Playing Pakistan
The NYDN captured both aspects of McCain’s mistakes last night on Pakistan (Update: here’s a much better article from Strobel and Landay).
The one that leapt out was McCain, kinda like George Bush in 2000, getting the name of Pakistan’s president wrong. (Bush didn’t know it.)
“Now, the new president of Pakistan, Qadari (it’s actually Asif Ali Zardari), has got his hands full,” McCain said.
He also said, “I don’t think that Sen. Obama understands that there was a failed state in Pakistan when Musharraf came to power,” referring to former President Pervez Musharraf, who took power in a coup 1999. Although Pakistan sure had problems, many people didn’t regard the country, then a nuclear-armed one, as a failed state.
Admittedly, I once starred as the villain of a Matt Bai novel because of my obsession with Pakistan, so I’m surely biased.
But unlike McCain’s mangling of Ahmadinejad’s name, I think these two mistakes ought to qualify as a significant issue.
Central to the debate over who has better judgment in foreign affairs, after all, is whether or not it was correct to draw troops away from Afghanistan in 2002 and dump them into Bush’s war of choice. McCain maintains that was a smart decision, whereas Obama has been saying we should have–and still have to–focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan for some time.
McCain botching the name of a guy who just became Pakistan’s president–that I don’t so much mind (though someone following closely enough to understand Benazir Bhutto’s role in the country would have known Zardari’s name from his time as First Gentleman).
But for someone running on a neocon platform of supporting the spread of democracy to explain away Musharraf’s coup by claiming Pakistan was a failed state is just inexcusable. If you don’t even know which countries have democratic elections and which don’t, after all, you’re bound to find yourself invading Venezuela in the name of democracy (heh). Furthermore, if Pakistan had been a failed state at any time since 1998, when it tested nukes, it would completely undermine the logic behind McCain’s myopic focus on Iraq and Iran at the expense of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
In other words, McCain’s mistakes on Pakistan last night ought to be definitive proof that Obama’s claim–that McCain has focused unwisely on Iraq to the detriment of the more urgent central Asian war–is correct.
And while we’re talking about Pakistan, it’s worth looking at how well Eliza Doolittle learns.
In spite of the fact that McCain botched Zardari’s name, Bhutto’s widower was kind enough to invest time in educating Alaska’s idiot savant–in a moment in which Palin performed much better than the purportedly skilled professional (either of them actually–the current president or the hopeful one).
On entering a room filled with several Pakistani officials this afternoon, Palin was immediately greeted by Sherry Rehman, the Information Minister. "And how does one keep looking that good when one is that busy?," Rehman asked, drawing friendly laughter from the room when she complimented Palin.
"Oh, thank you," Palin said. Pakistan’s recently-elected president, Asif Ali Zardari, entered the room seconds later. Palin rose to shake his hand, saying she was ‘honoured’ to meet him.
Zardari then called her "gorgeous" and said: "Now I know why the whole of America is crazy about you." "You are so nice," Palin said, smiling. "Thank you."
A handler from Zardari’s entourage then told the two politicians to keep shaking hands for the cameras. "If he’s insisting, I might hug," Zardari said. Palin smiled politely. [my emphasis]
And, curiously, this smarmy interaction with Pakistan’s new president seems to have been all it took for Palin to gain confidence in this one foreign policy issue.
Palin’s apparent disagreement with McCain’s position on Pakistan [in saying she would pursue terrorists across the border even while McCain was attacking Obama for that same policy] came as the Alaska governor was picking up a couple of cheesesteaks at Tony Luke’s in South Philadelphia. She was approached by a man wearing a Temple University t-shirt, who later identified himself as Michael Rovito.
"How about the Pakistan situation?" Rovito asked. "What’s your thoughts about that."
"In Pakistan?" Palin responded.
"What’s going on over there, like Waziristian?"
"It’s working with Zardari to make sure that we’re all working together to stop the guys from coming in over the border," Palin said. "And we’ll go from there."
"Waziristan is blowing up," Rovito replied.
"Yeah, it is," Palin said. "And the economy there is blowing up, too."
"So we do cross-border, like from Afghanistan to Pakistan, you think?" Rovito asked.
"If that’s what we have to do stop the terrorists from coming any further in, absolutely, we should," Palin said.
Frankly, I applaud Palin for taking enough away from getting ogled by Zardari to engage in a coherent discussion of Waziristan. Trust me, it can be distracting trying to learn while someone’s trying to feel you up.
But it ought to really raise concern that Palin–who so obviously is just synthesizing this as she goes–has a more coherent understanding of Pakistan than McCain does. In this performance of My Fair Lady, Doolittle is already lapping Henry Higgins.
And given the importance of getting Pakistan right, that ought to be a big concern.
Obama’s response on Pakistan struck me as his most intelligent, organized one of the evening.
I was greatly disappointed with his total fold on Georgia (a tactical decision not to get weedy and get McCain to try to blow it out of proportion, I think). I just wish Obama had made the point that having a “fledgling democracy” and “stalwart ally” get invaded by Russia while they have 2000 troops in Iraq is a failure of Bush/McCain foreign policy. Here’s a line try out on this issue, and others: John McCain is fond of quoting Teddy Roosevelt, who said of foreign policy that we must speak softly and carry a big stick. Instead, we talk loud and half left our stick buried in the sands of Iraq.
Another point Obama missed was that everyone agrees we will have a timeline for withdrawal. McCain is like Rip Van Winkle here.
Am I wrong, or is McCain completely wrong about the military concepts of strategic versus tactical? Shouldn’t the fact that he doesn’t understand these concepts be a bigger deal?
Yeah, but I like the idea of allowing Biden to hit him on it over and over.
Biden seems to be enjoying himself now.
Zardari then called her “gorgeous” and said: “Now I know why the whole of America is crazy about you.” “
Of course no one would call the pakistanis sexist.
BTW what a game in Ann Arbor today. I’m going next week. I can’t wait.
In some cases — not necessarily this one — I think the mispronunciations are intentional: a way of dissing the figure they (usually conservative republicans) have a particular distaste for. H.W.’s ridiculously americanized pronunciation of “Saddam Hussein” comes right to mind as an example.
But whatever the reason, it’s inexcusable; if there’s one name of a foreign leader that McCain ought to be able to pronounce, it’s Ahmadinejad’s, given the frequency with which he publicly criticizes the man.
Drawing troops away from Afghanistan for use in Iraq beginning in the spring of 2002 was based on the deeply flawed assumption on the part of Bush, probably McCain, certainly Cheney and Rumsfeld, that they had the full commitment of Musharraf, the Pakistani Army and the ISI to deal with the remains of al-Qaeda, and that Musharraf was serious about taking control of the various Islamic militia groups that are related to the Taliban. (Remember Musharraf’s TV speech to this effect, his bans on various Islamic groups and all?) In fact Musharraf played all of them — he was fine with handing over obscure Arabs, Egyptians, Africans, Central Asians and all who we willingly paid for, and transported to Gitmo — but he well understood that Hekmatyar’s outfit which belonged to ISI, and others with Saudi support, and close relations with bin Laden, were protected property. Bush was put in a position where he had made deals for less than half a loaf, and the deals gave Musharraf enough to hang Bush out to dry if he found the need. This is probably the principle reason why Bush and Cheney could never give up on Musharraf as the key strong man with whom they had to deal. They had been played. Last night McCain sounded like he was still supporting Musharraf as the necessary strong man — he too has probably bought into the cheap bazaar deal.
I really don’t know if Obama can do it, but at least thus far he has clarity. Clearly the Pakistani Army and ISI know where bin Laden and his leadership are being hidden, and which factions in the FATA are protecting them, and his demand is for those responsible for 9/11, and for the Pakistani Government to take control, by civil and military means, of all of the FATA. Pakistan itself is responsible for policing Jihadi camps on its territory. My guess is if elected Obama could pull together quite a substantial coalition around this principle, and he would not be fettered by past Bush deals that got little. Properly stood up, this could very much strengthen Zardari’s civil government, and get significant popular support in Pakistan, where they are a bit tired of having leading hotels blown to bits. (The Mariott in Islamabad used to be a Holiday Inn, and I once met with several Pakistani women lawyers there, along with some Dutch and German NGO people. — you could have a beer if you signed the form that you were a Christian, and drank the beer in a private room.)
But all that is only if Obama is elected — for now all that matters is the impression he and Biden can make that they have their minds around the vast problems, and an instinct for problem solving. On that score, I think he did fairly well.
Thanks for commenting, Sara–I was hoping you’d stop by.
One of the most eye-opening moments for me, on Pakistan was where, after Musharraf made his big speech after 9/11, my Pakistani friend translated the difference between what Musharraf was saying in Urdu and what he was saying in English. Ought to be a no-brainer to check a person’s non-English statements against his English ones, but apparently few people did that.
Translate with what? Eight years later, and I swear they must have fired and shunned more competent translators than they have developed and brought on line. That alone should have been grounds for impeachment for incompetency in today’s world. They just don’t give a damn; more interested in believing their own warped reality.
“One of the most eye-opening moments for me, on Pakistan was where, after Musharraf made his big speech after 9/11, my Pakistani friend translated the difference between what Musharraf was saying in Urdu and what he was saying in English. Ought to be a no-brainer to check a person’s non-English statements against his English ones, but apparently few people did that.”
Yea, even the English Language Press in Pakistan and India do this comparison of translations between Urdu speeches and Pakistani translations or statements in English. One would hope the State Department had the capacity to do a Google. But the underlying problem is that at some juncture Musharraf manoeuvred Bush into giving up something in a deal which must remain secret — or he has knowledge of some deal with the Saudi’s who play the game the same sort of way. It may actually be something already well known — such as Bush letting the Pakistani Airforce airlift Pakistani Military commanders and fighters as well as Taliban out of Kunduz early in the Northern Alliance’s move in 2001 against the Taliban. It could be as complex as part of the AQ Khan saga — but it is something that would destroy Bush’s political center. My own guess is that we have long known that AQ used Saudi finance (much of it through BCCI) to build his nuclear industry, and part of that deal was to provide finished nuclear weapons to the Saudi’s. Beginning with Daddy Bush, and probably Clinton, we have looked the other way on this, but Musharraf and the Pakistani Army would know all about it.
An advantage of Obama is that I don’t think he owes anything to the Middle East Oil boys, he hasn’t been party to any of these strings of deception, and perhaps he can clear away the clutter and focus on a couple of critical problems. Problem one is to create the environment in which Pakistan can reassess national interests, in the sense that it is militarily structured against India, and on a hair trigger — and that it views Afghanistan as a place into which the Pakistani Army, on being attacked by India, would make a Strategic Retreat — thus the necessity for a very weak government in Kabul. This has been the posture since the 1940’s, and it really stands in the way of development. But lack of development, and the constant fear of India keeps the Extremely Wealthy land and industry owners, and the Army, in power.
Just yesterday an item came by on my RSS feed saying that the tribes in the NW Pakistan areas where the government fears (or is at least unable) to tread are forming militia groups to drive out the Talibs. They’re getting pissed off about the carnage they’re causing there. I’ll look through my link basket and see if I can find it.
It was at McClatchy. Here’s the link.
“It was at McClatchy. Here’s the link.”
Link didn’t copy — go back to #26
Yea, good article, plus a number of good extra links to other McClatchy articles of value.
But I have serious doubts whether a tribal militia can accomplish much. In that culture, they raise a militia on a very temporary basis, they don’t carry the logistics to maintain much more than a single targeted attack. Dir itself is a fascinating area — a narrow valley with hills on one side, and higher mountains on the other, and virtually every male in the valley is a gunsmith. They can hand copy any gun that has ever been made — and the road is lined with Gun Dealers and makers. If you show an interest, they encourage you to go out behind the stall and shoot off a few rounds of whatever. They don’t let tourists in anymore, but when I was there it was wide open, and there were lots of Afghani men around shopping for what they planned to take over the mountains. (I was there in the midst of the war with the Soviets — just before Reagan released the Stingers to them). Dir does not furnish the Pakistani Army — but it is the source for everyone else. Very strange mix — the normal Bazaar environment, the shooting ranges in the rear, many bearded men covered in bandoleers, small furnaces for smelting metals tended by a little 6 year old working the bellows, and every stall had a tea table where the deals were made.
You can just imagine why they would not want the Taliban getting involved with their business — Customers yes, but not governors. They don’t want the Pakistani Government either — they don’t pay any taxes. In these Tribal areas, the law is that Pakistan owns the road, and so many yards on either side of it, but beyond that the writ of the state just doesn’t run.
“Drawing troops away from Afghanistan for use in Iraq beginning in the spring of 2002 was based on the deeply flawed assumption on the part of Bush, probably McCain, certainly Cheney and Rumsfeld, that they had the full commitment of Musharraf, the Pakistani Army and the ISI to deal with the remains of al-Qaeda, and that Musharraf was serious about taking control of the various Islamic militia groups that are related to the Taliban. (Remember Musharraf’s TV speech to this effect, his bans on various Islamic groups and all?) In fact Musharraf played all of them — he was fine with handing over obscure Arabs, Egyptians, Africans, Central Asians and all who we willingly paid for, and transported to Gitmo — but he well understood that Hekmatyar’s outfit which belonged to ISI, and others with Saudi support, and close relations with bin Laden, were protected property.”
I think you’re right on here. The neocons think the whole world thinks as they do in the narrow focus of power and greed. Consequently, they’re easily rolled. Look at how easily the neocons have been rolled by Iraqis and Iranians over and over again.
ix the ny times ripping the abramoff scab off of john mcsame ???
can I get a ruling here ???
wtf ???
but look at this:
it’s from a 6 page post on mcsame’s gamblin problem
I thought I would ralph with the tone of McCain’s incredulity about Obama’s stance on Pakistan. putrid. I enjoyed very much that Obama zapped him on Spain. zing!
As much as I have been reading, I missed the morsel that Pakistan was a “failed” state and had a scooby doo moment. It didn’t sound right but I wasn’t confident on my knowledge. Glad my instincts that McCain is a crazy stupid liar were on the mark.
thanks for this post Marcie. getting felt up IS distracting.
only half of that post made it
the site wont load completely, whas up wid dat ???
and is anybody else readin the ny times article on mcsame’s gamblin ptoblem ???
the abramoff stuff is only skin deep so far, but it looks fatal, given what we’ve heard
He tried to take on the NYT with ‘lil Sarah and his incompetent campaign staff. Sorry, John. It’s over.
and is anybody else readin the ny times article on mcsame’s gamblin ptoblem ???
the abramoff stuff is only skin deep so far, but it looks fatal, given what we’ve heard
Yea, Laura Rozen was up early with a long quote from the NYTimes piece.
To sum it up, McCain likes to play craps for fun and profit. He gets treated to the private digs in both Indian and commercial casinos around the country for the high rollers. His best buddies all get the rich lobbying contracts for the tribes and casinos. He writes bills that protect his friends clients, once he has hooked them as clients. And yea, Joe Lieberman has benefited from this scheme. It is rather parallel to the Keating Five set-up.
While I thoroughly enjoyed BECKER and VAN NATTA’s honesty and integrity when they included this Tucker Bounds quote:
I was surprised that no one, even here, has brought up the approx. 75,000 documents collected (sequestered?) by McCain during the Abramoff hearings that he has continued to refuse to release. The whole story may well be far more damaging than anything posited so far.
And how about those medical records, John? Got an albatross or two in there?
whoops, I meant “marcy”. see? mangling someone’s name is a big deal.
And I can see how McCain wouldn’t want to talk to his enemies, he couldn’t even look at a mere competitor in his own country.
modo is slapping mcsame around pretty bad
kristorf is taking pot shots
but the abramoff stuff …
holy shit
the rats are really gonna start swimming away from the repuglitard ship
and on a side note, I saw an ad by a local repuglitard singing the praises of ”Non-Partisan” elections for state office
now the repuglitards are spewing non-partisan and bi-partisan blather like they were ashamed of their party
how did that happen ???
ROTFLMAO
I don’t read MoDo much unless someone like you recommends the link. There’s just too much chaff among the wheat kernels to waste the time to read her regularly. But this line of hers today is priceless:
and in other news, bob shrum just said that Obama won the election
shrum congratulated kerry 3 days before kerry won in 2004 too
that’s not right
shrum congratulated kerry 3 days before kerry lost
may we can change shrum’s mind …
remember when you got a toaster when you opened a bank account ???
now, if you buy a toaster, they give you a bank …
I’m here all week, nail your waiter, he’s easy …
Oh man did you have to end with an image of her “lapping” McCain?
And Oh Yea, Josh has a bit about how the chief lobbyist for the Mortgage Banker’s Association is the wife of one of his top Campaign Managers.
Josh also has up a bunch of links to Isikoff in Newsweek, and a few others that lays out cleanly how the McCain Campaign is no different from the Davis-Manford Lobby Shop. All one (big) bank account.
I just hope that someone very much in the middle of the road politically, puts all this together in a well written but simple narrative for the benefit of those just tuneing into Politics this fall season.
Ms E Wheel: Re-reading Bai, I got the impression his only real shot was aimed less at either Marci or Marcy, and more than at blogging.
Even Olbermann, despite a body of evidence implying otherwise, including numerous diary postings at The Great Orange Satan, in such a fulsome thrall of Obama, rattled Glennzilla’s cage- an act so reckless it gives pause even to the Internuts so far right they hang out over the edge of the Wing.
Might it be due to such a high concentration of institutional hubris it comes off as contempt?
And might it be a close cousin to the same self-conceit that expresses itself in not taking the time to learn how to pronounce someone else’s name properly?
From Juan Cole on Friday/Saturday:
EW, you should have heard Mr. Klynn and myself screaming and laughing at the TV on Friday. We were disappointed that the talking heads completely missed how badly McCain got Pakistan wrong and right Obama was…
And while we are at it, McCain got other foreign policy wrong…the surge and his understanding of tactic VS strategy but Biden has been ALL OVER that!
As well as Juan Cole:
As Mr. Klynn and I watched, McCain LOST on foreign policy but won on “prickdom”.
klynn
Thanks for the excerpt from Cole. I was going to go into the slight toward Sharif, but ran out of space.
It’s true–Mccain would have no credibility to work with Pakistan, which is dangerous in and of itself.
But listening to C-Spans Washington Journal the morning after the debate guest (Matthew Continuetti/Weekly Standard) on the program were spinning the command that McCain had on foreign policy by all of the name and country dropping he had participated in. No mention that McCain had said the wrong name.
In spite of the fact that McCain botched Zardari’s name, Bhutto’s widower was kind enough to invest time in educating Alaska’s idiot savant–in a moment in which Palin performed much better than the purportedly skilled professional (either of them actually–the current president or the hopeful one).
——————
I don’t know how I missed that laugh line the first time through, but the second reading caught me so much by surprise I sorta laughed/screamed.
The problem here is that you think she’s Eliza Doolittle (fix Dootlittle in the second to last line) and she’s sure she’s Queen Esther.
Fixed, thanks.
Well Zardari thinks she’s “gorgeous” and he’s a widower…so perhaps Todd should be careful about letting Sarah meet with these guys. After all, she’s ambitious, and imagine what she could do for evangelicalism as the new wife of the PM of Pakistan! She could be the new “Sonia Gandhi”…just accross the frontier.
“I can see India from my Palace!”
Semi-OT — did anybody notice the complete blackout in American press on the car bombing in Syria yesterday that killed 17 people?
Tripped on it while helping my kid do some research on foreign current events.
A bombing last week in a Pakistan hotel and NBC’s Ann Curry is coincidentally there to cover it live…but nothing at all about a bombing near a Shia shrine in Syria.
Hmmmm…
How about the continuous “mangling” of what Iranian President Ahmadenijad has said about Israel. McCain repeated that the President of Iran has said that “Israel should be wiped off the map” four times four times during the debate. And got away with it. Jim Lehrer did not challenge him.
Last week I heard Barbara Slavin who was a guest on C-spans Washington Joural allow a caller to repeat this false statement and then Barbara Slavin said “good questions” and did not dispute the caller repeating these false statements. Barbara went onto repeat the false statements.
http://www.c-span.org/video_rss.aspx?MediaID=38322
This past week On Fresh Air Terri Gross repeated the same inaccurate interpretation of what the Iranian President allegedly said. Terri Grosss repeated this inaccuracy twice.
Sarah Palin repeated this false statement during her interview with Katie Couric last week.
This inaccurate and inflammatory statement attributed to the Iranian President has been endlessly repeated the last four years by Senator McCain (Chris Matthews and Stephanpolous let him get away with it and repeat the unsubstantiated claims that Iran has a nuclear weapons program), Micheal Ledeen, James Woolsey, John Bolton (Talk of the Nations Neil Conan gave John Bolton 40 minutes to repeat unsubstantiated claims about Iran. Neil Conan did not challenge him once.http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9942906
Cheney repeats these false claims and misquotes. So does Reuel Marc Gerecht, Condi Rice, Bill Kristol etc etc.
The MSM seems to have learned very little from the build up to the invasion of Iraq. I have not heard one reporter, pundit or moderator challenge those who repeat these inaccurate statements. This is so dangerous and has gone far too long
————————————————————————
Professor Juan Cole has directly interpreted just what President Ahmadenijad said about Israel. Both Rep Ron Paul and Rep Kucinich have tried to bring attention to this issue
http://www.juancole.com/2007/0…..mitic.html
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Ahmadinejad: “I am not anti-Semitic”
Palestinians should Decide on Two-State Solution
Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul continue to show themselves among the few in Congress with any integrity and backbone. They declined to go along with a resolution charging Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad with incitement to genocide, given his alleged call for Israel to be ‘wiped off the face of the map.’
As most of my readers know, Ahmadinejad did not use that phrase in Persian. He quoted an old saying of Ayatollah Khomeini calling for ‘this occupation regime over Jerusalem” to “vanish from the page of time.’ Calling for a regime to vanish is not the same as calling for people to be killed. Ahmadinejad has not to my knowledge called for anyone to be killed. (Wampum has more; as does the American Street).
WHY HAVE THE MAINSTREAMERS ALLOWED THIS TO GO ON?
EW,
Can you help me out with a question. Is there any plan for you and FDL to lead a grassroots/netroots movement on the economy concerns? It really needs to happen. If it does not, we will never have credibility when being self-critical about party members the netroots sees as having no spine. I have appreciated Ian’s post, hugh’s comments and masacchio’s post. I just do not see any effort for noting this as a StrangeBedfellows moment. It. Is.
The economy concerns go to the heart of domestic security, global security and protection of Constitutional rights when one looks at the bigger picture. These are issues progressives need to stand together on and stand firm.
Ew/all ot
Amy Goodman interviewed Iranian President Ahamdinejad last week.
Part I
http://www.democracynow.org/
2008/9/26/iranian_president_mahmoud_ahmedinejad_on_iran
Part II
http://www.democracynow.org/20…..ad_on_iran
I have vanquished my DNS problems like a Wolverine smiting a Badger. Thanks for your help EW!
A tad more on McCain’s thoughts on what he now consider’s the “failed state” of 1998 Pakistan
In 1998 Senator McCain supported the sale of nuclear-capable F-16’s to Pakistan, in spite of the fact that they were preparing to test a nuclear weapon.
“Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), speaking on CBS, said that releasing the F-16s — which he supports — was unlikely to affect Pakistan’s decision” to test the nuclear bomb.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..051898.htm
So was Senator McCain willing to supply F-16’s to a nuclear-armed rogue “failed state”?????
I wonder if the videotape of that statement on CBS can be found. It’d be a great “then-and-now” advertisement.
“In 1998 Senator McCain supported the sale of nuclear-capable F-16’s to Pakistan, in spite of the fact that they were preparing to test a nuclear weapon.
“Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), speaking on CBS, said that releasing the F-16s — which he supports — was unlikely to affect Pakistan’s decision” to test the nuclear bomb.”
Have checked Index references in about a dozen books about the Soviet Era war in Afghanistan, some covering the post war period up to 9/11, and not a single reference in any of them to McCain. Have checked half a dozen on the Pakistani Nuclear Project — again no McCain references. If he had any opinions about either, he sure didn’t leave any footprints people writing about US Actions and Policy thought worth citing.
The F-16’s were withheld from Pakistan, even though they had paid for most of them, under the terms of the Pressler Amendment, which came into effect before Bill Clinton was elected. The argument was that F-16’s could be easily modified as a nuclear delivery system, and we would not sell them to countries that were persueing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle if the country was not signed on to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. (exception for Israel, which maintains the fiction that they don’t have or won’t tell.) Bush II got the Pressler Amendment revoked, and the F-16’s were delivered after 2002. In response, India leased unused former Soviet nuclear capable bombers at the same time the Pressler Amendment was revoked. Both India and Pakistan are building the same kind of three legged stool we maintained in the Cold War — Submarine launch capacity, Aircraft capacity, and Missle capacity.
Answers to questions from “voters” hollerin’ from across the “area” is gotcha journalism and don’t count. Video