Interesting critique McCain levelled at Obama last night, AFTER the Washington Post reported this yesterday:

In the predawn hours of Jan. 29, a CIA Predator aircraft flew in a slow arc above the Pakistani town of Mir Ali. The drone’s operator, relying on information secretly passed to the CIA by local informants, clicked a computer mouse and sent the first of two Hellfire missiles hurtling toward a cluster of mud-brick buildings a few miles from the town center.

The missiles killed Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander and a man who had repeatedly eluded the CIA’s dragnet. It was the first successful strike against al-Qaeda’s core leadership in two years, and it involved, U.S. officials say, an unusual degree of autonomy by the CIA inside Pakistan.

Having requested the Pakistani government’s official permission for such strikes on previous occasions, only to be put off or turned down, this time the U.S. spy agency did not seek approval. The government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was notified only as the operation was underway, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities.

Officials say the incident was a model of how Washington often scores its rare victories these days in the fight against al-Qaeda inside Pakistan’s national borders: It acts with assistance from well-paid sympathizers inside the country, but without getting the government’s formal permission beforehand.

It is an approach that some U.S. officials say could be used more frequently this year, particularly if a power vacuum results from yesterday’s election and associated political tumult. The administration also feels an increased sense of urgency about undermining al-Qaeda before President Bush leaves office, making it less hesitant, said one official familiar with the incident.

Independent actions by U.S. military forces on another country’s sovereign territory are always controversial, and both U.S. and Pakistani officials have repeatedly sought to obscure operational details that would reveal that key decisions are sometimes made in the United States, not in Islamabad. Some Pentagon operations have been undertaken only after intense disputes with the State Department, which has worried that they might inflame Pakistani public resentment; the CIA itself has sometimes sought to put the brakes on because of anxieties about the consequences for its relationship with Pakistani intelligence officials.

U.S. military officials say, however, that the uneven performance of their Pakistani counterparts increasingly requires that Washington pursue the fight however it can, sometimes following an unorthodox path that leaves in the dark Pakistani military and intelligence officials who at best lack commitment and resolve and at worst lack sympathy for U.S. interests.

Top Bush administration policy officials — who are increasingly worried about al-Qaeda’s use of its sanctuary in remote, tribally ruled areas in northern Pakistan to dispatch trained terrorists to the West — have quietly begun to accept the military’s point of view, according to several sources familiar with the context of the Libi strike.

In light of that, here’s McCain, after winning Wisconsin, in his victory speech, going after Obama:

Obama’s momentum in the Democratic race was apparent in McCain’s remarks, which included criticism of the Illinois senator’s sweeping rhetoric, but no obvious references to Clinton.

“I will fight every moment of every day in this campaign to make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change … that promises no more than a holiday from history and a return to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than the people,” McCain said - a clear reference to Obama, whose soaring rhetoric has led critics, including McCain, to question whether he’s all style and no substance.

“Our purpose is to keep this blessed country free, safe, prosperous and proud,” McCain added.

He also keyed in on Obama’s statements about foreign policy and his willingness to meet with leaders of rogue nations, painting him as a novice who would put the country in danger.

“Will the next president have the experience?” he asked. “Or will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan, and suggested sitting down without preconditions or clear purpose with enemies who support terrorists and are intent on destabilizing the world by acquiring nuclear weapons?”

Last August, Obama had said if the United States had actionable intelligence about top terrorist targets in Pakistan and President Pervez Musharraf wouldn’t act, the U.S. would. That pledge set off ripples of resentment in the relationship between Washington and Islamabad, prompting Pakistani officials to warn against U.S. incursions into their country.

Obama’s statement was conditional: if Musharraf wouldn’t act after receiving actionable intelligence, the US would. Musharraf and his forces in this case DID NOT ACT, so the US did. Why is that different than what Obama suggested?

Also, Obama didn’t even cover whether he’d seek permission. But even if he had said he’d seek that first, what would McCain do if Perv said ‘no’? Would McCain let the target get away or bring him down anyway? Presidents make tough choices like that. Clinton did, while missing the targets.

In essence, yes, that’s what McCain said last night: Obama would take out the target, Bush did, and McCain wouldn’t.

And he claims his experience will keep us safer. Really. He said that with a straight face.

Update: My apologies, though I didn’t plagiarize. I just discovered a TPM reader and David Kurtz, noticed and reported on this very same thing, posting it 5 hours before I did.