Waiting for the riots

by folkbum

Jessica McBride doesn't like it when Democrats talk about foreign policy. That's why she is willing to rewrite the Constitution to say, for example, that Senators like Russ Feingold can't complain about the conduct of the Iraq war. And, presumably, why she would blame Democrats for "inflaming the Muslim world" when introducing and article mostly about a Republican. And, I guess, why she is willing to risk Godwin's Law just to diss Barack Obama.

Today's abomination is hand-wringing over flag-burning protests (organized, as best as I can tell, by unnamed "tribal leaders" somewhere in Pakistan) last week over Obama's positing that he wouldn't be afraid to go into Pakistan to capture Real Terrorists if the opportunity were right, even without permission from the government. This is further proof, you see, that Obama's an idiot when it comes to foreign policy. Obama can't talk foreign policy "the right way, it's a stance filled with peril," she says. In comments below that post, she adds, "I don't think he has the foreign policy experience (or judgment, based on many of his recent statements) to be elected president in a time of war."

So now I'm waiting for the riots in Pakistan over this:

George W Bush said [Monday] he was confident that with the right intelligence, the US and Pakistan governments could take out al Qaeda leaders, and declined to rule out consulting Pakistan first before ordering US forces to act.

"With real actionable intelligence, we will get the job done," said the US president.

He was asked whether he would wait for permission from General Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani president, before committing the US military to move on "actionable intelligence" as to the whereabouts of terrorist leaders in Pakistan. He did not answer directly.

And I'm wondering where the riots were a year ago, when there was this:

President Bush said [one day in September 2006] he would order U.S. forces to go after Osama bin Laden inside Pakistan if he received good intelligence on the fugitive al Qaeda leader's location.

"Absolutely," Bush said. [. . .]

Although Pakistan has said it won't allow U.S. troops to operate within its territory, "we would take the action necessary to bring him to justice."

But Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, told reporters Wednesday at the United Nations that his government would oppose any U.S. action in its territory.

"We wouldn't like to allow that at all. We will do it ourselves," he said.

And what about the riots about all of this:

But in no case did these reports [about a weekend Republican debate] note, as debate moderator George Stephanopoulos did, that when Giuliani was asked about Obama's comments [on invading Pakistan] on the day of the speech, he did not criticize Obama, but rather echoed his position: "[W]ould that be an option that's on the table, which is we have a chance to catch bin Laden and we have got to do it ourselves because we're not sure if somebody is going to do it correctly -- yeah, I think I would take that option." And, in several cases, the media outlets did not report that even amid their criticism, both Romney and Giuliani affirmed during the debate that they would retain the option of acting against Osama bin Laden over Pakistan's objections, if necessary.

Actually, I don't think there will be riots, unless some different unnamed "tribal leaders" somewhere in Pakistan decide to stage something for the cameras and do some speechifying to puff themselves up some more.

What's kind of funny for our purposes here, though, is this pointed barb McBride throws at Democrats in her post about the flag-burning: "[T]he Democratic hypocrisy over [Obama's] comments is glaring." She explains this perceived hypocrisy: "Will the Democrats who criticize Bush for straining relations with allies now criticize Obama?" You see, we Democrats are upset--and I think rightly so--that Bush and his actions on the foreign stage have diminished U.S. credibility abroad. I think we can all agree that Democrats believe this. However, what I have not heard (and I did a quick googling; if someone can prove me wrong on this, I'll take it) is Democrats criticizing Bush for saying that he would take necessary steps to (finally!) get bin Laden. I think Democrats would, in fact, be quite pleased if US Special Forces were to pop up one day with the Bearded One in tow. That's what we've been begging for Bush to do for six friggin' years!

Instead, I think we should look to McBride: Bush has repeatedly said he would go in even without Pakistan's permission. The two leading (declared) Republican candidates have said exactly the same thing. In other words, what Obama said last week is exactly what Bush has been saying for a while now, and what her Republicans said just yesterday, and the one she targets is, of course, Obama.

Who, I ask you, my fair and loyal readers, is the hypocrite now?