Daily Show: McCain makes the first gaffe of Obama's Iraq trip
By SilentPatriot Monday Jul 21, 2008 12:40pm
The speculation before Senator Obama left for Iraq that he would possibly commit a presidential-bid-ending gaffe was deafening. So naturally the media was caught off guard when John McCain managed to beat Obama to the punch.
Download | play 
Download | play
Stewart: Come on! This guy is a newbie! You can't snag one faux pas, one misstep, a blunder, a boo boo, a brainfart? Something small...a geography mix-up?
McCain: It’s a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq-Pakistan border.
Stewart: The Iraq-Pakistan border, otherwise known as... IRAN.
Login or Register to post comments.
Bomb bomb bomb Iran...
John McCain managed to beat Obama to the punch.
He probably even spiked the punch.
The troops were cheering!
jon is a ball buster.....funny a faux pas
And yet the pleebs keep thinking mccain is stronger on "national security" and Obama keeps shifting ever more right and trying to sound like a neocon to try and convince them otherwise.
Wow, bad quality. Was that show recorded on a 15 year-old VHS tape?
Jo @ 3:
Cheering BIGTIME!
More evidence exposing how pathetic William the Bloody's claims that only McLame is prepared to be CIF are.
Funny as hell. "The border between Iraq and Pakistan is Iran." LOL.
Grandpa needs to update his Funk and Wagnalls.
Blue Lensman @ 8:
William the Bloody hates the troops.
Here's what I don't get... If Obama is getting all this great media coverage, then why does the media gloss over McCain's foreign policy gaffes?
Hey, I imagine at this point McCain will take any attention he can get, even if it comes as the result of a major geograpy gaffe. He tried riding in a golf cart with bush Sr. and that got him little to no attention either. As the two older men stood before some sort of body of water, the song "Old Man River", came to mind.
Notice how when Obama meets with someone they look so at ease. Before the trolls arrive on their bus, I just wanted to say I think Senator Obama presents himself very well no matter what country he's in or who he's talking with.
Blue Lensman @ 8:
CIF? Commander in Failure? Commander in Faux Pas?
GWB is the CIT..Commander in Thief.
liberalNmoderation @ 7:
Our troops know a REAL leader when they see one.
all hail the hypno toad @ 5:
Nobody but the talking point zombies think that and that's because they're paid to repeat it. Repetition is what puts it into the sheeple collective consciousness and critical thinking is required to dissolve it so there's little chance of that happening at least until a different media bobble head tells them to think something different.
Liberal AND Proud @ 10:
I think he's got enough funk but his wagnall may have seen its better days. ;)
It appears that OB had his own troubles today...something about "Israelis will always support Israelis"...made no sense. don't know if this was before or after McCain's gaffe.
Liberal AND Proud @ 15:
Got that right!
pissed off patricia @ 17:
HA! Good one!
Jo @ 3:
yeah they are looking forward to obama sending them to afganistan so they can meet new people and kill them!
Loss Leader.
White House inside suck up Journalist Andrea Mitchell was putting the cart before the horse as see said Obama was giving interviews to non Journalist only to fine her foot in the mouth. As she was included in the non Journalist press conference. Now John Stewart is a more of a real Journalist then Andrea Mitchell, David Gregory and Chris Matthews will ever been. I recommend Obama make John an insider to the White House.
McCain will lose the election all by himself without any help as the Media can't keep correcting his mistakes. Even the World Leaders are getting a good laugh as McCain is clueless to everything. His spoke people are doing their best to spin/blame/lie but they can't keep up with him. I suggest McCain shut up and let his dummy Joe Lieberman speak for him until election day.
pissed off patricia @ 17:
Don't be a fresh girl. ; 0 )
swampfox @ 21:
That's bullshit and you know it. They like the man.
swampfox @ 21:
good one i forgot for a minute that the conflict in afganistan is obama's fault.....i was somewhat confused
thinking that cheney and rumsfield wanted permanent
bases their a few years ago....meaning were in their deep. bush gave obama or whoever a Catch-22 situation....were committed their...obama had nothing to do with it
swampfox @ 21:
OH man...ya made one or two good points a couple of weeks ago...but now you're just soundin like a troll.
constituent @ 26:
nothing to do with it? now he has hes looking to expand the war there in that case he has everything to do with it!
liberalNmoderation @ 28:
sorry i didnt mean to make any good points they just come out!
[OK-erm-'swampfox' and Jo. You two are off topic. Knock it off, or you'll be changing your name again, sf-Sitemonitor]
Jon Stewart- best among the best- at the top of his game! Brilliant.... Might this old whore add that she finds Obama's lovely glutes quite enticing as well. Firm and bubbly as he shoots his shot! Compare to McGramps' useless old doughbags likely sagging so much as flattened soggy pancakes. Cindy...Cindy- where would you dig those nails?!
Swampfox....trying to pin the clusterfuck in Iraq and Afghanistan on Obama is just plain stupid.
Explain your POV please. I'm sure we'd all find your...logic...quite interesting.
To the Fox news team, it seems that Barrack losing the election is more important than McCain winning. Just take a look at all the clips of the Fox news anchors, pundits or whatever they are, wishfully thinking about Obama making a mistake that would end his presidential bid.
So sad.
Truth is, after eight years of the current administrations international gaffes, Obama could show up to a state dinner with the PM of Iraq in his underware and still not equal the nonsense BushCo has committed.
Maybe if he threw up on the Japanese Prime Minister...
swampfox @ 29:
listen mr.logistics..........it's already their...obama has to clean that up also afghanistan is very complicated
i don't like it either......my point is it's already in motion.....and it's most likely about energy resources
caspian basin pipeline and opportunity for stabilizing the economy....i could be wrong but your definitely off
liberalNmoderation @ 28:
Exactly. I've been saying that since day one when this whining twit appeared. Most of the disgruntled Hillary/McGrampa supporters are simply unhinged, angry, and come here to have a hissy fit on a daily basis.
Shoeless @ 36:
Fox should be campaigning for Obama. Just imagine all the venom they can spew when he's elected. It'll give them something to rant about for 4 to 8 years... McCain is just same old-same old. And I mean old...
swampfox @ 21:
Dude....it's not Obama's fault that your hero McGeezer is an old, bring one to tears boring, angry, somewhat stupid, pandering, more of Dubya, scary looking, war loving, soon to be Obama's pinata.
liberalNmoderation @ 34:
the patriot act he voted for the bills to fund the wars the fisa act he voted for the constent call for widening the war in afganistan the 100,000 troops he plans to leave in iraq ,care to explain all that away?
Dr. Hussein Matt @ 35:
who cares hillary , mccain obama thier all warmongers ,
2005 d.rumsfied's interest in afghanistan
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/apr2005/afgh-a15.shtml
liberalNmoderation @ 34:
Her point is view: Hillary lost and she can't stand it.
swampfox @ 41:
Apparently you care because you're having yet another hissy fit today.
Hillary Lost, thank God, get over it
[Back on topic everyone-Sitemonitor]
liberalNmoderation @ 34:
I don't see it as him pinning the wars on Obama. I think he is trying to say that Obama is just going to shift the main focus of the "war on terror" to Afghanistan. After all, Obama, or any other front runner for that matter, has not had a problem with the war in Afghanistan. The debate on the war is still not about our foreign policy in general, it is still just about Iraq and Bush's "mistakes". What worries me is that, although Obama has vowed to slowly retreat "most" people from Iraq, he has also expressed interest in expanding the clusterfuck in other countries, namely Pakistan.
What McCain actually meant to say was "Czechoslovakia-Pakistan" border.
Just wanted to clear that up. -- Rand McNally.
Stupid is as stupid does.
swampfox @ 21:
US troop do that every where, the country is just a back drop.
ThunderMonkey @ 12:
They have to help him swing it some how.
liberalNmoderation @ 7:
Yea but did you notice, where were all the white male troops? Seemed like about 90% of the troops where ever Obama went were Latino, African American and women.
Moral Compass @ 47:
Indeed, also that it takes two comedy shows to actually point out the complete ridiculousness of what passes for media in that country.
The fact that so many americans ignore it and a few laugh it off, and a tiny amount actually understand what is going on means that the usual suspects will just keep on killing and getting richer, ah well.
i love how Fox News is getting so left out that they have to resort at making up the news.. (wait, they always make up the news)
navyswan @ 45:
I worry that his draw down of troops in Iraq, will take them through the Iraqi border to Afghanistan.
Weaseldog @ 52:
You mean straight through Iran?
Jerry @ 48:
I honestly think that journalists lay off McCain because he's so obviously barely hanging on to reality. I'm not defending it, but it's like attacking the defenseless.
It's like turning to grandma, when she's in the middle of an all-to-real flashback, and yelling 'pull it together, you old bitch.' Obviously, grandma ain't running for federal office, but I think there's some innate sympathy in the press for helpless, senile people. Even if they're mean bastards...
navyswan @ 45:
Ok...navyswan, you're right about swampass not pinning both wars on Obama...
I still however would prefer that he defend and back up his statements, instead of more BS statements.
And I am of the mind, that we should have been focused on Afghanistan and Bin Laden from the beginning, and should have NEVER gone to Iraq. I think refocusing our efforts back where they should have been all along is a good thing. And as far as Pakistan goes...they've been harboring OBL from the get go...if they won't give him up we should go get his punk ass, wherever he is. That POV might not be popular here. But that's how I feel.
And regarding the withdrawal from Iraq...they want us out. Period. We should leave graciously while we can. It won't take 4 years like I've been hearing, but I could see 18 months to 2 plus years for sure for a withdrawal.
Weaseldog @ 52:
Well obviously. Where does Obama plan on getting these new soldiers to go to Afghanistan? I think the soldiers may be cheering a little less when they find out they are going for yet another tour or stop lossed etc. That's the folly of Obama's plan, while I agree that it's bushchenney's fault but to go on as if that limitation is not there is stupid.
swampfox @ 40:
many of us don't like the patriot act(s) and/FISA
this was the necessary evil that bush&co devised
you vote against your "soft on terror"...this is after
plenty of fear propaganda for the public...obama
votes against those no chance of presidency.......
the 100k troops you know why they're their has to be a transition for the country we basically destroyed. they are vulnerable........i have a feeling your smart and a gray area thinker....get a grip dawg
Ruthless People @ 49:
Ummm isn't that pretty much the make up of the majority of our military?
It's possible he staged it, but I doubt it.
But from what I saw, it looked to be a fairly diverse crowd. Though admittedly that one beautiful black woman who was smiling from ear to ear, had my attention.
Well obviously. Where does Obama plan on getting these new soldiers to go to Afghanistan? I think the soldiers may be cheering a little less when they find out they are going for yet another tour or stop lossed etc. That’s the folly of Obama’s plan, while I agree that it’s bushchenney’s fault but to go on as if that limitation is not there is stupid.
The block quotes were messed up for some reason.
ThunderMonkey @ 12:
I guess you've missed out on the MSM's love affair with McSame? BBQ anyone?
all hail the hypno toad @ 59:
petraus is hinting about afghanistan also.......the troops
are going come from NATO..and u.s.....i'm sure there is a treasure....energy.. so there will be takers..it won't be enough it's guerrilla warfare so it can't be won
i believe there will negotiations in afghanistan also. what does the u.s. get. caspian basin pipeline and bring
companies in for a starving economy
Brendan @ 38:
You are absolutely correct on that one. Fox's ratings, with an Obama presidency, would go up.
Still I wouldn't watch Fox even if you put a gun to my head.
Whoa...ok...did we just lose about 5 posts? Or am I losing it?
[No. You are not losing it. There is some off topic sniping going on which I am removing without comment, because I've already asked the posters to get back on topic-Sitemonitor]
liberalNmoderation @ 58:
I have no idea but I figured the US military was at least 50% white. I just figured most of the white males sat this out because many of them still think the conservatives who have depleted our military and national guard and entered into a war that didn't need to be fought are somehow the ones still best suited to keep America strong and safe and many of them are still not supporting Obama. That was my point, I'm not saying I thought it was staged.
Obama has played a blinder so far. His press conference this morning was terrifying... in that someone so bright and clued up on foreign affairs can be 20 points behind McMagoo on the issue of foreign policy - at least according to idiots who were polled.
Btw, David Gergen on CNN was pissing and moaning about Obama acting presidentilal on his trip and making Bush look bad. Gergen gave the impression Obams had crossed the line and made a huge mistake, or something like that. I almost choked when he said it.
Also, after Obama's press conference in Jordan, Bill Hemmer of FOX News made a snide comment, something to effect of "We suffered through that the same as you folks at home."
Brendan @ 54:
I'd think if you want to be the leader of the most warring nation in the world you would be fair game for the most grievous assaults going. If you can't stand up to your own press, you think the "enemy" is going to be any better. Put him on the ropes and give him both barrels I say.
I'd like to see this chicken hawk go up against Jeremy Paxman, McTwat would have a heart attack.
Brendan @ 54:
I have experienced far too much of the US press over the years to believe that. Respect and gravitas are just a few things they are devoid off.
To use your analogy, the press should point the fingers at grandma while she is having here "bomb Iran" flash back and point the fingers and show the country (as the world already knows) how completely unsuitable she is to be anything, set her out to pasture and get her away from any red switches or decision making processes.
Either way, I still think McMuppet will win it due the hoards of mindless sheelp and typicals in the US that will vote out of fear.
PorridgeGun @ 65:
And what does that missing 20 points tell you about either your country, the intelligence of the people in it or the corporate system running it .........
It seems like O is enjoying the trip, so is everyone who meets him, and most of the citizens of this country...
Only exception seems to be Media...,
as Mrs. Greenspan was Moaning and bitching here !!!
Maybe al-Maliki’s Comments Really Were Lost in Translation
Jerry @ 64:
It says we are a nation of scared idiots with Pavlovian tendencies.
navyswan @ 67:
I'm one of the countries harshest critics though for the sake of it, and the rest of the world I wish I could disagree with both of us right now........
Obama sure as hell isn't perfect, though he would be a big step in the right direction.
I hope I loose the bet to my neighbour about McPain winning.
Shoeless @ 62:
Watching the videos that FOX posts on their website is my way of diplomacy. I do not comment there and their points of view are often predictable....they often stray from issues, as well as facts and resort to 'name calling' or caricatures of the reality that I think I see. Sometimes knowing the habits of what I want to avoid inform me. Sometimes it's just plain humorous.
I would watch FOX whether "you put a gun to my head." or not.
liberalNmoderation @ 60:
Whew!!!
Fair enough site monitor, lol!
I love the comments about the translation.
To add insult to injury, according to the New York Times Maleki has reaffirmed his comments that we should withdrawal from Iraq in 16 months.
I am going to go out on a limb here, but wouldn't John Stewart make an AWESOME host for Meet the Press....
Ruthless People @ 61:
to be honest, I'm not sure what the percentages are either. You may be right. And my mistake, I didn't mean to imply you thought it was staged.
As for the white soldiers I've talked to a few that have come back home (at least for a bit) and every single one I talked to liked Obama and was planning to vote for him...granted all the soldiers I talked to made a grand total of 5.
swampfox @ 21:
Simple minds, simple thoughts.
Jon Stewart (roughly paraphrased):
"..as we all know, the Germans are known for their sloppiness and lack of precision..."
ROFLMAO!
I'm still waiting for CentCom to tell us exactly what part of al-Maliki's statement was mistranslated.
liberalNmoderation @ 72:
5 outta 5? That's 100%, I'll take it!
Only three-pointer McSame can make is in the john...if he's lucky.
Ruthless People @ 76:
...too bad their votes won't count after the GOP purges them from the voter rolls.
Verdillac @ 74:
Oh the irony considering who really is .........
All net!
From downtown!
And you don't think this guy can win the Presidency? The only Jordan I was thinking of after seeing this was Michael.
Green Eagle @ 80:
I'd love to see the Rethugs take that clip and try to Dukakis him with it. I'm convinced that basket in front of the troops in Iraq was the final nail in McLame's coffin.
BO is making it impossible for the Republicans to steal the next election.
Every straw man they set up, he knocks down time and time again.
This time it's NUTHIN' BUT NET!
chicano2nd @ 73:
yeah you do seem to have your faults!
the thing is once you have been in the military you learn thathe lifers make thier stripes faster in war then they do in peacetimes , these guys are profesional soldiers that are cheering obama , they know obamas job security and the way up the ladder to better pay and authority for thierselves , since obamas sounding the war cry for afganistan they see in him the new bush ,
swampfox @ 84:
Wow, what are you smoking? They are cheering him because he's not going to triple-deploy them, he wants to get them out of that shooting gallery and at the very least provide them with decent care when they get back to the States, unlike the neo-con chickenhawks that sent them there in the first place.
Well, you have to know that there are billions of dollars riding on this election; defense and oil company dollars and they will do everything they can to get McCain elected even though that would be a disaster for the country. When Obama wins and brings home the troops from Iraq, the defense contracts go away and the bleeding of our tax dollars goes away as well and hopefully we can start to use our tax dollars in this country for Americans, health care, infrastructure and more.... It seems that so called conservatives always talk about how the Democrats spend money, but they can't compare to what bush and co have spent on the wars, most of it unnecessary.
marlboro light 100s, and they will get back home after they tour afganistans mountains first! if hes so concerned why send more to die in afganistan ? personaly id send anybodys sons daughters grand kids to afganistan if thier so worried about fighting terrorists there ,
goat hussein sage @ 85:
Troll crack, why are you feeding him could be a better question.
The end is neigh as CNN starts to forecast McDeath win by made up "swing" voters:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/22/borger.mccain/index.html
Jerry @ 88:
so anyone whos against more war and deaths is a troll ? since when ?
"Sloppiness and lack of precision". ROFLMOA.
I love the Daily Show. However the second segment with the new reporter guy at the Jewish retirement home was interesting to say the least. It was about how white retired Jews will refuse to vote for a black guy. In the usual Daily Show manner they played them up and it was very funny. But I thought to myself that the new reporter is a black guy and that it was strange that such a progressive liberal show would wait until a black man ran for president before they got a full time black reporter. Maybe they should do a segment on that instead of playing gotcha to a bunch of old folks. Just a thought.
[Actually, Larry Wilmore has been working on the show since 2006-Sitemonitor]
as usual, Stewart and his writers nail it!
This is why I watch TDS more than the news. Stewart & Co. know the score.
Bud @ 91:
That's interesting, never seen him before.
A "gaffe" like starting a war based on a "pack of lies" Undermining National Security by outing an undercover CIA agent, an illegal wiretapping program, undermining our Justice system. You mean those kinds of "gaffes'
Even down here at he bottom of the planet TDS is surprisingly articulate. Did I hear McCain say the other day that he knows about winning a war 'cos he was in Viet Nam.
He does know that you lost doesn't he?
Senator Obama is a dangerous man. Moving the war on terror to Pakistan could have disastrous consequences on both the political stability in the region, and in the broader balance of power. Scholars such as Richard Betts accurately point out that beyond Iran or North Korea, “Pakistan may harbor the greatest potential danger of all.” With the current instability in Pakistan, Betts points to the danger that a pro-Taliban government would pose in a nuclear Pakistan. This is no minor point to be made. While the Shi’a in Iran are highly unlikely to proliferate WMD to their Sunni enemies, the Pakistanis harbor no such enmity toward Sunni terrorist organizations. Should a pro-Taliban or other similar type of government come to power in Pakistan, Al-Qaeda’s chances of gaining access to nuclear weapons would dramatically increase overnight.
There are, of course, two sides to every argument; and this argument is no exception. On the one hand, some insist that American forces are needed in order to maintain political stability and to prevent such a government from rising to power. On the other hand, there are those who believe that a deliberate attack against Pakistan’s state sovereignty will only further enrage its radical population, and serve to radicalize its moderates. I offer the following in support of this latter argument:
Pakistan has approximately 160 million people; better than half of the population of the entire Arab world. Pakistan also has some of the deepest underlying ethnic fissures in the region, which could lead to long-term disintegration of the state if exacerbated. Even with an impressive growth in GDP (second only to China in all of Asia), it could be decades before wide-spread poverty is alleviated and a stable middle class is established in Pakistan.
Furthermore, the absence of a deeply embedded democratic system in Pakistan presents perhaps the greatest danger to stability. In this country, upon which the facade of democracy has been thrust by outside forces and the current regime came to power by coup, the army fulfills the role of “referee within the political boxing ring.” However, this referee demonstrates a “strong personal interest in the outcome of many of the fights and a strong tendency to make up the rules as he goes along.” The Pakistani army “also has a long record of either joining in the fight on one side or the other, or clubbing both boxers to the ground and taking the prize himself” (Lieven, 2006:43).
Pakistan’s army is also unusually large. Thathiah Ravi (2006:119, 121) observes that the army has “outgrown its watchdog role to become the master of this nation state.” Ravi attributes America’s less than dependable alliance with Pakistan to the nature of its army. “Occasionally, it perceives the Pakistan Army as an inescapable ally and at other times as a threat to regional peace and [a] non-proliferation regime.” According to Ravi, India and Afghanistan blame the conflict in Kashmir and the Durand line on the Pakistan Army, accusing it of “inciting, abetting and encouraging terrorism from its soil.” Ravi also blames the “flagrant violations in nuclear proliferation by Pakistan, both as an originator and as a conduit for China and North Korea” on the Pakistan Army, because of its support for terrorists.
The point to be made is that the stability of Pakistan depends upon maintaining the delicate balance of power both within the state of Pakistan, and in the broader region. Pakistan is not an island, it has alliances and enemies. Moving American troops into Pakistan will no doubt not only serve to radicalize its population and fuel the popular call for Jihad, it could also spark a proxy war with China that could have long-lasting economic repercussions. Focusing on the more immediate impact American troops would have on the Pakistani population; let’s consider a few past encounters:
On January 13, 2006, the United States launched a missile strike on the village of Damadola, Pakistan. Rather than kill the targeted Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s deputy leader, the strike instead slaughtered 17 locals. This only served to further weaken the Musharraf government and further destabilize the entire area. In a nuclear state like Pakistan, this was not only unfortunate, it was outright stupid.
On October 30, 2006, the Pakistani military, under pressure from the US, attacked a madrassah in the Northwest Frontier province in Pakistan. Immediately following the attack, local residents, convinced that the US military was behind the attack, burned American flags and effigies of President Bush, and shouted “Death to America!” Outraged over an attack on school children, the local residents viewed the attack as an assault against Islam.
On November 7, 2006, a suicide bomber retaliated. Further outrage ensued when President Bush extended his condolences to the families of the victims of the suicide attack, and President Musharraf did the same, adding that terrorism will be eliminated “with an iron hand.” The point to be driven home is that the attack on the madrassah was kept as quiet as possible, while the suicide bombing was publicized as a tragedy, and one more reason to maintain the war on terror.
Last year trouble escalated when the Pakistani government laid siege to the Red Mosque and more than 100 people were killed. “Even before his soldiers had overrun the Lal Masjid ... the retaliations began.” Suicide attacks originating from both Afghan Taliban and Pakistani tribal militants targeted military convoys and a police recruiting center. Guerrilla attacks that demonstrated a shocking degree of organization and speed-not to mention strategic cunning revealed that they were orchestrated by none other than al-Qaeda’s number two man, Ayman Al-Zawahiri; a fact confirmed by Pakistani and Taliban officials. One such attack occurred on July 15, 2007, when a suicide bomber killed 24 Pakistani troops and injured some 30 others in the village of Daznaray (20 miles to the north of Miran Shah, in North Waziristan). Musharraf ordered thousands of troops into the region to attempt to restore order. But radical groups swore to retaliate against the government for its siege of the mosque and its cooperation with the United States.
A July 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) concludes that “al Qaeda is resurgent in Pakistan- and more centrally organized than it has been at any time since 9/11.” The NIE reports that al-Qaeda now enjoys sanctuary in Bajaur and North Waziristan, from which they operate “a complex command, control, training and recruitment base” with an “intact hierarchy of top leadership and operational lieutenants.”
In September 2006 Musharraf signed a peace deal with Pashtun tribal elders in North Waziristan. The deal gave pro-Taliban militants full control of security in the area. Al Qaeda provides funding, training and ideological inspiration, while Afghan Taliban and Pakistani Tribal leaders supply the manpower. These forces are so strong that last year Musharraf sent well over 100,000 trained Pakistani soldiers against them, but they were not able to prevail against them.
The question remains, what does America do when Pakistan no longer has a Musharraf to bridge the gap? While Musharraf claims that President Bush has assured him of Pakistan’s sovereignty, Senator Obama obviously has no intention of honoring such an assurance. As it is, the Pakistanis do just enough to avoid jeopardizing U.S. support. Musharraf, who is caught between Pakistan’s dependence on American aid and loyalty to the Pakistani people, denies being George Bush’s hand-puppet. Musharraf insists that he is “200 percent certain” that the United States will not unilaterally decide to attack terrorists on Pakistani soil. What happens when we begin to do just that?
Login or Register to post comments.