The extent to which Barack Obama’s comments about Pakistan have been twisted beyond recognition continues to astound me. The problem is not just that American voters are gong to be confused by the errors, but also that an international audience will be misled.
This truly bizarre piece, for example, ran in the Pakistani press.
United States Presidential Candidate and Senator Barack Obama’s speech on August 1, 2007 at the Wilson Center, a think tank in Washington D.C., confirmed what many feared: the Democrats will continue, unabated, a war on terror that bears exact resemblance to the one waged by President Bush. The only difference: it’s going to happen in Pakistan instead of Iraq. As president, Obama’s first step will be “getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” So watch out Pakistan, it appears the Democrats are as war savvy as the Republicans. […]
[W]hat is going on? Why are the Democrats so gleefully chomping at war’s bit? And if mimicking Republicans is en vogue, what will stop Democrats from mirroring comments by Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo, for example, who asserted, the same week Obama pointed towards Pakistan, that bombing holy Muslim sites will deter Islamic fundamentalists from attacks on the U.S.? Fortunately the U.S. State Department quickly criticized Tancredo’s comments as reprehensible, but the new standard for irrationality was set and will soon, no doubt, be followed perhaps by a Democrat.
What on earth is this person talking about? I know Obama’s speech was a little long, and so perhaps it’s intimidating to a casual observer, but did it ever occur to the political world that perhaps writers should read his speech before telling a Pakistani audience that Obama wants to launch an invasion?
Obama explained, in some detail, his intention to support Musharraf’s government. Under specific circumstances, Obama would want to target terrorists in largely-uncontrolled mountainous regions of Pakistan. In no way could this be reasonably described as having an “exact resemblance” to Bush’s war policy. The comparison is absurd.
And what’s to stop Dems from “mirroring” Tancredo’s lunacy? I don’t know, maybe a dash of sanity?
A handful of U.S. reporters are equally confused. MSNBC had this fact-checking piece after last night’s debate. (via The Daily Background)
The biggest point of contention in the debate last night came stemmed from an argument Obama made recently — the idea that he would take action against Al-Qaeda in Pakistan, if that country’s leadership won’t act. Several candidates criticized Obama on that point… and the fiercest exchange was over what Obama said in his recent speech.
Dodd: “If you’re making a mistake today, you ought to stand up and say so. It was a mistake in my view to suggest somehow that going in unilaterally here, into Pakistan, was somehow in our interest.” Obama replied: “I did not say that we would immediately go in unilaterally. What I said was that we have to work with Musharraf”
So, who is telling the truth? Judge for yourself. Here is what Obama said last week: “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 will not act, we will.”
Dodd was correct about what Obama said… Obama did not say he would work with Musharraf.
Wrong. I love the fact that MSNBC does fact-checking for the debate, but someone needs to fact-check their fact-checking. Actually, Obama did say he would work with Musharraf. It’s in the speech that people have criticized without reading. Obama said:
If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.
And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America’s commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists’ program of hate is met with one of hope.
It’s as if there’s some kind of block out there, preventing people from reading beyond the controversial sentence to see what comes after.
And now Pakistanis are being told that Democrats want to invade their country. It’s like living in a Twilight Zone episode.