I'm glad I'm not the only one who did a double-take on that line.  McCain is quickly using up the reserves of good will that I've given him over the years.

I'm sure McCain would have called for bombing in Pakistan, if only he could get it to fit within a Beach Boy's tune.

So, we've got a new tagline for the Obama campaign: "Obama, more hawkish than McCain."

Say what you will, but I think that giant sucking sound we're hearing is John McCain's integrity, gone with the wind.

Point taken about Obama's proposal, but launching a hellfire from a CIA predator drone hardly counts as a "bombing" mission. Hellfires are small, usually launched from helicopters and drones, and Predators are remotely-operated fire support vehicles.

They are such an integral component of special operations now that their use has to be considered something different than a full airstrike.

Frankly - I'm fine with McCain making this charge. The American people will hear it and think, "Wow, Obama is a tough mofo."

McCain is like a dog with a bone.  He'll push this lie out continually, hoping people will believe him, just as he did with his insistance in the last debate before Super Tuesday, that Romney HAD called for a timetable to end the war, when all the evidence pointed to Romney NOT stating that at all.  It was pitiful to watch McCain slander Romney time and again, wasting countless minutes of debate time when the man was sitting next to him and refuting the lie over and over again.  You have to wonder if McCain has lost it completely.

This needs to be a Dem attack starting right now: John McCain says he will outsource America's security to other countries, and give Pakistan a veto on any American attempt to fight al-Qaeda.

Chairman Dean, I want to see DNC-sponsored TV spots on this theme, maybe with wolves in the forest, running during NBA games by this weekend.

Ratnerstar, couldn't agree more.  I really hope that the media starts calling him out on this, but I doubt it.  Hopefully Obama will do it himself.

And I'm pretty sure you could find a way to make "Bombin' Karachi" fit into "Surfin' Safari."

It's not only his integrity which has gone (my opinion of which eroded gradually over the last few years given his cozying up to Robertson, general pandering, and gross and unprincipled distortions against Romney). It is a politically stupid argument for him to be making. It seems as if one could possibly paint Obama as to-the-left-of-McGovern, unfriendly to the military and patriotism (Michelle's gaffe pays into that), etc. Not that I think these are valid points, just that it might play to fears people have that he will not be vigilant enough about terrorism, that he's too willing to go make friends with everyone, that he would create a Dept. of Peace, given half a chance. People are, naturally, concerned about their safety, and might wonder if he sees the threat of terrorism as a real serious danger to the American people. Yet if McCain makes the argument not that he's too left-wing kumbayah, but that he's too trigger-happy, that puts in everyone's mind that he is unafraid to use force. One ca no longer paint him as too far left. He may have opposed the war, but he will go after terrorism. After making the argument that he is too willing to rush into bombing, one can only paint him as inexperienced, and that argument against him has not worked well so far.

epic- no, it all ties together.  You see, the Obamas hate America SO MUCH that they want to bomb our allies.  

Rhub, any ad that can work in outsourcing along with fears of national security is brilliant. I hereby give you the Lee Atwater Award of the Day.

I think you guys are giving McCain too much credit. He doesn't think that familiarizing himself with the facts is a necessary component in his job. There are multiple instances where he's simply claimed that he didn't know the ends and outs of a particular subject. Why would it surprise you that he is being lazy in this instance and simply repeating a familar talking point?

Rhubarbs, I like that you addressed Dean directly.  I enjoy the image of him peacefully clicking through talkback- his morning habit- and then reading your thing, sitting up quickly in his chair, spitting out his coffee and yelling "that's fucking brilliant!  Deb, get me our ad men on line one immediately!"

Deb is his secretary.

We should all send thank you cards to McCain for this one.

I doubt we're really bothered by this.  Or will TNR and its subscribers call out Obama on his "McCain wants one hundred years of war in Iraq" lie?  I doubt it, even though it's obvious to any adult observer that America has peaceful deployments all over the world.  I voted for Obama, I like Obama, but that was the point in his speech last night where the magic stopped for me.  And it's things like this on TNR that make the magic stop for me here, too.  Are we concerned about McCain's manipulation of what Obama said?  Or are we just shaking pom-poms for Obama and giving the finger to McCain?  If we're concerned about lies, then we should be concerned about all lies, even when they come from our side.

Oooh, I just realized an even better way to use this to attack McCain:

John McCain says he wants to outsource America's security to other countries like Pakistan -- and even if American soldiers have Bin Laden in their gunsights, McCain says he would ask Islamabad for permission to pull the trigger.

Outsourcing American security to "Islamabad" could be an absolutely killer line. More than kind of underhanded, but also kind of sweet in a revenge-best-served-cold kid of way.

Jonathon Chait wrote: “Obama was clearly referencing a New York Times story from the previous month, describing how the administration had actionable intelligence about senior al Qaeda leaders, and planned a snatch-and-grab mission, but aborted it at the last second.”

What reason is there to believe that is what Senator Obama was referencing?  

Obama didn’t say anything about sending in Navy Seals to try apprehend people we had probable cause were about to commit terrorist acts.  When I read what Obama said, it looked like he meant dropping bombs in the mountains of Pakistan.  That is the what people usually mean when they talk about taking action against alleged terrorists that are hiding in mountains, especially when the country taking the military action is taking the action against the will of the country in which the action is being taken.

More importantly, Obama shouldn’t have said what he said.  And I strongly oppose the policy that he was advocating.  He was advocated doing this military action without the agreement of the Pakistani government.  Moreover, this kind of military action against Pakistan, the country with the second largest Islamic populations in the world, could result in many people, including innocent people, being harmed. It also could inflame many Muslims who are already angry at the US for the invasion of Iraq. This could result in greater violence in the world. And, as we see with the assassination of Benizir Bhutto, Pakistan is a society with internal turmoil. A US attack on Pakistan would make it harder to nurture the democratic impulses in Pakistan.

Maybe Obama didn’t mean that the US should drop bombs on Pakistan, but he at least wanted the US to take military action against people that are physically in Pakistan and take this action against the will of the Pakistan government.  If the US were to take the action against Pakistan that Obama suggests, it could well result in greater hostility toward the US and could result in more violence.  This military action likely would result in some people being harmed. And it may result in innocent people being harmed, as these so-called "surgical strikes" often result in innocent people being harmed. For example, when the US bombed Libya, Gaddafi's 15-month old adopted daughter was killed.

The point about all this is, it's stupid for a major presidential candidate to be talking about how he might hypothetically order raiding parties of Marines or Army Rangers or whatever into Pakistani territory, with or without their permission.

there are about thirteen different reasons not to be indulging in loose talk like this, starting with a) don't tip your hand and b) why would you risk enraging an ally and a vulnerable one at that?

It's an eyebrow raising indiscretion on the part of anyone who wants to be taken seriously for the presidency.

And the only reason to take Obama seriously for that office are the multitude of Obama Moonies who have emerged because no other sexy candidates are around to obsess over.

David52194, it is very unfortunate that Khadaffi's young daughter was killed in our raid.  And I wish that Khadaffi himself had been killed in her stead.

But, let's recall that we were bombing a regime that sponsored a terrorist hit of a nightclub in Berlin.  And, far worse, the blowing up of the Pan Am 747 with hundreds of innocents aboard.

The state sponsored destruction of an American vessel or commercial aircraft was an act of war.  We ought to have invaded Libya and killed the entire regime and taken their oil and kept it.

Remember the Lusitania?  Not even a U.S. ship.  But American civilians were aboard and died when it was torpedoed.  Our main causus belli for entering WWI.

ChanRobt wrote: “David52194, it is very unfortunate that Khadaffi's young daughter was killed in our raid.  And I wish that Khadaffi himself had been killed in her stead.

“But, let's recall that we were bombing a regime that sponsored a terrorist hit of a nightclub in Berlin.  And, far worse, the blowing up of the Pan Am 747 with hundreds of innocents aboard.

“The state sponsored destruction of an American vessel or commercial aircraft was an act of war.  We ought to have invaded Libya and killed the entire regime and taken their oil and kept it.”

I strongly disagree that US should have done the bombing of Libya that it did.  For the sake of argument, let’s say that Khadaffi did everything you say and that the Reagan administration knew this.  That people have done things of that nature does not, by itself, justify doing anything.  For example, let’s say I know that Steve murder Mike.  And I know that if I try to apprehend Steve, he will murder another innocent person.  And I know that if I don’t try to apprehend Steve, he won’t murder anyone.  In that case, I shouldn’t try to apprehend Steve.  So, even Khadaffi did everything you say he did, and the Reagan administration knew that, it does not, by itself, justify the US doing the bombing of Libya that it did.  

However, my point in mentioning the Libya bombing is that sometimes these so-called surgical strikes result in totally innocent being harmed or killed.  That should be relevant to whether the US bombs Pakistan.  

ChanRobt wrote: "Remember the Lusitania?  Not even a U.S. ship.  But American civilians were aboard and died when it was torpedoed.  Our main causus belli for entering WWI."

On the issue of the Lusitania, I disagree with Woodrow Wilson’s decision to enter World War I.  He had reason to believe that doing so would result in many more US lives lost if he entered the War than if he did not.  And it did cost 110,000 US lives.  And with mandatory conscription, many lost their lives without truly choosing to be soldiers.  Moreover, my understanding is that Wilson did not have reason to believe that there would be fewer human fatalities overall if the US did not enter the War than if it did.  

Well, David52194, Neal Ferguson, a generally conservative historian, or at least a believer in benevolent empires, doesn't think Britain ought to have opposed Germany in WW1, let alone the U.S.  His premise being that Germany undr the Kaiser having hegemony over Europe wouldn't have been a bad thing.  And there would have been no Hitler, no Russian Revolution, no WW2.

As to Libya, I don't follow your analogy of so and so killing so and so.  And, in any event, nations are not bound by the kind of domestic criminal law you seem to be alluding to.

If a nation is attacked by another nation, it has the right under international law to strike back.  There is not even a rule, as fr as I know, about proportionality.  You sink my ship, I conquer your country.

Will innocent people be killed even in a small war?  Likely, yes.  Burt great matters of state and the welfare of entire nations cannot be deferred by the expected loss of innocent lives.

As Bogey says to Ingrid in Casablanca, "...the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. Someday you'll understand that. Now, now... Here's looking at you kid."

1.  Chanbot wrote: “Well, David52194, Neal Ferguson, a generally conservative historian, or at least a believer in benevolent empires, doesn't think Britain ought to have opposed Germany in WW1, let alone the U.S.  His premise being that Germany undr the Kaiser having hegemony over Europe wouldn't have been a bad thing.  And there would have been no Hitler, no Russian Revolution, no WW2.”

If Woodrow Wilson had known what would happen following Germany's defeat in WWI (especially the

rise of Hitler and the Holocaust), then obviously Wilson shouldn’t have had the US enter WWI.  However, Wilson didn’t have perfect knowledge about what would happen if the US got involved in WWI.  Nevertheless, even with the information he had available to him, he shouldn’t have gotten the US involved.

2.  "As to Libya, I don't follow your analogy of so and so killing so and so.”

What don’t you follow about it?  My point is that you seemed to be making an argument: specifically, that Reagan should have ordered the bombing in Libya because of the bad things Gaddafi had done.  My point is that one’s having done bad things is not sufficient for one to be justified in doing X.  So, that Gaddafi had done those bad things is not sufficient for Reagan to have been morally justified in doing what he did.      

3.  “And, in any event, nations are not bound by the kind of domestic criminal law you seem to be alluding to.”

I’m not talking about criminal laws.  I’m talking about ethics.  Reagan should not have ordered the bombings.  It was unethical.  It may also have been in violation of international law.  I don’t know.  But that is not my point.    

4.  “If a nation is attacked by another nation, it has the right under international law to strike back.”

Not necessarily.  “Striking back” could result in thousands more innocent people getting killed than not striking back.  In that case, you shouldn’t strike back.

5.  “There is not even a rule, as fr as I know, about proportionality.  You sink my ship, I conquer your country.”

I don’t think there is an international law on the matter.  But that’s not what I’m talking about.  Sometimes one shouldn’t do X even there is not a law that prohibits doing X.  I recommend Michael Walzer’s book Just and Unjust Wars.  He’s a philosopher.  In the book, he deals with the issue of when, if ever, violence is justified.  

6.  “Will innocent people be killed even in a small war?  Likely, yes.  Burt great matters of state and the welfare of entire nations cannot be deferred by the expected loss of innocent lives.”

There have been cases in which a person was justified in doing something that he or she had reason to believe would result in innocent people being killed.  But the welfare of people should be given great consideration when deciding what to do.  So, for example, let’s say I’m on a runaway trolley and I can’t get off.  If I keep the trolley on the track it is on, I have good reason to believe that one innocent person will die.  If I hit a lever, causing the trolley to switch to the other track, I have good reason to believe that 10,000 innocent people would.  Prima facie, I shouldn’t hit the lever.

And, in the case of Libya, Reagan was not justified.  

7. “As Bogey says to Ingrid in Casablanca, ‘...the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. Someday you'll understand that. Now, now... Here's looking at you kid.’”

They should matter to one if one can do something about it.  

David521`94, you write, "My point is that one’s having done bad things is not sufficient for one to be justified in doing X.  So, that Gaddafi had done those bad things is not sufficient for Reagan to have been morally justified in doing what he did.      "

We're not talking about private citizens in Peoria here.  A nation, at the behest of its authoritarian leader, causes its agents to plant a bomb on an American aircraft and blow it out of the sky, killing hundreds of innocent civilians.  (By the way, not relevant to the argument, but I came close to being on that airplane with my then fiance.)

When one nation purposely attacks another nation, or its ships or its aircraft, or even a large group of its nationals, that is historically and legally accepted as an act of war.

Under international law, a nation has the right to defend itself and strike back at a nation that has attacked it.

So, I don't know what you are going on about.  You might argue that Reagan violated the Constitution by ordering an act of war against another nation.  But, that's an internal matter and wasn't your point.

Now, you may be a pacifist and simply believe that even nations ought to turn the other cheek when attacked.  That's an honest position, though by my lights, misguided.  If that is the basis of your position, please make that clear.  But, you will not have the support of either international norms and laws, nor of general opinion.

David52194, you write, "...“Striking back” could result in thousands more innocent people getting killed than not striking back.  In that case, you shouldn’t strike back."

O.K.  that's correct.  The Japanese attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor and killed about 2,000 of our nationals.

We retaliated by declaring war, and in the prosecution of that war lost hundreds of thousands of our own people in the Pacific alone, and killed, perhaps in the millions of Japanese.

Ought we, on that basis, and understanding that we would likely kill far more Japanese than the 2,000 Americans we initially lost, have refrained from declaring war?  Ought we, following your logic, have sued for peace, an armistice, or maybe compensation from the Japanese?  

We need to see your logic flow here.  What, besides refraining from retaliation for attacks on us, do you recommend as a more appropriate course of action?  And how, say in the instance of Pearl Harbor, do you imagine it playing out?

“We're not talking about private citizens in Peoria here.  A nation, at the behest of its authoritarian leader, causes its agents to plant a bomb on an American aircraft and blow it out of the sky, killing hundreds of innocent civilians.  (By the way, not relevant to the argument, but I came close to being on that airplane with my then fiance.)”

Two wrongs don’t make a right.  

“When one nation purposely attacks another nation, or its ships or its aircraft, or even a large group of its nationals, that is historically and legally accepted as an act of war.”

By itself, that doesn’t justify harming someone.  Please see my previous examples.

“Now, you may be a pacifist and simply believe that even nations ought to turn the other cheek when attacked.  That's an honest position, though by my lights, misguided.  If that is the basis of your position, please make that clear.  But, you will not have the support of either international norms and laws, nor of general opinion.”

There have been cases in which one person was justified in doing something that is likely to result in people being harmed.  What Reagan did with Libya was not one of those cases.  

“O.K.  that's correct.  The Japanese attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor and killed about 2,000 of our nationals.

“We retaliated by declaring war, and in the prosecution of that war lost hundreds of thousands of our own people in the Pacific alone, and killed, perhaps in the millions of Japanese.

“Ought we, on that basis, and understanding that we would likely kill far more Japanese than the 2,000 Americans we initially lost, have refrained from declaring war?  Ought we, following your logic, have sued for peace, an armistice, or maybe compensation from the Japanese?”

I have mixed feelings about the US entry into the Pacific.  On the side for it, there was reason to believe Japanese leaders would harm people if the US did not enter.  For example, they executed the rape of Nanking, which resulted in which there were thousand and thousand of non-combatant deaths.  That action is relevant in trying to determine what the Japanese will do if the US does not enter the war.  For example, will more innocent people be killed if the US enters the war or if the US does not?  But it is not clear whether more US citizens and Japanese citizens, particularly innocent people, would be killed if the US entered or did not enter.  Maybe there was reason to believe that more would be killed if the US did enter.    

“We need to see your logic flow here.  What, besides refraining from retaliation for attacks on us, do you recommend as a more appropriate course of action?  And how, say in the instance of Pearl Harbor, do you imagine it playing out?”

That someone has done something bad is not sufficient for X to be justified.  It is perhaps relevant.  But it is not sufficient.  Consider the examples I’ve given.  

The question about Pearl Harbor is: Should the US have waged the war in the Pacific?  Was there reason to believe, for example, that more lives would be lost if the US did not enter than if the US did?  I don’t know for sure.  But give what I do know, I probably would have opposed the US war in the Pacific.  Because probably there was reason to believe that more US lives would be lost by waging war than by not doing so.  And because there was probably reason to believe that more non-US lives also would have been lost, including innocent people.  But I would want to research the issue more.

But the trolley example illustrates that there are cases in which one would be justified in doing something that one had reason to believe would result in innocent people being harmed or killed.  

The Washington Post reports today: Several months ago, McCain criticized Obama for suggesting that he

The New York Times has a great article today about the battle between neoconservatives and realists to

<<But it is true that Hillary Clinton is far more careful and precise in what...

The McCain campaign's line of the day is that Barack Obama "wants to take us back to the bad