Remember a few months ago, when Barack Obama caused conniptions by saying that, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will"? For this imminently reasonable position, he was called "naive" by the Clinton campaign, and "dangerously inexperienced" by the McCain campaign. It was a sign that "he isn't ready for prime-time," and really needs some "more seasoning" before applying for the highest job in the land.
In fact, after his victory in Wisconsin, McCain claimed Obama said he'd invade our ally Pakistan. Heavens! Here he asks if America will elect him,
Or will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested invading our ally, Pakistan, and sitting down without pre-conditions or clear purpose with enemies who support terrorists and are intent on destabilizing the world by acquiring nuclear weapons?'Now if only the Bush Administration had cooperated, McCain could have ridden this talking point into the general election, but alas and alack, it turns out we just did exactly what Obama suggested we should:
The missiles killed Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander and a man who had repeatedly eluded the CIA's dragnet. It was the first successful strike against al-Qaeda's core leadership in two years, and it involved, U.S. officials say, an unusual degree of autonomy by the CIA inside Pakistan.
Having requested the Pakistani government's official permission for such strikes on previous occasions, only to be put off or turned down, this time the U.S. spy agency did not seek approval. The government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was notified only as the operation was underway, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities.
So, defending America against the actions of high-value terrorists makes you "dangerously inexperienced," according to McCain. Working to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden, according to McCain, makes you "naive."
By contrast, joking about bombing Iran makes you "serious." Saying you'll stay in Iraq for 100 years makes you "strong." Then, when people have a problem with the concept of unending occupation, apparently the "experienced, wise" response is to construct a fantasy world in which we can be in Iraq for those 100 years without incurring casualties or costs. This is what passes for grown-up talk.