McCain expresses concern over Iraq-Pakistan border — which doesn’t exist

July 21, 2008

Remember, the entire premise of John McCain’s campaign pitch is that he has an unrivaled expertise in foreign policy.

For those of you who can’t watch clips online, McCain appeared on ABC’s “Good Morning America” a few hours ago, and Diane Sawyer asked if he believed “the situation in Afghanistan is precarious and urgent.” McCain, carefully avoiding Sawyer’s adjectives, responded, “It’s a serious situation, but there’s a lot of things we need to do. We have a lot of work to do and I’m afraid that it’s a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq-Pakistan border.”

And in apparent attempt to win the electoral votes of Schmuck Town, McCain added, “And I would not announce that I’m going to attack Pakistan, as Sen. Obama did when he was during [sic] his campaign.”

Watching McCain humiliate himself like this is just painful. For one thing, Iraq and Pakistan don’t share a border. They’re not even especially close — Iraq and Pakistan are separated by 1,500 miles and the country of Iran.

For another, Obama did not “announce” that he’s going to “attack” Pakistan. Obama said he would authorize pursuit against high-value terrorist targets if targets slipped into areas of Pakistan where Musharraf has limited control. If John McCain seriously wants to tell voters that he would not pursue terrorists in this area, perhaps he should stop lying and start acknowledging the weakness of his counter-terrorism policy.

Regardless, the comments reflect a larger problem for McCain and his surprisingly incoherent perspective on the basics of foreign policy.

Look, I know it’s easy to make a mistake on live, national television. But Diane Sawyer had just asked about Afghanistan when McCain started talking about the Iraq-Pakistan border. Indeed, in context, it seemed as if McCain was so anxious to falsely attack Obama on U.S. policy towards Pakistan that he changed subjects in mid-sentence, leading to a gaffe that didn’t make any sense at all.

And if McCain were generally coherent on matters of foreign policy, it’d be easier to overlook minor errors like talking about borders that don’t exist. But the real problem here is that McCain’s constant confusion seems to be part of a pattern.

* McCain continues to believe Czechoslovakia is still a country.

* McCain has been confused about the difference between Sudan and Somalia.

* McCain has been confused about whether he wants more U.S. troops in Afghanistan, more NATO troops in Afghanistan, or both.

* McCain has been confused about how many U.S. troops are in Iraq.

* McCain has been confused about whether the U.S. can maintain a long-term presence in Iraq.

* McCain has been confused about the source of violence in Iraq.

* McCain has been confused about Iran’s relationship with al Qaeda.

* McCain has been confused about the difference between Sunni and Shi’ia.

* McCain has been confused about Gen. Petraeus’ responsibilities in Iraq.

* McCain has been confused about what transpired during the Maliki government’s recent offensive in Basra.

* McCain has been confused about Gen. Petraeus’ ability to travel around Baghdad “in a non-armed Humvee.”

* McCain has been so confused about Iraq, in November 2006, he couldn’t even do a live interview about the war without reading prepared notes on national television.

* McCain has been confused about his vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

* McCain, following a trip to Germany, referred to “President Putin of Germany.” (Updated)

And this only covers McCain’s obvious incoherence on his signature issue.

I honestly don’t know what happened to this guy. John McCain used to be a sharp, reasonably honest politician. And then he decided he desperately wanted to be the Republican presidential nominee — and he threw it all away.

Maybe it’ll work out. Maybe just enough voters will be fooled by McCain’s bizarre con job. But it’s hard to imagine how.

And the trolls bring up Obama’s 57-state comment in 5 … 4 … 3 …

Of course, they won’t mention that Obama: a.) corrected himself; and b.) hasn’t made the same mistake over and over and over and over and over, like John McGeographer has.

But that won’t stop them from trying to equate the two.

  • You’re doing such a good job maintaining the Official John McCain Flip-Flop List, that you should start compiling a list of his foreign policy “gaffes,” like saying Iran is training Al Qaeda terrorists. If Obama had made as many errors as McCain has, well, you know the rest.

  • D’oh. And if I had noticed there was a jump and I had read past it then I would have seen that you did just that.

  • And in another apparent geographical gaffe, McCain was caught off-mike womdering alound how much money in gas it would take to drive the straight talk express to Hawaii.

  • “Maybe it’ll work out. Maybe just enough voters will be fooled by McCain’s bizarre con job. But it’s hard to imagine how.”

    Because you can fool all of the people some of the time. I’m willing to bet that 80% of the US population have no idea whatsoever where Iraq and Pakistan lie on the map. I’ll wagher a few more quid on the bet that MSM Free Liberal Press won’t comment on the notion that McAce is lying about Obama’s statement. Nauseating…

  • mb likes senile/incompetent leaders. So McCain has that going for him.

    Anyone who votes Republican this cycle deserves to be admitted to a psych ward.

    And luckily for those who do, when Obama is President, mental health coverage will be universal.

  • i keep wondering why you find any of this “surprising?” where is the evidence that mccain has a coherent worldview about anything? i find his continuous “gaffes” predictable in the extreme: when you put an ill-informed nitwit in front of microphones on a regular basis, stupidity emerges.

  • You had me until you said “John McCain used to be a sharp, reasonably honest politician”.

    He’s never been sharp, and he’s been caught cheating on his wife, his country, and reality itself.

    He’s got a real problem with honesty, and he’s stupid. Those aren’t things that crop up overnight.

  • John McCain should also be worried about possible invasion from the evil doers of “Rand McNally” who are located in a compass shaped island located in the South Atlantic.

  • McCain wouldn’t “announce that he’s going to attack Pakistan”, but Iran… It’s FUNNY to joke about attacking THEM.

    Moran.

  • Howard:
    Gotta agree with you and not Steve about McCain. He’s never been a ‘sharp, reasonably honest politician.’ It’s just that his spasms as he attempted to win the nomination in 2000 happened to be in a direction we agreed with, but they were — as far as I can tell — no more ‘honest’ than his current desperate grasping for any issue that won’t lose him more votes that it will win him.

    On the other hand, Iludium, using the ‘gorilla joke’ WOULD be ‘swiftboating.’ The story was written several months after the remark was supposedly made, and even the reporter could only say for sure that he made a joke involving apes and rape. She didn’t know the exact wording, there is no recording of it. Maybe he said it, maybe he didn’t, the fact is that no one knows for sure WHAT he said, and using it against him is no different than saying that “Gore claims he invented the Internet” or ‘was the inspiration for LOVE STORY.’

    Damn it, we don’t have to imitate the Republicans to win. (After all, Rove almost blew two elections for Bush — some of us would argue he DID blow them — and these Republican tactics are one reason (of many) why we have a majority now and will have a gigantic majority next January.

  • I think he simply misspoke. He was talking about Afghanistan at the beginning of the sentence and inadvertently said “Iraq” instead of Afghanistan at the end.

    While he has certainly shown that he doesn’t know squat about stuff he should, I think this was just an honest mistake.

  • And, RacerX, since of the last eight Democratic Presidents six were adulterers (Cleveland, Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton), this isn’t such a great tactic either. There’s plenty of reason for attacking McCain, why waste time, breath and bandwidth on this one?

  • McCain is a stupid twit, a bucketmouth without a brain or anything in it. He just says anything he thinks and doesn’t care if it’s wrong. Just what we need in a world leader. In many ways he’s worse than Bush.

  • If you read between the (border) lines, McSame is talking about Iran. And since diplomacy is for wussies……

  • McCain’s new campaign slogan: Vote McCain he’ll get it straight before January 20th. We promise.

  • “My guess is he’s had a stroke they’re not telling us about.”

    Thank you! I’ve been saying that since last winter. He certainly looks and acts like he’s had a stroke. I know people well into their 70’s and 80’s who are sharp as tacs. John McCain seems old beyond his years. He acts addled and looks ill. The Iraq/Afghanistan gaffe wasn’t ignorance. He always seems confused. He doesn’t belong anywhere near the White House.

  • Taritac said: “I think he simply misspoke.”

    Maybe. Or he could have meant the IraN-Pakistan border, which is populated on both sides by Buluchis who don’t particularly like their Persian and Punjabi “masters” either.

    But considering just how important getting it right is, if your policy is going to be any more subtle than dropping hydrogen bombs on the top of people until everybody you find offensive is dead, I think we get to slam him for this.

  • Yeah, but his daddy and his granddaddy were admirals. You know, real men. Here’s little Johnny, barely made it out of Annapolis, crashed 5 jets and his greatest accomplishment is getting to be a girlie-man Senator? Where’s the glory in talking and compromising and (gag) legislating? Time’s running out if Johnny’s to make his mark. Look out Iran, Johnny’s got to outdo his daddy, just like his predecessor.

  • Btw, don’t misunderstand me. Attack McCain, attack him steadily — but on things that matter, on things that reflect on his competency, judgement, honesty, choice of advisors, etc. Those are important things in a President, his sex life simply isn’t. (I agree, for example, that the ‘Afghanistan-Iraq’ border was a simple ’57 states’ goof that we all make. The other examples Steve gives shows a pattern of cluelessness and incompetence, the way his choice of advisors shows, at best, egotism “Check people out? Why? I am the Great McCain, I don’t need to check out my own judgment of people” and at worst corruption. (Speaking of which, while I haven’t had a chance to check it out myself, the story Mark Kleiman picks up on — originally reported on Majikthise — about Schunemann’s background IS — if true — worth using. It’s at
    http://www.samefacts.com/archives/john_mccain_/2008/07/is_mccain_surronded_entirely_by_crooks.php
    and Mark’s comment “In a just world, this would be the end for McCain. He’s now had to dump his chief economic adviser and two spiritual advisers in a row, as well as assorted crooked lobbyists and hangers-on. This raises real questions about his judgment.” sems to be ‘spot on.’)

  • And I don’t understand the reluctance to make an issue out of how he is showing his age, and whether he DID have a mild stroke. Again, if true, important in terms of his governing.

  • Wazza matta wit u – everyone knows that Iraq & Packestan have a common border – shard with Checkoslowvackia…

  • “My guess is he’s had a stroke they’re not telling us about.”

    I’m going to do my Bill Frist impersonation.

    Symptoms:

    1. Blinking fits

    2. The strange way he holds his left hand (kind of like Bob Dole with the ink pen) while
    talking. War injury?

    3. Forgetting/mixing up his own long held opinions and positions on policies and legislation.

    4. Long painful pauses while he ponders a reporter’s question.

    5. Inability to memorize his speeches (he basically reads speeches to his audience).

    6. Despite considerable education and travel, confusing basic geography.

    Diagnosis: John McCain has suffered a stroke in the last two years. Terry Schiavo is fully conscious of her surroundings.

  • At this point I think the proper medical term for McCain’s condition is “swimmy-headed”. He begins the difficult situation (any where he must communicate) with an ironclad determination not to agree with anything Obama has said. Hence, he cannot bring himself to agree that the situation in Afghanistan is precarious or urgent, because Barack has already used those words. So he’s stuck, he calls it “serious”, but in devoting so much of his limited cranial resources to dodging those darned Obama words, he realizes there’s another place that’s maybe even more urgent – oh yeah, the “Iraq-Pakistan” border, Obama didn’t even mention that! So he dives in head first with all the amazing and awesome power that is the McCain foreign policy supremacy: ““It’s a serious situation, but there’s a lot of things we need to do. We have a lot of work to do and I’m afraid that it’s a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq-Pakistan border.”

    There, he did it! He showed his ability to discuss foreign policy and not agree once with Obama. The only problem is he has descended into babbling and won’t even know it until his handlers tell him after they read it here or on ThinkProgress. Just the kind of guy you want in charge, not if you’re a voter, but if you’re a failed President who needs someone to cover up your lawless legacy.

  • I think he simply misspoke.

    McCain thinking: “Order my lunch”

    McCain speaking: “Order the launch”

    One gets a chicken salad sandwich with prune juice, the other starts a war. I would rather have a president that did not continually misspeak!

  • This is another case of it not mattering if McCain gets things wrong now and then (read: daily) because we all KNOW he KNOWS all there is to know about foreign policy. He’s John McCain.

    Just like when he takes money from lobbyists and has them run his campaign, it means nothing — because we know how honest he is and how hard he has fought against lobbyists his entire career. He’s John McCain.

    Or when he tells disgusting “jokes,” it doesn’t matter because he doesn’t mean any harm. He’s just a natural jokester who everyone wants to be around. He’s John McCain.

  • I’ve just got to ask this one silly question—is JoeW the only other guy who gets McLie’s coded message? The “border” separating Iraq and the Afghan/Pakistani region is IRAN. The Bush/McLie cartel only have that one gambit left to them; they cannot win in Afghanistsn “as-is,” they’ve lost the Iraq card. I mean, look at what Condi’s doing—demanding “hard answers” from Tehran with a two-week deadline? Everyone on the entire planet knows that Iran isn’t going to buckle under on their nuke program; they can get just about anything they need of the global market, and all they’d need to do to wreak havok on the US is to float oil on a currency other than the US$. Israel isn’t going to risk regional obliteration, because—in the end—they’d lose their uber-cheap Palestinian labor pool (forcing the Palestinians to suffer under a 79% unemployment rate guarantees an endless supply of people who will work for dirt). Forcing Israel to pay true, prevailing wages on all positions of employment would bankrupt their country.

    The only ones left who are anxious to “get it on” with Iran is the Bush/McLie cartel—and the people within that particular bubble know full well that there is, indeed, a common border between Iraq and the Pakistan/Afghan region.

    The “border crossing” is Tehran….

  • Is the facial paralysis from skin cancer?

    …or is it from a “cerebral event”? (a stroke).

  • We all know that McCain and Liebermann want to start a war with Iran. But, Steve, that’s not what’s going on in this “gaffe”. Indeed, after reading your post I doubt McCain has the understanding to follow it and it certainly is not what he’s talking about. What he’s been caught doing is trying to downplay Obama’s assertion that Iraq is not the central front and that the situation in Afghanistan is “perilous and urgent” but McCain is simply confused because he’s actually talking about the same place. This is the best example yet of why this befuddled man should retire rather than run for president.

    But, how come the trolls don’t come out and explain?

  • This could be written off to fatigue. She asked him a question about Afghanistan, and in his fumbling attempt to answer her without saying anything he seems to be referring to the turbulence on the Pakistani border with Afghanistan, but messed up and said Iraq instead. He’s made some howling gaffes, but this one isn’t newsworthy.

  • One of our greatest presidents, by many accounts – President Reagan – slept thru a lot of meetings – it’s not the man but the people around the man that see his vision and wisdom – and – I’m sure you can aurgue about the present adminstration and the surrounding people – the aurgument may seem hollow years from when we look back at the times and the decisions made

  • Algernon, I think you miss the point. She asked a question that indicated Obama called the situation in Afghanistan “perilous and urgent”. It was in his desperation to prove Obama wrong that he tried to substitute a place that would be more “perilous and urgent”, but in reality, he was referring to the same “perilous and urgent” situation. If this is a case of “fatigue” then it’s even more reason that this guy is too old and tired and confused to be in charge.

  • you might aurgue that Reagan was one of our greatest presidents.
    i suspect most here would argue the contrary.

  • McCain expresses concern over Iraq-Pakistan border

    I’m worried that he’s taking his eye off the dangerous Iraq-Czechoslovakia border.

  • zeitgeist – if you were an arms dealer who got the US account to send missiles to Iran that was ordered while Reagan was sleeping, or you were the bond trader who got the account that benefitted from trillions of US debt accumulated while Reagan was sleeping, or you were and undertaker who got the account to bury the AIDS fatalities that piled up while Reagan was sleeping, well by all of these accounts, Reagan was a great president.
    For the US, not so much….

  • Women for John Sidney McCain III outdid themselves today and explained everything in the simple terms everyone — even Dems — can understand.
    http://www.womenforjohnmccain.com/
    It wasn’t a mis-speak; it’s all a part of a plan to confuse the terrorists!

    That website has fast become one of my all time favourites for sly sense of humour, to the point where I actually welcome Mondays (unlike Benen, they slack off on weekends). I can’t understand why they’re having so little traffic; I’m sure several people here — Zeitgeist, Dale, TAIO and others — would enjoy it as much as I do. Don’t let the site’s name put you off. Go there for a giggle. And don’t miss their icon next to the URL…

  • BuzzMon, @41,

    Zeitgeist’s posting @38 was a lighthearted response to Jerry’s, @36, nonsense — misspellings an’all. Geez, mon, lighten up…

  • Prup, I don’t think the issue with McCain’s infidelity is JUST about sex. It’s about character when it amounts to him dumping his first wife because she was injured, and injured in a way that rendered her not as attractive as she once was. And he did this to her when she stood by him during the 5 MIA/POW years when other women might have moved on. Not only that, she sheltered him by not wanting him told about her accident when he had a lot more worries of his own… In other words, she was loyal and he couldn’t bring himself to be.

  • libra – I knew that –
    That’s why I used the word “accounts” (switching it to business accounts) in order to lampoon Jerry’s comment. I should have added the misspelled aurgue, too.

    I guess that I need to add the \end snark to some of my comments.

    Sorry for the confusion. Enjoyed your recent posts, this from a fellow ethnic born in Chicago….

  • Did Diane Sawyer “call him out” on his error or did she just let it pass?

  • NBC/NJ’s Adam Aigner-Treworgy, who has been traveling with the McCain campaign, notes that the candidate has until today danced around questions about increasing the troop commitment in Afghanistan. During yesterday’s press avail, McCain stepped up to the line, but backed off: “I think we need to do whatever is necessary, and that could entail more troops. We need to do a lot of things in Afghanistan. A lot of this has to do with Pakistan and the safe haven areas that I have visited in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

    McCain said this last week. McCain has visited the tribal areas in pakistan and met with their leaders.

    http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/07/mccain_calls_fo.html

  • It seems like this rather lengthy pattern of misstatements from McCain is the exact type of thing that would have the MSM singing the death song for a candidate if that candidate happened to be a Democrat. I wonder why the left doesn’t seem to get very far with building the negative meme against it’s opponents in the MSM?

    One theory I’ve heard is that the MSM are all held by giant corporate interests that are therefore inherently favorable to republicans, who are of course the party of the big corporation. This may be true, in part, but I don’t find this explanation entirely satisfactory.

    The way the republican meme machine used to work (still does?) is that Rove or somebody would decide on the meme, then they would hold weekly teleconference calls with Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Pat Robertson, and others to give them their marching orders for the week. They read from the transcript and then soon the MSM starts to pick up on it. At first, the MSM reports that “some republicans say this”, but pretty soon they shorten it and then they basically parrot the republican talking points. Next thing you know Al Gore is a serial liar.

    The left never has this kind of media coordination that the right has had. The lefty blogs and others won’t take direct marching orders from the Democratic Party. Also, for some reason,the MSM seem to be much more loathe to pick up a story from the progressive/lefty blogs than they do from Limbaugh or O’Reilly. So that leads me back to my question.

    How does the left get the MSM to pick up on this story?

  • If I were a conspiracy theorist, I’d say the Republicans try to make their candidates appear dumb publicly. This way, if the candidates are attacked for their gaffes they become victims of the biased “left wing media”. The pattern is so clear for the last three Republican Presidents it can’t be coincidence, can it? Contrast this to Democratic presidents who appear smart publicly, and are demonized for being smart elitists.

    But then again, I’m not a conspiracy theorist.

  • Pingback: Biased Media Favors McCain - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

  • Anyone who votes for Obama will need to have his head examined. Both McCain and Obama are not fit for the presidency.

  • The really disappointing aspect of Obama is that he was supposed to be the peace candidate. But everything that he appeared to stand for- multiculturalism, religious toleration, peace, diplomacy- all are overshadowed by this foolish idea of moving the war to Pakistan.

    Moving the war on terror to Pakistan could have disastrous consequences on both the political stability in the region, and in the broader balance of power. Scholars such as Richard Betts accurately point out that beyond Iran or North Korea, “Pakistan may harbor the greatest potential danger of all.” With the current instability in Pakistan, Betts points to the danger that a pro-Taliban government would pose in a nuclear Pakistan. This is no minor point to be made. While the Shi’a in Iran are highly unlikely to proliferate WMD to their Sunni enemies, the Pakistanis harbor no such enmity toward Sunni terrorist organizations. Should a pro-Taliban or other similar type of government come to power in Pakistan, Al-Qaeda’s chances of gaining access to nuclear weapons would dramatically increase overnight.
    There are, of course, two sides to every argument; and this argument is no exception. On the one hand, some insist that American forces are needed in order to maintain political stability and to prevent such a government from rising to power. On the other hand, there are those who believe that a deliberate attack against Pakistan’s state sovereignty will only further enrage its radical population, and serve to radicalize its moderates. I offer the following in support of this latter argument:
    Pakistan has approximately 160 million people; better than half of the population of the entire Arab world. Pakistan also has some of the deepest underlying ethnic fissures in the region, which could lead to long-term disintegration of the state if exacerbated. Even with an impressive growth in GDP (second only to China in all of Asia), it could be decades before wide-spread poverty is alleviated and a stable middle class is established in Pakistan.
    Furthermore, the absence of a deeply embedded democratic system in Pakistan presents perhaps the greatest danger to stability. In this country, upon which the facade of democracy has been thrust by outside forces and the current regime came to power by coup, the army fulfills the role of “referee within the political boxing ring.” However, this referee demonstrates a “strong personal interest in the outcome of many of the fights and a strong tendency to make up the rules as he goes along.” The Pakistani army “also has a long record of either joining in the fight on one side or the other, or clubbing both boxers to the ground and taking the prize himself” (Lieven, 2006:43).
    Pakistan’s army is also unusually large. Thathiah Ravi (2006:119, 121) observes that the army has “outgrown its watchdog role to become the master of this nation state.” Ravi attributes America’s less than dependable alliance with Pakistan to the nature of its army. “Occasionally, it perceives the Pakistan Army as an inescapable ally and at other times as a threat to regional peace and [a] non-proliferation regime.” According to Ravi, India and Afghanistan blame the conflict in Kashmir and the Durand line on the Pakistan Army, accusing it of “inciting, abetting and encouraging terrorism from its soil.” Ravi also blames the “flagrant violations in nuclear proliferation by Pakistan, both as an originator and as a conduit for China and North Korea” on the Pakistan Army, because of its support for terrorists.
    The point to be made is that the stability of Pakistan depends upon maintaining the delicate balance of power both within the state of Pakistan, and in the broader region. Pakistan is not an island, it has alliances and enemies. Moving American troops into Pakistan will no doubt not only serve to radicalize its population and fuel the popular call for Jihad, it could also spark a proxy war with China that could have long-lasting economic repercussions. Focusing on the more immediate impact American troops would have on the Pakistani population; let’s consider a few past encounters:
    On January 13, 2006, the United States launched a missile strike on the village of Damadola, Pakistan. Rather than kill the targeted Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s deputy leader, the strike instead slaughtered 17 locals. This only served to further weaken the Musharraf government and further destabilize the entire area. In a nuclear state like Pakistan, this was not only unfortunate, it was outright stupid.
    On October 30, 2006, the Pakistani military, under pressure from the US, attacked a madrassah in the Northwest Frontier province in Pakistan. Immediately following the attack, local residents, convinced that the US military was behind the attack, burned American flags and effigies of President Bush, and shouted “Death to America!” Outraged over an attack on school children, the local residents viewed the attack as an assault against Islam.
    On November 7, 2006, a suicide bomber retaliated. Further outrage ensued when President Bush extended his condolences to the families of the victims of the suicide attack, and President Musharraf did the same, adding that terrorism will be eliminated “with an iron hand.” The point to be driven home is that the attack on the madrassah was kept as quiet as possible, while the suicide bombing was publicized as a tragedy, and one more reason to maintain the war on terror.
    Last year trouble escalated when the Pakistani government laid siege to the Red Mosque and more than 100 people were killed. “Even before his soldiers had overrun the Lal Masjid … the retaliations began.” Suicide attacks originating from both Afghan Taliban and Pakistani tribal militants targeted military convoys and a police recruiting center. Guerrilla attacks that demonstrated a shocking degree of organization and speed-not to mention strategic cunning revealed that they were orchestrated by none other than al-Qaeda’s number two man, Ayman Al-Zawahiri; a fact confirmed by Pakistani and Taliban officials. One such attack occurred on July 15, 2007, when a suicide bomber killed 24 Pakistani troops and injured some 30 others in the village of Daznaray (20 miles to the north of Miran Shah, in North Waziristan). Musharraf ordered thousands of troops into the region to attempt to restore order. But radical groups swore to retaliate against the government for its siege of the mosque and its cooperation with the United States.
    A July 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) concludes that “al Qaeda is resurgent in Pakistan- and more centrally organized than it has been at any time since 9/11.” The NIE reports that al-Qaeda now enjoys sanctuary in Bajaur and North Waziristan, from which they operate “a complex command, control, training and recruitment base” with an “intact hierarchy of top leadership and operational lieutenants.”
    In September 2006 Musharraf signed a peace deal with Pashtun tribal elders in North Waziristan. The deal gave pro-Taliban militants full control of security in the area. Al Qaeda provides funding, training and ideological inspiration, while Afghan Taliban and Pakistani Tribal leaders supply the manpower. These forces are so strong that last year Musharraf sent well over 100,000 trained Pakistani soldiers against them, but they were not able to prevail against them.
    The question remains, what does America do when Pakistan no longer has a Musharraf to bridge the gap? While Musharraf claims that President Bush has assured him of Pakistan’s sovereignty, Senator Obama obviously has no intention of honoring such an assurance. As it is, the Pakistanis do just enough to avoid jeopardizing U.S. support. Musharraf, who is caught between Pakistan’s dependence on American aid and loyalty to the Pakistani people, denies being George Bush’s hand-puppet. Musharraf insists that he is “200 percent certain” that the United States will not unilaterally decide to attack terrorists on Pakistani soil. What happens when we begin to do just that?

    In 2002 Musharraf was reported to have told a British official that his “great concern is that one day the United States is going to desert me. They always desert their friends.” Musharraf has more reason now to skeptical of his American allies than ever.

  • Yes, it’s a great mystery when these old white guys mispeak. I wonder what can be the matter. You have this Raygun relaying his delusion about liberating death camps from Hollywood, and then there’s the ongoing Dohbya stand-up act, and just the other day a prime pundit named Broder or something alibied he never spoke before groups which lobbied, and his defense was followed by an ombudsperson from his own paper listing at least three which did just that, and now Magoo cannot go through a single day without a major howler. These signals can trigger a more intense look when it comes to drivers license renewal, and yet for the highest and most dangerous office in the land, driving the entire country, he draws a free walk, and everyone tiptoes around the central issue. He is in no way mentally qualified to sit on your average city council.

  • I’m not concerned with McCain’s age per se: I’m concerned that he is 72 and a guy who spent 5 years being punched in the head and subjected to malnutrition. The wear and tear on his body probably makes him twenty years older than his physical age.

  • Cummon guys so he’s suffering from senile dementia, at least at 72 he’s got an excuse
    unlike Shrub.

  • It was a leak of his foreign policy. If you eliminate Iran and Afghanistan you have an Iraq-Pakistan border.

  • It’s always a nice laugh to read posts from pseudo-intellectuals who can’t spell questioning the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with them.

    It’s even funnier when they call someone a moron and spell it wrong.

    • Comments are closed.