McCain tries to rescue Palin on Pak remark

McCain tries to rescue Palin on Pak remark
Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:28:44 GMT
Rep. presidential candidate John McCain, and his running mate, Sarah Palin
US Republican nominee John McCain has defended his running mate Sarah Palin after she voiced support for cross border attacks in Pakistan.

McCain's comment came after he disagreed with Democrat Barrack Obama during presidential debate for saying publicly he supports striking terrorist targets inside Pakistan if Islamabad government is unable or unwilling to do so.

"You don't say that out loud," McCain said during the debate. "If you have to do things, you do things."

But Obama has said he would support sending American troops into Pakistan to attack al-Qaeda and Taliban linked high-value targets.

Later, Palin repeated much the same thing by Obama to a customer at a Philadelphia restaurant, with the press nearby.

"If that's what we have to do stop the terrorists from coming any further in, absolutely, we should," Palin said in the exchange, which was captured on video and reported by CBS News.

"She was in a conversation with some young man," McCain said during his own interview on ABC channel.

"She understands and has stated repeatedly that we're not going to do anything except in America's national security interest and we are not going to, quote, announce it ahead of time."

Sarah Palin also said Monday that her comment about attacking terrorist targets in Pakistan, which appeared to contradict the position of presidential nominee John McCain, was a response to a "gotcha" question from a voter.

F-16 are Deployed by Pakistan's Air Force to Challenge the US Predator Drones' attacks
Recent polls show Palin's popularity waning among some as she has struggled to answer questions about foreign policy in the few interviews she has given.

The US assumes that Osama bin Laden and other top al-Qaeda leaders are thought to be hiding in tribal areas along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

The developments also coincides with an editorial appeared in Telegraph said Bin Laden has overshadowed the current US presidency and would effect upcoming presidential election.

Previously, a think-tank accused Bush Administration of opening a third war on terror toward Pakistan without concluding either of the two wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) he initiated after 9/11, according to an editorial appeared in Los Angeles Times.

Also, anger in Pakistan has been rising since the US began conducting cross-border commando raids as well as stepping up the number of attacks from unmanned Predator drones in the tribal region. The drones usually armed with missiles have killed dozens of Pakistani civilians during recent weeks.

Pakistani leaders including the president and premier have lashed out at the United States over violation of Pakistan's airspace and ground and killing of innocent civilians.

Some political analysts say the relations between Washington and Islamabad have reached its lowest level after a series of irresponsible statements by the US' top officials and the violation of country's sovereignty by Afghan-based American troops.

JR/DT

I've been a little surprised what has came out of Palin's mouth these past couple weeks. I thought she was a little more intelligent than what she is. She seems to get flustered easy like McCain does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billionfold

It's like Palin and McCain WANT me to vote for Obama.

---

Lawl, I feel that.

The thing is that Palin's stance is exactly the same as Barack Obama's stance for good reasons, because it is actually the right stance. It is McCain who is off on this one. He's plain wrong, but he has stuck by this line so long that he can't seem to back off it.

The Pakistanis have either been unable or unwilling to take out the militants who cross over from Pakistan into Afghanistan, attack our tropps, and flee back across the border into Pakistan. No one has suggested that we INVADE Pakistan. But if we have a hot pursuit situation, and the Pakistanis will not intercept militants heading back into their country, we should take them out, even if it means crossing the border. If we have specific actionable intelligence on the location of militants in Pakistan, and the Pakistanis will not or cannot take them out, then we should take them out with a Predator drone.

I am in no way a war monger, and I do not want to see the war in Afghanistan expanded outside the territiry. I do not want our relationship with Pakistan jeopardized either. But that border region is the key to this war. It is the taliban and al qaeda stronghold and likely location of Bin Laden. We cannot allow taliban and al quaeda forces to attack us from Pakistan without a recourse to take them out. I do not see how McCain can say we can't do that. He is wrong about this, and now he had to publicly "correct" Palin about it, even though she was actually right for once!

Reluctantly i agree with Dragon's assessment. I work with a General that has recently returned from Afghanistan. I having had many questions for him. He is frustrated at what is happening over there.

The border area is a line drawn on a map by an Englishman i believe. The Pakistani government has never recognized it. Neither have its people. It is all tribal groups over there, and they dont care about lines on maps.
I was informed by my coworker that for many years Pakistanis have been shooting at American soldiers across the border. Regularly.

As much as i hate war, when in a war, it must be fought to win. If the enemy is retreating into Pakistan and their government won't go after them, then we have no choice.

I do think if drones are taking out civilians then we need to send in soldiers to do the work, thus hopefully reducing civilian casualties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billionfold

Had to read that a few times, thought you were saying Barack and Sarah were the same lol.

But I got your point. :stoned:

---

Ha ha! I think this one point is probably the ONLY thing Obama and Palin have in common. I think it is very ironic that this is probably the ONLY thing that Palin is even right about, and McCain has felt he needed to "correct" her on it.

Also, I think I should clarify that nobody thinks it is a good thing that we might have to attack militants on Pakistani soil. The thing that everyone wants is for Pakistan to take out the militants in its territory. If they will do it, then that is far better. The problem is that in many cases they cannot or will not. When that is the case, then I think we need to do it. We cannot allow our soldiers to be attacked with no recourse for defense. McCain is an idiot to think otherwise, and I really do not understand his position.