I wish these things could be discussed without candidate supporting hyperbole.

There are differences between the candidates on some issues.

I think this is clearly not one of them.

I guess according to some people on MYDD, all the dem frontrunners want to "BLOW UP THE MIDDLE EAST."

Thanks for bringing some perspective back to the silly discussions that have been going on today.

I hope all three supporters rec this.

People, Obama is stating a party line position.

You will not find a democrat who is going to come out against this position.

Rec!!!!!!!!!

I edited the post to fix the grammar, which was atrocious. Probably still is, but less so.

Just to clarify the context in which Clinton spoke

Clinton, in an interview with the American Urban Radio Network, stressed the importance of the Pakistanis "taking the actions that only they can take within their own country."

But she did not rule out U.S. attacks inside Pakistan, citing the missile attacks her husband, then-President Bill Clinton, ordered against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998.

"If we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured," she said.

I have said it in a prior post that Obama is not wrong on the substance of it , but it is the method I don't think is reasonable , i.e. putting actual troops on the ground . I support a unilateral airstrike if we have actionable intelligence and musharaff won't act which Clinton seemed to echo in the speech , but when it comes to actual ground troops then thats a different thing entirely , in that case we should do it in collaboration with the Pakistanis . Its just surprising that Obama is willing to even go further than Bush/Cheney on a unilateral invasion just a week after he adopted a more dovish approach when it comes to meeting without preconditions with Ahmadinejad , kim jong il etc . Seems inconsistent to me in light of the BUSH/Cheney lite comment , this is more like Bush/Cheney lite on steroids.

Thank you.

Nuff said.

recommended!

The big thing that was said was that Obama wants to redeploy troops from Iraq and put them where the real battlefield is:  Afghanistan and Pakistan.  That requires troop levels far exceeding what we currently have in the region.  

This confirms what I thought. It just makes sense. And yes, a lot of this is partisan. I find that said. Some of it isn't. There are people who deplore violence as an approach. I do too. Most do. But that's not realism to say 'never.' Rare is a realistic goal.

It is the silly season for sure. It seems that the blogosphere is no exception. The diaries and comments on this issue have been nothing but hysteria  across the blogs. The immmaturity of content seems to preclude any possibility of a real discussion of the policy likeness or differences between candidates and their soundness or not.

what do you think he means by "all necessary" actions?

I don't think any President wiull act unilaterally.

The risk is too great. But it is silly to admit that. Better to say you will AND engage in strenuous diplomacy. In the end, you may only get a nod and a wink from the Pakistanis but that could be enough.

I still think one of the main points to hammer home is how different this is from the Bush doctrine and actually how traditionally Democratic it is.  Jerome has called this Obama's endorsement of the "Bush doctrine of unilateral pre-emptive attacks."  

But there's an important distinction between surgical strikes (either by air or with special ops) against terrorist organizations --- i.e., against private sponsors of terrorism --- and the Bush doctrine of toppling states through invasion and engaging in nation-building.  There's a world of difference.

For one, the Clinton administration did the first all the time.  This is what I was trying to get at with this earlier diary.

Jerome must have tried to get a job (2+ / 0-)
Recommended by: Inland, Practical Progressive
with Obama, and was turned down.  I know he "thought" he was going to be on the "presidential campaign for Mark Warner", who dropped out.  So, he continuously slams Obama, and is totally one-sided about it.  So, fuck him.  Basically.  His site was one that did not get any "ad money", per se.  It is his site and if he want to run it like that, so be it.  But the site, definately, is not what it used to be when I was lurking.

I think any Dem who is elected President that has a shot at Bin laden will take it.  Doesn't matter what Musharraf wants.

At a time when Americans are despairing over the Bush Administration's handling of terrorism, Barack Obama has offered us a smart, tough and principled way forward. Where Bush overstretched our armed forces and sent them into an unnecessary war, Obama would heed the military's pleas for counterinsurgency resources and beefed-up civilian capacity. Where Bush lumped US foes together, Obama would pry them apart. And where Bush threw out the rule-book, Obama would again make America a country that practices what it preaches.

I am deeply troubled to hear Democrats discussing that more war is a good thing. I agree that we need to get Bin Laden but launching a war against Pakistan is not the way to do so. And an attack on Pakistani soil without their permission is an act of war. Even if we were to be lucky enough to kill Bin Laden there would be a thousand Bin Laden's created by that one simple action. And it would lead to a completely destabilized Pakistan with nukes.

We need to focus on getting out of Iraq and giving our troops the rest they deserve and need.

As another poster stated, Get off oil, get the hell out of their countries, use law enforcement THROUGH the international communities to stop terrorism.

NBC's Lauren Appelbaum reports that Edwards, on the other hand, agreed with Obama, though admitted he didn't watch the speech or see a transcript.

"My belief is that we have a responsibility to find bin Laden and al Qaeda wherever they operate," Edwards said on camera. "I think we need to maximize pressure on Musharraf and the Pakistani government. If they can't do the job, then we have to do it."

Thanks Big Tent,

Here's the full Clinton quote, just so no one accuses you of parsing her words.  Oh yeah, and just in case anyone accuses you of pulling it from some post-911 archives, these remarks were made TODAY, AFTER SENATOR OBAMA'S SPEECH.  I suspect her agreement might have something to do with the fact that the guy who helped craft Senator Obama's speech, Richard Clarke, was her husband's counter-terrorism czar and the guy who wrote that pesky little PRE-9/11 memo warning of an imminent Al Qaeda attack.  Notice too how she capped it off by saying that hunting Al Qaeda down in Pakistan would be her "HIGHEST PRIORITY"  Damn if she'll allow Obama to out-hawk her.  

"I've long believed that we needed tougher, smarter action against terrorists by deploying more troops to Afghanistan, and if we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured," Clinton said in an interview with American Urban Radio News Network. "And that will be my highest priority because they pose the highest threat to America."

Clinton said she would first pursue diplomacy, but using her husband, former President Bill Clinton, as an example, took the same hawkish tack Obama had employed earlier in the day.

"But clearly we have to be prepared -- as my husband was when he fired on training camps and as we must be with special operations, with using technology like the Predator [unmanned aerial vehicle] -- to be constantly on the hunt for bin Laden and the other al Qaeda leadership," Clinton said.

There is clear distinction between not ruling something out and "If he won't act, we will". But regardless I would want to know the context of Clinton's words before making any assumptions.

In any case in her July 26th speech and in this comment Clinton has a lot more room to work things out with Musharraf than Obama permits. And Obama's position here, and his tough guy talk, is consistent with the American exceptionalist approach to foreign affairs that he has outlined in previous speeches. I believe his approach is wrong, and I prefer Clinton's liberal internationalist approach of relying on international institutions and negotiation.

There's a nice poll posted by a frontpager about the Obama speech, and so far,most people agrees with Obama, so dont buy this B.S rhetorics coming out of Mydd that somehow,Obama is making a huge mistake.

No democrats can win a general election by saying they can only strike terrorist camps inside pakistan ONLY if musharaff agrees...I just can fathom the president of the U.S saying such a thing.

Sorry, Edwards sounds a little squishy to me.

If he thinks Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are going to do anything about Al Qaeda, he's fooling himself.

Hillary and Edwards don't specifically threaten military action inside Pakistan over the objections of Pakistan's president. I understand it might still be necessary (preferably covertly), but I feel it would be better for (potential) US leaders not to talk about it publicly.

Choice of words is important.

Obama and Edwards:
"If he doesn't, we will."

Clinton:
"If we have the verified intel, we will."

What's the point?  Obama and Edwards seem to think it's Musharraf's responsibility to do something first.

And that may not be a correct assessment of the situation, and it may exacerbate Diplomcatic relations between the U.S. and Musharraff.

If anyone ever studied geometry and solved proofs, you are familiar with the if/then statement and that all components of that statement must be under consideration.

There is an "If" statement.

There is a "Then" statement.

All three have the same "Then" Statement.  Yes.  That is true.

But there's more to it.

Edwards and Obama's "If" statement is:

"If Musharrraf does nothing."

Sen. Clinton's "If" statement is:

"If we have the verified intel."

Clinton simultaneously takes pressure off Mussharraf with respect to getting Osama Bin Laden, and commits to getting Bin Laden the second it becomes possible to do so.

Yes.  There is no difference between all three in terms of their commitment to go get Osama Bin Laden, but there is a difference in that Edwards and Obama seem to think that it's Mussharaff's responsibility and that he is capable of doing something before we take action!

Yes.  Read the statements again.  Think about them longer than a few seconds.  There is a difference.

Musharraf has been coddling Al Qaeda, at lest, since Sept. 06 ... from ZeeNews

CIA personally presented Musharraf with evidence on al Qaeda
    Washington, Feb 27: In what is being described as a "highly unusual move," the Bush administration had sent the CIA deputy director to personally present evidence of Al Qaeda regrouping in Pakistan's northern areas to President Pervez Musharraf.

   Stephen Kappes is said to have flown in specially for the meeting between US Vice President Dick Cheney and the Pakistani leader on Monday and presented the latter with "evidence" that included satellite pictures that the agency has put together of the goings on in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

   The top CIA official is said to have presented Musharraf "compelling" evidence of Al Qaeda's resurgence in Pakistan, US officials were quoted as saying by news report.

   The CIA evidence is said to have included electronic intercepts of Al Qaeda leaders operating inside Pakistan.

   "We are now seeing the recreation of Al Qaeda central," Richard Clarke, the former white house counter-terrorism chief has said.

   According to US officials, Musharraf has been in a state of denial about the resurgence and comeback of the Al Qaeda in Pakistan and has "ignored" evidence presented by NATO commanders in Afghanistan.

   Although Musharraf pledged in a September 2006 meeting with President George W Bush to get tough with the Al Qaeda and the Taliban operating in Northern Waziristan, the attacks on the Nato and American troops have more than tripled since then.