rssMaddow Asks — and Obama Dodges — on Afghan Mission
Friday, October 31, 2008 at 11:16 am
- 3 Comments
To follow on Ari’s post about Rachel Maddow’s interview with Obama, Maddow asked a question about the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. Obama has consistently argued for a larger troop presence there, but what’s the mission, exactly? And how would more troops accomplish it?
Obama dodged this one like he was Harry Whittington seeing Dick Cheney cleaning a hunting rifle. He responded with a recitation of the compounded problems U.S. troops face in Afghanistan. Here’s the closest Obama comes to an answer:
The most important thing we’re going to have to do with respect to Afghanistan, is actually deal with Pakistan. And we’ve got work with the newly elected government there in a coherent way that says, terrorism is now a threat to you. Extremism is a threat to you. We should probably try to facilitate a better understanding between Pakistan and India and try to resolve the Kashmir crisis so that they can stay focused not on India, but on the situation with those militants.
And, we’ve got to say to the Pakistani people, we’re not just going to fund a dictator in order for us to feel comfortable with who we’re dealing with. We’re going to respect democracy. But, we do have expectations in terms of being a partner in its terrorism.
That’s all well and good, but it doesn’t have anything to do with a U.S. troop increase. Here’s the video:
Follow Spencer Ackerman on Twitter
3 Comments
Comment posted October 31, 2008 @ 8:49 am
If you really stand behind your comment,
you were not paying attention.
Comment posted November 2, 2008 @ 11:20 am
More troops, help farmers with lessening the poppy growth so they have income, and deal with Pakistan. In a cohearent way so they know we are behind them, and yet maintain a partnership with India. We are part of a coalition that is undermanned. We are not looking to become a force of 150,000 as we are in Iraq. I am paraphrasing here…but that is basically what he is saying. So how is he avoiding an answer.?? I thought he gave a very well thought out, very detailed answer. Much more than I have ever heard from McCain. The so called, expert on foreign policy. In fact in this and in the CNN with Wolf Blitzer interview with him and with McCain the differences with both are so striking. Obama's answers are so thought provoking, so intelligent, while McCain's are nothing but attacks against Obama, and he rarely gives an answer to the question.
Comment posted November 2, 2008 @ 7:20 pm
More troops, help farmers with lessening the poppy growth so they have income, and deal with Pakistan. In a cohearent way so they know we are behind them, and yet maintain a partnership with India. We are part of a coalition that is undermanned. We are not looking to become a force of 150,000 as we are in Iraq. I am paraphrasing here…but that is basically what he is saying. So how is he avoiding an answer.?? I thought he gave a very well thought out, very detailed answer. Much more than I have ever heard from McCain. The so called, expert on foreign policy. In fact in this and in the CNN with Wolf Blitzer interview with him and with McCain the differences with both are so striking. Obama's answers are so thought provoking, so intelligent, while McCain's are nothing but attacks against Obama, and he rarely gives an answer to the question.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
