Posts
"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."--Barack Obama
By this, we're supposed to believe that Obama would pay a courtesy call on Musharraf. Or deliver a polite e-mail, saying, "Hey, could you please do something about those terrorists?" Or send the Rev. Jesse Jackson with a message, which no doubt would prompt Musharraf to act, but probably not the way that Obama has in mind.
Seems that the partisan Media Matters for America has objected to my conclusion in a prior post that Obama meant that he would unilaterally invade Pakistan. This, I am instructed, was a wildly inaccurate reading on my part and others of what Obama meant. Thing is, the critics never say what Obama supposedly really meant. I suspect the public believes he meant exactly what Obama's handlers wanted them to think: that he'd go into Pakistan and kick Osma bin Laden's butt.
What's happening is a broader effort by Media Matters and other liberal mouthpieces to try to soften Obama's belligerence with idiotic word games. They simply are echoing Obama's feeble effort at damage control, in which he said that "The misreporting that was done needs to be cleared up. I never called for an invasion of Pakistan." We're now supposed to believe that well, yes, perhaps Obama meant military action (Dropping in special forces? A missile attack? What?), but it can't be called an "invasion." Then what is a deployment of armed forces or an attack by air or sea against a soverign ally to be called? An excursion?
To be charitable, this attempted deception is so transparently mealy-mouthed that it ought to embarrass the folks who use it. Then again, some folks simply are incapable of being embarrassed.
4 comments:
Mr. Byrne:
It is you who are playing word games. Attacking al Qaeda and the Taliban is not invading an ally. We will not engage Pakistan's armed forces. Moreover, we went into Bosnia and Kosovo to prevent genocide, so sovereignty has its limits. On the other hand, Bush was so concerned with propping up a weak dictator that he neglected to go after terrorists.
Dear Mr. Byrne, you are a bit off the deep end on this one. Targeting terrorists in the mountainous regions of Northern Pakistan is not an invasion and the fact that you compared this to the invasion of Iraq in your column clearly demonstrates that you are biggest distorter of truths. The fact that you were so defensive about it when confronted only served to weaken your position further.
Why send Jessie Jackson, because he is Black too? Why not send Carter?
Not because he is black, but because he shows up everywhere whenever he thinks he can get his face on the news. Carter would be fine too.
Post a Comment