s international experience. Bill could be the President’s Special Ambassador for Middle East peace, a project Clinton came so close to accomplishing towards the end of his Presidency but ran out of time. This could be a great opportunity for him to finish what he started.

  • TR

    says:

    Hell, ideally this would be part of Obama’s stump speech indefinitely: “My Republican opponent believes we’d be safer if we let al Qaeda terrorists walk freely around Pakistan. I don’t know if John McCain remembers the events of 9/11, but I give Americans my word that, as president, there would be no place on Earth al Qaeda members could hide….”

    Amen to that. You should contact the campaign.

  • entheo

    says:

    i saw that Q&A on tv and i have to say mccain’s tack exposed, on every level, a poor ability to differentiate himself from his opponents as well as an inability to articulate his own foreign policy. to me it represented a person whose mental faculties are fading and i was viscerally struck — as in genuinely concerned — that this man is going to be the republican candidate and — god forbid — potentially our next president.

  • Michael7843853 G-O/F in 08

    says:

    If McCain keeps displaying his tenuous grasp of reality, it may be too much even for the republicans. He may not be the opponent on election day.

  • memekiller

    says:

    McCain has no problems dropping a billion tons of payload to start another 100 year war in Iran, but he can’t spare one smart bomb for Bin Laden’s tent?

    Unlike Bush or McCain, if Obama was President, he would have finished off Al Qaeda in Tora Bora, even if he had to follow them across the border.

    Why do they ONLY worry about pissing off foreign leaders if it comes to taking out Bin Laden?

    Why are these guys so gung ho about bombing everyone EXCEPT the people who attacked us on 9/11?

    After Pearl Harbor, McCain would be willing to attack anyone except the Japanese, unless, of course, the Germans approved.

  • Trips

    says:

    I know it’s bad form link to stuff you do in comments, and I don’t generally make a big habit of it, but I thought you guys might enjoy the contrast vid I put together last night… it takes the relevant part from McCain’s Wisconsin speech last night and then adds quotes from the speech he’s alluding to, and mixes it with Obama’s response to the criticism at one of the Democratic debates. Excuse the longish setup, just trying to avoid being known as a linkbaiter or whatever the hell its called.

  • Grumpy

    says:

    Honestly, I’ve tried to look at this to find an angle that would make sense of McCain’s attack, but I just can’t think of it.

    He can take a page from Hillary Clinton’s rhetorical playbook. “I’m not the one claiming that A) I would end wars, B) I would change current policies, and C) that I’m supposed to make a damn lick of sense. Therefore, Obama is a hypocrite and I’m a — hey, look over there!”

  • ET

    says:

    I think John McCain and the GOP have a lot invested in the meme that Pakistan is our ally and a “good” one at that. To say any differently would mean acknowledging that Afghanistan is/has gone to to the crapper and Pakistan is hanging on by it’s fingernails. The right side of the aisle and all those on it have to stay on message, even if they don’t believe 1/2 of what they are saying because if they don’t who are they and what do they believe? They would have to completely reinvent their foreign policy narrative and since they have boxed themselves into a corner politically, that is nearly impossible.

  • Trips

    says:

    Well said ET. Trapped in a narrative vacuum… the intervening events of the last seven years seem to spur entrenchment rather than reassessment. But hey, don’t look too closely and it’ll become clear who has the strongest foreign policy hand, the Republicans.

  • barkleyg

    says:

    Why does John McCain HATE America? Is he still pissed at everyone because Bush pissed all over him in 2000?

    John McCain doesn’t get Mad, he gets Even, no matter the cost. Think King George!

  • Zorro for the Common Good

    says:

    John McCain will follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell … but not to Pakistan (which, unfortunately, is where he happens to be).

  • SteveIL

    says:

    So, following the Obama model, we were able to kill a dangerous terrorist. Actually, this would be the Bush model, and Obama is just doing what he does best; take the ideas of someone else and try to use it as his own.

    Obama said he would not wait for permission to do so, which, it just so happens, is already in line with current U.S. foreign policy. That’s right. He did say that. It should be noted that he said it after this became President Bush’s policy. So what’s so different about Obama?

  • toowearyforoutrage

    says:

    SteveIL:

    You miss the point. Obama didn’t say he invented the policy. He merely answered a question given him by a debate moderator with his view on what should be done about terrorists being hosted by uncooperative sovereign nations. Maybe he knew this was current policy, maybe he didn’t. He didn’t say either way and it wasn’t important to do so.

    Hilary Clinton and John McCain said he gave the wrong answer.

    THAT is the point. McCain and Hil think the CIA policy is wrong.
    Maybe they’ve got a better idea, but they have a better plan but they didn’t offer it which just makes them sound like pretenders.

  • SteveIL

    says:

    Yes, I know what Clinton and McCain said.

    You miss the point. Obama didn’t say he invented the policy. He merely answered a question given him by a debate moderator with his view on what should be done about terrorists being hosted by uncooperative sovereign nations. Maybe he knew this was current policy, maybe he didn’t. He didn’t say either way and it wasn’t important to do so. No, I didn’t miss the point, but you apparently missed mine. He should have known it was current policy as President Bush announced it publicly two weeks before Obama made his statement, and the completely unoriginal Obama didn’t bother citing the correct reference.

    The more accurate statement that can be made out of all of this is that McCain, Clinton, and Obama didn’t do a good job in explaining their own original foreign policy in regards to Pakistan, and didn’t look very smart or original criticizing each other.