Especially since they have a new president. Let's hope he's as smart and committed as his wife was.
My question is, what would have been the correct way for Obama to answer that question? If he had said he wouldn't attack Pakistan, his opponents would have said he was coddling terrorists. If he had declined to answer on the grounds that such statements ought not to be made during a political campaign, his opponents would have said he had no answer to give because he was a callow youth without the stones to govern (the case McCain attempted to make throughout the debate with his the-poor-baby-Senator-doesn't-understand formula).
Obama said he would cross the border for cause, if the Pakistanis were incapable or uncooperative, to defend US security. McCain implied, by his rebuke of Obama's bluntness, that he would do the same thing but he wouldn't say so out loud. Do we really think the Pakistanis understand English as poorly as we understand Urdu?
Current Events » in reply to Cooperation from Pakistan is what we need
I agree with you on that.
The whole thread (25 posts)
- Obama not ready for prime-time.
- re: Obama not ready for prime-time.
- Obama performed far better than McCain, and won the debate
- re: Can you say; John McCain is absolutely right!
- Obama did NOT say he wanted to INVADE Pakistan
- Cooperation from Pakistan is what we need
- re: Emotional quiver?
- Under THIS president we have shot at pakistani soldiers, and attacked targets in Pakistan... (n/t)
- Obama did NOT say he wanted to INVADE Pakistan
- I still don't know... Did Obama say he supports the bail out plan?
- I think every one of those was a minority opinion.
- re: Obama maybe not quite ready for prime-time.
