As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America's commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists' program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair -- our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.

Beyond Pakistan, there is a core of terrorists -- probably in the tens of thousands -- who have made their choice to attack America. So the second step in my strategy will be to build our capacity and our partnerships to track down, capture or kill terrorists around the world, and to deny them the world's most dangerous weapons.

I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America. This requires a broader set of capabilities, as outlined in the Army and Marine Corps's new counter-insurgency manual. I will ensure that our military becomes more stealth, agile, and lethal in its ability to capture or kill terrorists. We need to recruit, train, and equip our armed forces to better target terrorists, and to help foreign militaries to do the same. This must include a program to bolster our ability to speak different languages, understand different cultures, and coordinate complex missions with our civilian agencies.

Maybe the real reason is poll? LOL

Rasmussen daily tracking
Rasmussen daily tracking is out. I believe this is Obama's lowest number for a long time. Don't put too much stock in daily tracking though. We'll see what's going to happen for the entire week.

Hillary 42
Obama 21
Edwards 13

NBC/WSJ poll:
Clinton 43
Obama 22
Edwards 13

The public is for striking terrorist camps whereever they are...

Osama Bin Laden is the must wanted man in the world, and if you have good intelligence saying he's in this specific location inside Pakistan, i just find it hard to believe that the president of the U.S will not strike those camps.

Do you really believe the public will be against striking terrorist camps that could possibly eliminate Osama bin laden, in Pakistan?..I doubt that.

The American people aren't "anti-war"...They've shown that so many time....The public is "anti-dumb-war"....The war in Iraq was a dumb war...The war on terror is a war the public wants to fight.

To me Edwards is looking better and better everyday. I was not even supporting him in the beginning, but he is always talking about progressive policies, but frequently gets negative press or no press at all.

This seems like a dangerous political gambit for Obama.

Voters who want strong foreign policy will never vote for Obama. It's clear Hillary is more "hawkish" than he is.

Progressive anti war voters who do support Obama will likely be turned off by his comments.

It'll be especially interesting to see what Right wing pundits have to say about this. It seems lose lose either way.

Either they agree with Obama which further alienates his anti war consituency

OR

The likelier scenario the Neo Cons say "Are you fucking nuts dude?" and when Neo Cons are like "maybe we should think twice about invading that country" you know you're waaaaay far to the right.

The worse outcome which I think is guaranteed regardless is that this speech along with the "Bush/Cheney lite" remark have started to make Obama seem like an out of touch sensationalist. Which is ironic because when considering these two major gaffe's he does seem naieve and irresponsible.

Oh the Irony.

PS I'm not slamming Obama but I think the average voter is definetely going to be thinking wtf is wrong this guy in the back of their heads.

"Heck, even Clinton has the opportunity to move to the left of Obama over the issue of a the US launching a pre-emptive attack inside Pakistan. Because if Pakistan is game, why isn't Saudi Arabia as well?"

Damn straight.  We would have to expand the field to every country that could "harbors" terrorists, which includes Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc.  And, did I miss the memo that our "intelligence" is once again the beacon of truth?   What if we act on flawed intelligence that we only think is true?   Moving troops from Iraq into Pakistan, thereby widening a war that we should be gradually shutting down, is not the way to go.  

This type of talk will not restore confidence around the world that a Democratic president will act differently than Bush, that we are going to lean more heavily on the UN, diplomacy, get other nations to be with us, etc.  

You are talking the politics. Let's talk the American interest and security issue. If terrorist camps are growing up there- what would you have us do?

The question is not "whether or not to hunt out al Qaeda" as some wish to debate it.

The question is whether a candidate should tie himself to a policy of giving sovereign nations ultimatums about complying with US demands lest the US act unilaterally to engage within their borders.

I may support the policy if it becomes necessary when Obama is President and the moment is before us.

But to commit to such a policy now is problematic politically.

I dislike the approach of Obama on this.  I disagree with this war-like rhetoric.  He is trying to out-hawk Hillary.  No thanks.

If Edwards had said this, many Obama supporters would be all over him with criticism.

I had to edit some grammar (not surprisingly) while the post was going up...

Don't all progressives want to get the terrorists that did this to us on 9/11? Shouldn't every progressive candidate be stressing that we need to return to this effort and away from Bush's failed Iraq strategy?

I was doing a quick search---it doesn't seem to me Edwards, Clinton, etc have put out such a comprehensive approach. I really think this is the one to follow...is Clinton really going to make the argument that we shouldn't go after OBL?

I really thought that we were a reality based community here, that we didn't simply read MSM reports and accept them at face value.  Obama did not say that he will invade Pakistan, he talks more about the aid to Pakistan and how he wants to work with them.  Yes, if we have actionable intelligence (aka we know exactly where they are) we will use a strategic strike against them.  When he talks about troops he talks about specifically about troops covert and lethal.

I suggest that all of you have a look at the speech before you go on about how hawkish Obama is being.  It is the right speech, it strikes exactly the right tone.  It speaks of stopping nuclear proliferation, it talks about increasing aid, it talks about filling the void which terrorists currently fill.  Read the speech and stop tearing the Senator down on a poorly written MSM story.  You are all above that.

I feel like you guys refuse to actually read/listen to the speech and istead rely on what the MSM released about it this morning. That's sad.

I wonder if anyone here actually read the entire speech? Here you go: http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/th e_war_we_need_to_win.php

Gosh, folks cherry pick info to suit their needs but that sounds familiar doesn't it? ;^)

Who says Dems don't want to go after Bin Laden, wherever he is? The comments here just point out how far removed the blogosphere is from the Dem base. The thesis of Obama and most Dems is the same. The Iraq invasion is a diversion from attacking Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is in Western Pakistan. Attack their sanctuaries and get Bin Laden. Nothing radical about that.

Who is giving him this advice? It sounds more hawkish than Bush I & II. One day he tacks to the left to catch Edwards populist speech against Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, then the next day he goes to the right of Bush, threatening Pakistan with our army.

He is getting bad advice.

if you read his take on foreign policy:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701fa essay86401-p0/barack-obama/renewing-amer ican-leadership.html

"As commander in chief, I would also use our armed forces wisely. When we send our men and women into harm's way, I will clearly define the mission, seek out the advice of our military commanders, objectively evaluate intelligence, and ensure that our troops have the resources and the support they need. I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened."

Jerome a' Paris seems to be clairvoyant here:

I'm sorry - Obama's foreign policy creeps me out
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/31/ 8023/76395

"The US needs a bigger, better army - to use it

His whole text is about the use of military tools. He criticizes Bush for focusing too much on military solutions, but that's all he discusses. How to make the US military bigger, stronger, more effective, and how to use it all around the world."

Or maybe its just a gaffe and taken out of context. Given the above, I don't think so. Either way its stupid and scary

Someone needs to say - Richardson would know - that we need to return to international law, not to mention our own constitution. Obama, you're breaking my heart.

Al Qeada has just called on Muslims to overthrow Mussharaff because they see him as too close to Bush.  I'm sorry but this specticle to appear tough is the same old politics.

Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are unfinished business.  They attacked us and killed over 3,000 people, remember!  It's not a pre-emptive attack - it's bringing to justice people that attacked us, which is something that Bush hasn't done.  An attack against those who attacked us on 9/11 is fundamentally different from a pre-emptive attack on any other country, and should be thought of differently.

I have real disagreements with Obama on foreign policy (I actually think the Army should be smaller, and not bigger), but I think he's right here on the merits.  He's also being honest with the public on how he intends on dealing with foreign policy threats, which is admirable and should be commended, not condemned.

Two weeks ago, Obama was for precondtions.

Last week, he was for kumbaya-ing with Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela with no precondtions.

This week, he's for attacking/invading a Middle East ally preemptively.

Obama needs to decide on a foreign policy and get back with us.

Jerome's comments seem to endorse a complete isolationist foreign policy. I'm baffled at how he can equate Pakistan with Saudi; one currently has a large area of the country that is a "no-go zone" for the government where Al Queda is operating training camps, while the other is hunting and killing members of Al Queda on a daily basis. The fact is, Saudi Arabia is fighting along side us, so to speak, while Pakistan has turned its back on its trial regions.

Further, Obama's hardly advocating a "pre-emptive strike" as Jerome concludes. Al Queda already has attacked us repeatidly; fighters are crossing the border into Afghanistan to attack NATO, US & Afgan troops. Moving against these camps is hardly "pre-emptive"; its a no brainer. A pacifist foreign policy isn't going to make Al Queda go away, no matter how much Jerome wants it to.  

Talk about kick-in-the-balls framing from Ambinder.  Bush's strategy is "more considered" than this?! Ouch.

I have said for many months I think Clinton is by far the most progressive/liberal of the top of the field. She has a much longer track record on the left than Edwards and many of Obama's positions (i.e. tort reform, preemptive war, "bipartisanship") are further to the right than any other Democrat who is running. The continuing gap in the polls  between Clinton and Obama indicates voters are comfortable with the direction Clinton would take in leading this country but are not nearly as comfortable with Obama whose positions are at times the same as the GOP.

OK thanks for the suggestion - I went there and read the speech. Kennedy could have given it and all the Democratic liberal hawks who got us into Vietnam.

The lesson of Vietnam was - no empire building, no invading countries on whatever pretext, no selling fear to make war. Return to international law, our treaties, our agreements with allies and foes. Work with Interpol to catch criminals and terrorists.

Close our hundreds of bases around the world in over a hundred countries. Stop building empire, stop being the bully of the world and the soft touch for dictators, stop supplying the world with weapons, and start building diplomatic relations. Start representing the people here as if this is a democracy. Stop peddling fear here and around the world. Stop threatening countries with invasion with forces large or small. Respect borders and governments.

Read the Constitution which says that our signed treaties are as law, then obey the law and honor our treaties. Return to the Constitution that gives war powers only to congress.

Vow each day to defend the Constitution.

called "A Grand Strategy on Terrorism"

on page 3 of an 8 page release is this( all italicized words from original):

"A critical first step is to enhance our commitment--military, political and economic --to Afghanistan. To defeat the resurgent Taliban will require a significant increase in NATO forces along the Afghanistan- Pakistan border-- and that will require American leadership.

When our allies have seen that we have finally gotten our priorities straight-- that we have revived our committment to going after the Al Qaeda leadership where it is -- only then will they provide enough troops and equipment to overwhelm the enemy.

We urgently must redirect our military effort away from Iraq(where Al Qaeda leadership is not located) and toward the Afghanistan- Pakistan border( where they ARE located).

It is also critical that we engage Muslim countries in this effort:to the extent that the troops rooting out Al Qaeda and the Taliban are Muslims, the Jihadists cannot portray the effort to defeat them as one of"the West against Islam" The US should therefore should encourage our  Muslim and Arab partners especially Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco, to offer troops to help stabilize Afghanistan.

NATO should create a contact group, led by a senior NATO diplomat, to engage all of Afghanistan's neighbors on border stabilization, especially along the 1500  mile long Pakistan border. This group should include Iran and India.

He then says going on to page 4 after calling for a "Marshall Plan for Afghanistan" that:

These efforts also must extend into akistan.The border regions are poverty- stricken breeding grounds for Jihadism. We need to read the riot act to Dick Cheney's pal, President Musharraf. We have provided him with $10 Billion mostly military aid. Future aid must be linked to a real breakdown on terrorists-including Arabs, Afghans, and Kashmiris.

Musharraf also doesn't seem to care much for democracy. We need to insist that Pakistan have free elections this year.

I'd say Richardson has a lot to work worth based on his 7/27 press release versus Obama's speech today.

And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America's commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists' program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair -- our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally. -- Obama

This is very disturbing to me. First of all, it's none of our business if Pakistan is "democratic" or not. WE are not all that "democratic," and we know that.

Secondly, if we are at all sane, we cannot do anything about Pakistan or any other place in the Middle East. Maybe we could have done something prior to when we shot our big wad in Iraq, but with the baseless Iraq Invasion, that bus left the station. We simply no longer have that political capital.

If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will. -- Obama

If Barack Obama really believes he could have the international and popular US. support to do such a thing after the fiasco in Iraq, he must be, at a minimum, beyond naive. The more he says, the more I think he might be far from capable of picking up all the pieces that Bush has dropped. There really is a real world beyond that campaign trail, and Obama had better take note of it very soon.

I think the question has to be "Is this a major national security speech or not?". If it is, why is it? Has he differentiated himself from Hillary and Edwards in this speech? Is yes, how? If not, why is this a major speech?

Pakistan aids and abets terrorism. Along with Afghanistan is has had been one of the primary breeding grounds for terrorists.

My support for Obama has only increased because of his stance on surgically taking out terrorist training camps, while advocating against all of wars, and calling for a two-state solution for the Israel/Palestine stand off.

I have no idea why you dislike Obama so much, Jerome. I like both of you guys, and unless you go about to nit pick with the intention of showing him up, his foreign policy views (only one caveat: he does need to explain why the size of the troops needs to be increase) make excellent sense.

Obama gets it, and is willing to show his independence on this.

I'm not an Obama supporter but I have no problem with calling for targeted strikes against Al-Quaeda camps in the border region of Pakistan.  To pass up such an opportunity would be foolish.  He did not call for an invasion of Pakistan but any kind of well-informed action against terrorist camps is the right of the U.S. given our nature as target of their planning.

Ths blog is in shambles.  Just Jerome grinding his axe against Obama yet again and his fellow haters peddling their nonsense, with the occasional poll story thrown in by poor Mssrs Beeton and Singer to break up the pointless perpetual flame war.

To read a skillful debunking of all of the Marc Ambinder imitations going on in this comment section, please read the geekesque diary on dkos.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/1/1 05141/5711

I am still basically an Edwards supporter, though for me the difference between JE and Obama is getting smaller all the time.  With that in mind, let me emphasize that I completely agree with Obama's position.

ARE YOU PEOPLE REALLY SAYING YOU THINK THE US SHOULD NOT STRIKE AT CAMPS OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS, PARTICULARLY TERRORISTS WHO ARE PART OF AL QUEIDA??  

First, I disagree that this is a "pre-emptive" strike.  They attacked us 5.5 years ago.  Second, there is no reason to believe they still want to attack us.  

Could it cause problems for Mushareff?  Yea, but I dont see why it should weaken his hold on the military, which is what is keeping him in power?

Is it possible that our intelligence will be wrong?  Yes, sure.  So, you have to consider how strong the intelligence sourcing is before you act and even then you make mistakes.  But if there is good intel that shows there is a group of terrorists, then hell ya, attack.

So, as some people are saying, why not attack Saudi?  The difference is that no one is yet suggesting that there are camps or identifiable groups of terrorists that can be targeted.  If our intel shows some, then yes we should attack there to.

Man, to some of you people I wonder why not just nominate  Kucinich and be done with it.

Most of the comments in this diary make the authors sound like they wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan, either.

I don't see anything wrong with using the military to accomplish limited and achievable objectives, like nailing the mass murderer of 3,000 Americans if we get a shot at him.  That's a big if.  But what's being proposed here bears literally no resemblance to the invasion of Iraq.

I have absolutely no problem with what Obama said.  Does that make me, a guy who wants to see an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, into "Bush Lite"?  Okay, so be it.

First of all, Musharraf had a lengthy truce with Salafi militants in Waziristan.  If there's actionable intel on high level targets and the Pakistani gov't doesn't respond to our stick and carrots, why shouldn't there be limited, measured operations against the targets?

One of the silly things that DC pundits like to tell  each other on teevee is that Musharraf is in serious danger of being overthrown by Islamist militants that have massive public support in Pakistan.  But that couldn't be further from the truth.  From the very beginning, Pakistani Islamism's pillar of support was inside of unelected institutions - the military and intelligence services, and has been fostered by military dictatorships.  

As recently as the last Parliamentary elections, this was the case; Perv allied with the Islamist coalition, the MMA, against his secular opposiion - Bhutto's PPP and Sharif's PML.  And despite his electoral fraud against the secular opposition, the MMA only got 11% of the vote.  If we had a Parliamentary form of gov't, that might be the same portion of the vote the MMA's equivalent represented by hardcore Christian Coalition types might get.  That doesn't mean Fred Phelps is on the verge of taking over the country.

Right now, the fundamental threat to Musharraf's rule is not among Islamists, but secular democrats.  Musharraf tried to hijack a Judiciary that was looking to his "disappearances" by deposing Chief Justice Chaudhry (who is no friend to Islamists).  In response, a massive popular movement organized protests, forcing the Judiciary to reinstate him.  Musharraf aquiesced.  In all likelyhood, by the time a new President is sworn in, he or she would be dealing with a democratically elected PM of Pakistan (most likely Benazir Bhutto).

Skepticism of military force is chic in lefty blogistan, and most of the time it's warranted.  This isn't particularly one of these times.

I have to say that I'm glad that Obama is saying this:
"And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America's commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists' program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair -- our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally."

It's a really, really important point (particularly the last sentence).  I'm glad Richardson agrees.  This should be the litmus test, not what Jerome is focusing on.

So if Obama supporterssuddenly support attacking terrorists camps regardless of the situation does this mean that they also support unilateral strikes into Iran?

I mean they are supply support to AQI in Iraq as well as other insurgents.

It simply is illegal, according to long-standing international law, to attack people in another nation that you think might be terrorists. It might be convenient if that were not so, but it is so. If you invade other nations for any reason, that simply negates any policy of non-proliferation. If we invade too many Islamic nations, we risk a general war with all Muslims. We are not all-powerful. The can make us pay huge prices for attacking them. If we want to go without food or energy (or pay 10x more for it), or even start WW III, then no problem.

I am not enthusiastic about having more military adventures. We lost the war in Iraq, and we cannot afford another war. China will not pay for any more of them.

In his Nobel acceptance speech, General Marshall said that military power was "too narrow a basis on which to build a dependable, long-enduring peace." As the Marshall Plan demonstrated, the military is only a means to an end; it is only one instrument of our power. It must work alongside--and reinforce--America's moral leadership.
snip

By framing this as a "war," we have walked right into the trap that terrorists have set--that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war against Islam.

The "war" metaphor has also failed because it exaggerates the role of only one instrument of American power--the military. This has occurred in part because the military is so effective at what it does. Yet if you think all you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail.

There's an emerging consensus inside the armed forces that we must move beyond the idea of a war on terror.
snip
We must be clear about when it is appropriate for a commander-in-chief to use force. As president, I will only use offensive force after all other options including diplomacy have been exhausted, and after we have made efforts to bring as many countries as possible to our side. However, there are times when force is justified: to protect our vital national interests... to respond to acts of aggression by other nations and non-state actors... to protect treaty allies and alliance commitments... to prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons... and to prevent or stop genocide.

http://johnedwards.com/news/speeches/200 70523-cfr/

Hillary has come in with another Bush-Cheney light proposal.  This is exactly there policy in Pakistan.  What results have they gotten?  What results will she get?  Terrorism is a police not a military problem.  By Robert Pape's numbers there have been 300 terrorists attacks as part of 19 different terrorists campaign in the last 20 years - it is a mistake to generalize terrorists as some large evil other.  They are a small band of criminals who ought to hunted down wherever they are.  

Between Obama's policy and the Bush Doctrine is that Obama would endorse unilateral strikes against terrorists who are targeting the United States.  That's far different than removing the rgime of a state and occupying a country.  

Really, Jerome, please to try to think.

Hillary was to his left last night.

And she is right on this one. I have not seen a comment from Edwards, but I would be very surprised if he agreed with Obama's rash statements.

key element of what he says is this:

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Obama wants to get out of Iraq and get back to fighting Bin Laden around the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. And he would like Musharraf's help, but he's ready to go after the terrorists even without his help.

It's not like he's talking about overthrowing Pakistan's government. Comparing this plan to Bush invading Iraq is very intellectually dishonest and beneath MyDD.

"Basically, a continuation of the Bush doctrine of unilateral pre-emptive attacks in the mid-east, with Obama adding Pakistan to the list."

Wow... What in depth analysis! What insight! What clarity of thought! What analysis!

It's becoming apparent that some of the front-pagers clearly aren't putting in the same amount of work before putting up diaries. I'd love to see someone else do a diary actually analyzing the 5 parts of Obama's plan and giving a more informed, unbiased opinion.

So, attacking Osama Bin Laden, who is responsible for 9/11, is considered a "pre-emptive attack"? I wouldn't think so.

Thank God!!!

Someone has finally decided to grow the balls enough to not let Bin Laden and Al-Zarqawi hide in Pakistan and release an endless stream of propaganda videos!

Someone has finally decided to end the existence of the recruitment wing of Al-Qaeda, which has succesfully grown groups in Iraq and across the world!

Someone has finally decided to take the threat seriously!  Thank God!

I apologize if anyone has already made the point I'm going to make, but i'm not going to read through all 200+ comments to find out.

In his speech, which i read in full, he says IF we have actionable intelligence, and IF Musharraf refuses to act, he would authorize military action. I don't think that's unreasonable. But isn't nice how everyone just ignores those caveats and goes right into the yellow journalism mode and screams out "Obama wants to invade Pakistan"?

Obama is basically saying, Pakistan doesn't get to veto whether or not America is gonna protect itself. And would anyone REALLY be against sending special forces into pakistan(with or without Musharraf's assent) to KILL OSAMA BIN LADEN? Is someone really gonna say Pakistan gets to decide whether or not we bring OBL to justice?

I. DONT. THINK. SO.

And i would argue, if there is actionable intelligence, and if Musharraf wont act on it. Then the CIC not only has a right, but a responsibility to protect his citizens and his country. I know, this is the same argument GW used to get us into Iraq. The difference? OBAMA IS NOT GEORGE W BUSH!

Obama is an adult. GWB is a adolescent with severe delusions.

I do not agree that Obama is proposing a continuation of the Bush/Cheney unilateral militarism. He is PRECISELY on point in describing what is happening today in northwest Pakistan. That being the Al quaeda murderers of 3000 american civilians and there partners in crime, the Taliban are not only living easy {with the protection and assistance of Pakistani intelligence services]they are regrouping to carry out another attack on us. It simply  is not true that Pakistan is innocent and fully sovereign with respect to the Taliban and Al quaeda. Whether or not it is acted upon, I want my president {whoever that might be} to say exactly what Obama stated today.

This isn't as clear cut as you would make it, Jerome. While I have some questions about Obama's statement, and I would like to see him asked those questions, I don't think Obama is necessarily endorsing pre-emptive war and ongoing GWOT madness.

IF Obama's administration is clear about identifying high-level Al-Qaeda operating at a specific location, and IF Musharraf refuses to do anything to apprehend outlaws so named by international criminal bodies, then America might be able to make a case to the international community that this action is justified.

Sovereignty isn't so absolute that a state should be able to simply ignore the international community if there's proof that the Al Qaeda leadership is living comfortably within its borders. Does that warrant an incursion into Pakistan? This has to be decided in a case-by-case way, but possibly, given the right circumstances.

But both the evidence and the rules of engagement would have to be crystal-clear, and extremely strict. The following conditions would have to be in place: First, we are going after bin Laden, Zawahiri or their immediate right-hand men (one of the top 5 Al Qaeda people). Second, we have shown Musharraf rock-solid intelligence locating these people, yet Musharraf refuses to apprehend them. Third, we will avoid any engagement that would hit a Pakistani civilian zone (no airstrikes in the middle of some town or urban warfare in the streets of Peshawar). Fourth, we have already consulted with various international bodies, such as the UN and the Arab League, and they agree. And finally, we will use an airstrike only as a last resort, after making an attempt to capture Osama and his lieutenants ALIVE.

That's a laundry list of (I think) sensible conditions that no politician is going to list when trying to sound tough on terrorism.

The one point I suspect I disagree with Obama on: If our point is to put an end to the ill-conceived "War on Terror," then we should avoid making martyrs out of our biggest enemies whenever possible. We should capture bin Laden and let him rot in a prison for the rest of his life. Give him as little satisfaction as possible.

I'm pretty confident that Obama understands most of these cautionary ideas. We still have plenty of time to size up the candidates, so we'll see what happens.  

Obama lost my vote on this one.  Pakistan? Just what the F*&^ did they ever do to you that you want to blown them up and colonize them ala George Bush's Iraq?

Dont be mistaken, I'm still NOT voting for Hillary. When are Dean and Gore entering the race?

What laughable bullshit Armstrong. Obama did NOT call for invading and occupying Pakistan. But he's not going to shovel $12 billion a year to the Pakistani military like Bush so Musharraf can protect al Qaeda.

Obama's all for taking them out if we have actionable intel just as Hillary was forced to admit she was today when questioned about it. Any candidate who doesn't back such common sense goals and tactics will quickly be relegated to Kucinich/Gravel status.

All the spin notwithstanding this position of Obama's is consistent with his own long-standing comments on the Iraq war and terrorism generally.  If you accept the rationale of the conflict between al-Qaeda and the US, which has much evidence to support it whether you accept the GWOT frame or not, the idea that the US would use military force in the one theatre where these enemies are currently and clearly operating is a reasonable proposition.

Frankly I think Senator Obama has staked out a very cogent argument which exposes the flaws in the policies of the Bush administration as well as weaknesses in the positions of other candidates.  Say what you will about Senator Obama there is rarely a position taken by him which is not founded on very convincing logic.

One of the significant points which I haven't seen discussed here much is the complete and utter failure of the Waziristan accord recently.  It is reasonable to doubt the intentions of Musharraf in this regard.  I wonder how many of us are aware of the historic involvement and influence of the Pakistani ISI in the rise of the Taliban and the machinations of other anti-US Islamic groups, both politically and in their terrorist activities.  Google the ISI, if you dare, and check it out.  It is not always clear whose side Pakistan is on, at least at different levels within their leadership and institutions.

If you accept that al-Qaeda is using these localities to operate from, and there seems to be no dissenting opinions on this point, why would you dispute his position?  In fact, don't you wonder why this hasn't been US policy since 2001?

read july 25 senate CFR statement  
http://www.senate.gov/...

Here you will see how torn Barack was during the last week.

He had Hillarys niave statement and he also had to deal with the REAL TRUTH

That lead him to  SAY THE RIGHT THING

and that wasn't good for POLLS

But it is Good for the world.

Let me get this straight -- do we talk to these countries leaders before we bomb them?  Last week Obama wanted to talk to world leaders regardless of whether they were dictators or not without conditions.  Now he wants to be part of the Bush Doctrine -- bomb first and ask questions later. Obama -- you are not ready for Prime Time.  You want to be President so badly but you haven't a clue what it means.  I will take age and experience over youth and exuberance any day.

Let me get this straight -- do we talk to these countries leaders before we bomb them?  Last week Obama wanted to talk to world leaders regardless of whether they were dictators or not without conditions.  Now he wants to be part of the Bush Doctrine -- bomb first and ask questions later. Obama -- you are not ready for Prime Time.  You want to be President so badly but you haven't a clue what it means.  I will take age and experience over youth and exuberance any day.

Sounds to me like all the fat cats who put up money for Obama wanted payback.  They wanted him to prove that he would carry on the policies of G W Bush.  Will the cost him the nomination--probably.  Will he run as an Independent--you betcha.  It would be very hard to elect a Republican in this climate so I think this mob co-opted a Dem. Obama I liked you better when you were hopeful.  Now you're just hopeless.

This is how the story appeared on Al Jazeera.  It is an insightful read and I had not previously seen the comments by Tariq Azeem, Pakistan's Minister of State for Information (emphasis added):

Obama warns Pakistan over al-Qaeda

Barack Obama, the US presidential candidate, has said he would be prepared to attack al-Qaeda targets inside Pakistan without Islamabad's approval.

The Democratic senator's agressive tone in his first major foreign policy speech followed a criticism last week from his main rival, Hillary Clinton, that his judgment on foreign policy was naive.

Obama's stance comes amid claims by US officials that Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's president, has been unable to control a resurgent al-Qaeda and Taliban in areas of northwest Pakistan.

Tariq Azeem, Pakistan's minister of state for information, called the comments "sheer ignorance."

'Actionable intelligence'

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and president Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said on Wednesday.

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges, but let me make this clear: there are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again."

US sources have also spoken of concerns new recruits could be being trained there for attacks against the US.

Azeem said: "Such statements are being made out of sheer ignorance. They are not fully apprised about the ground realities and not aware of the efforts by Pakistan."

Islamabad has bristled against a string of similar threats in recent weeks by the administration of George Bush, the US president, whose top counter-terrorism official in July refused to rule out US strikes in Pakistan.

Azeem said: "We have said before that we will not allow anyone to infringe our sovereignty.

"If there is any actionable intelligence they should tell us and only our forces will take action on it and they are quite capable of it."

Washington failures

The minister suggested that Obama's comments were prompted by Washington's inability to curb the ongoing Taliban campaigns in neighbouring Afghanistan, where US-led forces toppled the Taliban regime in late 2001.

"This seems to be a reaction to their own failure in Afghanistan to control the US casualties and instead of addressing the situation there, they are finding scapegoats and damaging their own cause," Azeem said.

Tasnim Aslam, a spokeswoman for Pakistan's foreign ministry, told AFP she would not comment as Obama was not president, but added: "These are serious matters and should not be used for point-scoring.

"Political candidates and commentators should show responsibility."

'Obama naive'

The Illinois Democrat is trying to convince Americans he has the foreign policy heft to be president after Clinton questioned his readiness to be commander-in-chief.

Clinton last week labelled Obama naive for saying he would be willing to meet the leaders of Iran, Cuba, Syria, North Korea and Venezuela without preconditions in his first year in office.

A poll by The Wall Street Journal and NBC News said Clinton has widened her lead over Obama, going up to 43 per cent in July from 39 per cent in June.

Obama tallied 22 per cent, down from 25 per cent in June.

Those polled cited Clinton's experience and competence highest among her positive attributes.

Obama said he would make hundreds of millions of dollars in US military aid to Pakistan conditional on Pakistan making substantial progress in closing down training camps, evicting foreign fighters and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks on Afghanistan.

The White House said Pakistan was working hard to fight al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and Washington was doing what it could in support.

"At the same time, we recognise the sovereignty of the Pakistani government and realise that they're putting on a serious push... They're taking the fight to al-Qaeda," spokesman Tony Snow said.

Al Jazeera 1 August 2007 Source: Agencies

Apologies for the posting of a complete article but somehow I wonder if your readers would have otherwise been exposed to this point of view.  As the Foreign Minister of Pakistan remarked the other day in respect of the US nuclear deal with India, 'with friends like this who needs enemies?'

Who is kidding who about Pakistan?  And why was Obama mistaken to point this out?

If we learned one thing out of Iraq (which the Russians learned in Afghanistan) is to never commit non-Muslims ground troops in a muslim country. Of course no one likes foreign occupational troops very much, but for us to act unilateraly in Pakistan would be a disaster.

I'm no fan of the Pakistani government and they have dragged their heels in going after Al-Qaeda. But I don't think its because they are secret buddies of Osama like many in Saudi Arabia are. The nation is very precariously balanced and for us to go in and just start bombing targets as Obama suggests is probably the best way to cause the country to collape into anarchy.  Just plain stupid talk from someone who should know better.

Preemptive?  That is simply ridiculous.  There is nothing even remotely "preemptive" about going into a country to hunt down the leader of the gang who blew up the World Trade Center and killed 3,000 citizens.  That is called "retaliation" or "retribution" or "punishment".

I am a longtime die hard congenital democrat.  I am a county Dem committee member.  I and many of my friends have always thought that Bush's war in Iraq was the worst foreign policy disaster in our history, but chasing Bin Laden into Pakistan was something that should have happened as soon as he went there.  If we had gone in "hot pursuit" not only would we be entirely justified in doing it, but all of the Pakistani tribal leaders would have entirely understood it because IT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY WOULD DO THEMSELVES.  

It is still not too late to do it.  Obama has it right.  We should go after the guy who attacked us.  There is no need to defend such an action because it defends itself, even with the inhabitants of the region we go into.  Anyone who cant see this is out of touch with the reality of most people's views of crime and punishment.

Steve Kyle

If Richard Clark wrote a speech for me, I could stand infront of a tele-prompter and read it, too!

Unfortunately for Obama, the debates illustrated that he's as clueless about how to respond to a terrorist attack as he is about Presidential diplomacy.

Since when has Pakistan been a part of the Middle East?

Obama advanced a racist argument for attacks on Iran and Pakistan and this really looks silly to me. Making a comparison between the "Islamic world" and the Soviet Union, he argued that the religious outlook of Iranians and Pakistanis made them less prone to compromise and reason and more warlike. But I don't think this is the main idea. They are humans though, and they want peace in their lives as well.
______________ _

Ada / online stock trading

I can see here stock trading programs strategy and let me tell you why: the troops seem to be shifting the interest area to dominate as power circles create around that area which it is clearly full of oil. Al-Queda is just a pretext to be there and the truth is that Americans die to make big oil corporations rich.