The interesting thing about this is that John McCain is against this policy. I agree that it is a delicate situation, and Pakistan is a sovereign nation, but seriously? If the US has actionable intelligence about high value terrorist targets and the Pakistanis are unable or unwilling to act, why shouldn’t we send special ops forces in? Personally, I think that model would be much more effective than the current one that seems to rely solely on military occupation.

Also, since when is John McCain worried about national sovereignty? Iraq was a sovereign country. Saddam Hussein didn’t have anything to do with 9/11 or have any weapons of mass destruction. Yet, McCain felt that there was a solid case to be made for invading Iraq and overthrowing their government? I’m sorry, but that is on a whole different level than special ops incursions into Pakistan.

Posted by Charles de Granville on 28 September 2008 @ 10pm

And another thing. It strikes me as odd that McCain is retracting Sarah Palin’s statement on this issue. It seems to me that this is the most intelligent policy statement she has made thus far. Why not just say that they have a difference of opinion? I think it would play much better politically if she is perceived has having an actual opinion, rather than being told what to say and think.

Posted by Charles de Granville on 28 September 2008 @ 10pm

I was intrigued by how McCain phrased his position on this issue during the debate. He kept repeating, “You don’t *say* you’re going to go in”, in a way that I took to indicate that he would go in, he would just deny that he had ever done so. That might be reading into it too much, though. It’s really just something he can pretend to have grizzled disdain towards Obama over, a hook he can hang the experience narrative on.

In regards to Palin, I think they’ve fully internalized that she’s not ready yet, and they can’t break out of that mindset, so they just go into defense any time she comes up. I’m really interested to see if she makes it all the way through to the election.

Posted by Jason on 28 September 2008 @ 10pm

Would it be completely unprecedented for them to select a different running mate after one has already been chosen? If not I think they should go for Tina Fey.

Posted by Chinkerfly on 29 September 2008 @ 7pm

Actually, no, it wouldn’t be the first time. Thomas Eagleton was George McGovern’s running mate for 18 days before revelations that he had received shock therapy forced him to withdraw. It’s clear that Sarah Palin *needs* shock therapy, so maybe it really could happen.

I would have to vote for McCain if Tina Fey were his running mate.

Posted by Jason on 29 September 2008 @ 11pm