Agreed. I think it was more of a case of "not wanting to go there" for whatever reason (appearing unappreciative or whatever) than a case of incompetent debating.
Of course, I'm biased, but this wasn't even close. Obama reeled off lengthy, detailed, and coherent responses. McCain answers were choppy, vague, and all over the place. Apparently CBS just released a poll of 500 undecided voters- CBS News and Knowledge Networks conducted a nationally representative poll of approximately 500 uncommitted voters reacting to the debate in the minutes after it happened. These figures are still preliminary and could change as more respondents complete the survey. But here's what we have so far: Forty percent of uncommitted voters who watched the debate tonight thought Barack Obama was the winner. Twenty-two percent thought John McCain won. Thirty-eight percent saw it as a draw. Forty-six percent of uncommitted voters said their opinion of Obama got better tonight. Sixty-eight percent of uncommitted voters think Obama would make the right decisions about the economy. Forty-one percent think McCain would. Forty-nine percent of these voters think Obama would make the right decisions about Iraq. Fifty-five percent think McCain would. We will have a full report on the poll later on. Uncommitted voters are those who don't yet know who they will vote for, or who have chosen a candidate but may still change their minds. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/26/politics/horserace/entry4482028.shtml
The whole point of the FATA is that it is and will remain outside the jurisdiction of the government. That is how it is designed and they are not going to change that. And even if they wanted to change it they would basically have to ethnically cleanse the area to accomplish it, as the reason it is lawless in the first place is that the tribes want it that way, and are willing to fight to keep it so.
Maybe. I bring a lot of additional knowledge about the issue, and I can't just pretend that I don't know the details. I just think Obama clearly showed a lack of depth of knowledge of the situation, and I don't think I'm alone. McCain's commitment to work with the Pakistani military showed better judgment, and should show. But again, McCain blew an opportunity to let Obama sink himself.
Precisely. Anyone with a modicum of familiarity with the conflict knows that the Anbar Awakening has had far more of an impact on any security levels in Iraq than the surge. But again, he just can't publically articulate that for risk of alienating key independents.
Obama didn't suggest to do it without their permission. Obama said if the couldn't or weren't willing to act then we would. The first option is for Pakistan to act or give us permission to act. It's not like Obama would just bypass that. But Al-Qaeda attacked the U.S. Going after their leadership is self defense. We don't actually need Pakistan's permission to act. It would be great to get it, but if we don't, we need to act. If that means that Pakistan would withdraw as an ally, so be it. It isn't that great of a loss. For the record Pakistan wasn't doing that well before U.S. aid. I don't have a problem helping a cooperative Pakistan develop those areas. Furthermore I think Pakistan is more willing to cooperate with us if they know we aren't going to allow their govt. to allow Al-Qaeda safe haven.
but it's still part of a sovereign nation though. if the Pakistan government allowed US to do military operations there without permission, that would totally bring down any support they have.
Obama killed with the 50+ crowd and females. This is terrible news for McCain.. he needs those baby boomers.. Another debate like this and he'll be an early addition to the political graveyard.
If only by default. I really don't find her all that attractive. There are many more 40-somethings I'd rather ogle.
i seriously doubt Pakistan government would allow US military action within its border. your justification sounds like another Iraq war. if you don't need a government's permission for military action, then what's the need for borders? there are international laws, and it's not going to look good around the world again.
Agreed. And in fact giving the USA permission to operate there is also politically untenable for Pakistan. It is kind of a no win either way. Either you piss off Pakistan or you give al Qaeda and OBL a safe haven where nobody can oppose them.
I understand all of this. But the Pakistani government has at times denied permission because of the relatively unstable support among their people, and Bush has made attacks anyway. Obama has promised to continue this policy. It is undermining our support among the Pakistani people.
Obama has to over-compensate with regards to Afghanistan and Pakistan so he doesn't look unacceptably dovish on foreign policy. More subtle, diplomatic approaches should doubtless be considered, and I hope Obama understands that. I kind of hope it's just posturing to win the election.
Dude, we have no support among the Pakistani people and never will, nor will anybody for that matter - I mean even Pakistan doesn't have the support of the Pakistani people. Read Rushdie's "Shame" if you want to know why. It's fiction and written 20 years ago but incredibly relevant
I find it ironic that the same people who don't even want to TALK to Iran, are the same ones who would go to great lengths to protect and coddle Pakistan. The same people who talk about Iran helping the terrorists in Iraq, are the same ones who like to ignore the fact that Pakistan has been helping and hiding Al Qaeda operatives much more and for much longer. Pakistan's supposed help towards fight against terrorism has been greatly exaggerated especially considering the billions given to them.
That's what's mind boggling. Everyone knows this. Pakistanis know it. Americans know it. The world knows this. Iranians have better chance of liking Americans than Pakistanis do. But NO TALK with Iran please!! It's just political gibberish and nothing else.
