From CBS:
Sarah Palin told a customer at a Philadelphia restaurant on Saturday that the United States should “absolutely” launch cross-border attacks from Afghanistan into Pakistan in the event that it becomes necessary to “stop the terrorists from coming any further in,” a comment similar to the one John McCain condemned Barack Obama for making during last night’s presidential debate.
During Friday’s debate, Obama criticized the Bush administration for sending billions of dollars in aid to Pakistan without ridding the border region of terrorists.
“If the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out,” Obama added.
McCain fired back hard, arguing that newly elected Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari has had his “hands full” and suggesting that Obama’s tough talk was naïve.
“You don’t say that out loud,” McCain said. “If you have to do things, you have to do things, and you work with the Pakistani government.”
Palin’s apparent disagreement with McCain’s position on Pakistan came as the Alaska governor was picking up a couple of cheesesteaks at Tony Luke’s in South Philadelphia. She was approached by a man wearing a Temple University t-shirt, who later identified himself as Michael Rovito.
“How about the Pakistan situation?” Rovito asked. “What’s your thoughts about that.”
“In Pakistan?” Palin responded.
“What’s going on over there, like Waziristian?”
“It’s working with Zardari to make sure that we’re all working together to stop the guys from coming in over the border,” Palin said. “And we’ll go from there.”
“Waziristan is blowing up,” Rovito replied.
“Yeah, it is,” Palin said. “And the economy there is blowing up, too.”
“So we do cross-border, like from Afghanistan to Pakistan, you think?” Rovito asked.
“If that’s what we have to do stop the terrorists from coming any further in, absolutely, we should,” Palin said.
3 Comments:
I'm exasperated. I think the only solution is to not listen to anything Palin says. She's a parrot repeating back whatever she hears. She's an appeaser. She is weak. She must not be taken seriously. She signifies nothing but her own hollowness.
To quickly follow up on what I said...
To imply that Palin's response means that she backs Obama's strategy and not McCain's rests on three premises:
1) That she knows what Obama's strategy is.
2) That she knows what McCain's strategy is.
3) That she knows the difference between their strategies.
I might be willing to grant her (2); she obviously does not know (1); and she is incapable of understanding (3).
hahaha--all good points.
Post a Comment