13 September 2008

Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin agrees with rival Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on the issue of whether the United States should consider military strikes against terrorists in Pakistan even if Pakistan refuses. DOH!

Palin told ABC's Charles Gibson she believes the U.S. should "exercise all options" when asked if America has the right to go into Pakistan with or without the approval of Pakistan if necessary.

Last year, Obama was eviscerated by critics after saying he would act in Pakistan if there were actionable intelligence of terrorists -- terrorists who killed Americans -- being harbored in Pakistan. One of his critics at the time was Senator John McCain.

According to reports, McCain called Obama "naive" and "blasted" him for "advocating a bombing of Al Qaeda hide-outs in Pakistan".

Michael Smerconish asked McCain about Obama's Pakistan comments. Smerconish reported at the time "McCain referred to the dangers of getting tough in such a fertile breeding ground for anti-American sentiment".

"...We have to have the cooperation of Pakistan in order to have these operations succeed...[I]f you alienate Pakistan, and it turns into an anti-American government, then you will have much greater difficulties," McCain said at the time.

He flatly disagreed with Obama...and apparently disagreed with his future VP running mate.


>Am I supposed to change or are you supposed to change?
The best way to deal with Sarah Palin may be to pit the two against each other.

Palin disagrees with McCain on a few issues which could be exploited if the GOP can't successfully spin them down into nothing.

On a woman's right to choose, McCain believes abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape and incest. Palin does not. Let's not mince words here: She would force a pregnant incest victim to give birth to her brother or sister; force a rape victim to give birth to her rapist's child. And she does believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

Another such issue causing a rift is earmarks. As mayor, reports confirm Palin hired a lobbyist to get over $25 Million dollars for the small town of Wasilla. As Governor, Palin also got hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks from Washington.

The Seattle Times reports that Gov. Palin sent a proposal for 31 earmarks to indicted Alaska Senator Ted Stevens for approval just this year; earmarks totaling almost $200 Million dollars. I don't think there's even a million people living in the state of Alaska.

By contrast, John McCain has been the anti-earmark candidate. He does not sponsor or support earmarks. The two are now running on an anti-earmark platform calling themselves 'reformers' despite Palin's earmark history.

No word yet on a who will flip-flop on which issue. You can't be the anti-earmark candidate with a running mate who just tried to get $200 Million dollars worth of earmarks from Washington earlier this year. Not the distant past. THIS year.
 

> For the Record
Getting back to Pakistan for a minute, just for the record, Palin at first didn't answer the question about whether or not the U.S. should take out terrorists without Pakistan's permission. Here's the exchange (based on transcripts from MSNBC.com):

GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?

PALIN: Now, as for our right to invade, we're going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be, a military strike, a last option.

GIBSON: But, Governor, I'm asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.

PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.

GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?

PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.

Say what?!

Source Material:
johnbiii.wordpress.com
The Seattle Times
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/11/1380668.aspx>MSNBC