Huck on Bhutto: This could affect the continuation of martial law in Pakistan which, er, was discontinued weeks ago

Minor misstatement or worrisome ignorance? After the NIE fiasco and his follow-on claim that Bush had four years to read a document that was only written over the past few months — not to mention the fact that he seems unsure of what’s in his own foreign policy plan — I’m less inclined than I’d normally be to give him the benefit of the doubt. Or am I looking at this the wrong way and should take heart in the fact that he knew martial law had been imposed in the first place? (Technically it was emergency rule, but close enough.) I said before that the Bhutto fallout probably benefits no one, but to the extent that it forces a bit more foreign policy talk into the debate, it may hurt Huck.

He can probably wriggle out of this with a Romney-esque “it depends on what the meaning of ‘continuing’ is.” Or maybe he’ll atone by tacking back to the left on immigration. He insists he hasn’t changed his positions, but good luck telling that to his old, brokenhearted, open-borders allies.

Update: People are sending me the link from the Corner quoting Huck as expressing “our sincere concern and apologies for what has happened in Pakistan,” as if to suggest that by “apologies” he meant to blame America instead of what he obviously meant, i.e. “sorry for your loss.” If we’re going to demonize the guy to the extent of twisting his words that far then maybe it’s time for a moratorium on posts criticizing him. They’ve obviously driven people batty.