I don't agree with you often, but I think you are correct here.  He tacks to the left and then tacks to the right.  In a diary in January, I called it his "method of moderation." Bobs and weaves so you don't know where he really stands, all while selling a cult of personality.

While I disagree with many stands on the issues by Senator Clinton, I do feel I know where she stands more.

... or do you mean he has gone full circle, back to where he started.

for terrorists along with Afghanistan.

Obama isn't much of a chess player, it would appear. Clinton just checkmated him on foreign policy. She implied he was weak. So he moves to look aggressive and robust. Now he's angered the doves and make his "Bush lite" Comment seem rather hypocritical.

You hit the nail on the head. Obama is a hypocrite, plan and simple.

So this would be an example of what he thinks of as a smart war.

Really truly ... I have seen the clip, something like, "I am not against all wars, but I am against stupid wars".

which has had numerous assasination attempts would fall.

Radicals would take over.

Politically this is really blurring the difference between Hillary.

Regardless of the strategic validity - politically it's dumb.

YOu can't be anti-war while promoting invasion of Pakistan

It may come down to Edwards v. Clinton.  Moderate v. progressive populist.  I think that will be good for the party.  

If I were Clinton and Edwards, I would call this development "irresponsible an naive."    :-)

And this would not be a dumb war?

It would alienate all Islamic nations.

I agree that some action would make sense, but it's the conditions he places that worry me.  Unless Musharaff does what I ask, I will push to invade his country.  Yes, because US troops would be welcomed with open arms.  Get the pun?

slight of hand. We're talking about Pakistan, and all of sudden you slip this in:

Striking terrorist camps in Aghanistan is smart move

We're talking about Pakistan, a soveriegn country, with a leader holding tenuously to power, a leader who's survived assassination attempts by Muslim radicals. There's reason that not even Bush-Cheney sent troops into northern Pakistan, because it's aboslute quicksand, a web of tribes and thousands of people who are sympathetic to Bin Laden. And because it would possibly hand the country over to AQ type radicals.

This is childish. As president, you don't talk what you might or might not do to such a hypothetical question. This sort of speech is insane.

This is a pure poll-driven speech. He is under pressure, make no mistake.

War on Iraq WAS dumb. War on Pakistan is Fucking STUPID.

Any anti-war credentials Obama had just went out the door. Is he running for the Republican nomination?

He is out Liebermaning Lieberman.

I was sure that was what he meant ... that he's a hawk, in favor of war in general, but simply against the Iraq invasion itself as a particularly ill-considered war to get into.

And now we have a clearer idea of the kind of smart wars that he favors.

"I see no problem in taking the fight to ALQeada"

Well then sign right up today and volunteer to do just that.

"Obama had always stated he wasnt "anti-war" but he was "anti-dumb-war""

It's a shame Obama isn't anti-stupid war too.

Jaehood,

There are times when one has to " Take off their blinders".

You loss your credibility fast when you blindly support someone when all signs point to a terribly mistake.

If Hillary Clinton or John Edwards made this speech today, YOU WOULD BE THE FIRST ONE to criticize them & go nuts.

Even if your idol Obama had an "R" next to his name, this announcement would be met by ridicule by many Republicans who are just as sick of this war. But its 10 times worst because Obama is a Democrat.

Com'on now, your idol made a major blunder & you can stop trying to justify it.

There is enough comedy in MYDD. LOL

Who knows if he had not already?  Why trust Mushariff?  He has been a dubious player, from day one.  Says one thing, and does another.  And all this largely to bad diplomatic policies with Pakistan and not putting our foot down from the get go.  We could have had bin Laden in 2005, knew where he at, and let him get away and slip into Pakistan.  That is where he is at, we know it.  Are we going to get him?  Probably, not.  We have been overplayed in the Middle East from day one.

You are right to hear the statement in context, it is impressive. It is part of a careful and effective takedown on Bush and the way he has conducted this war, but it is also a tough declaration to go after our enemies...the real ones. His preconditions are precise--"actionable intelligence," "the refusal of Musharif to act". Obama is signalling that under certain circumstances he will rise to the occassion of protecting the American people from another attack. He is not talking about a preemptive or unilateral war against a country, he is talking about specifically going after the people who pose a real threat. He is wise not to let someone paint him as some hippy peacenik who will not fight under any circumstance. The full context is running on MSN. I bet people will find his statement reasonable and clear, unlike the sputtering going on in here.

I can't believe his DC losing strategists would okay such an insane speech. It will only damage his chance in both primaries and general.

This is really weird.

Also, don't forget the possibilities of them fighting a guerilla war against us from those mountains. Why do you think the Soviets retreated from Afghanistan in 80s?

An unstable Pakistan with nukes is a direct threat to India who has nukes too. This policy is just stupid.

Did you read the article? They are discussing invasion of Pakistan.

I'm not sure who you think the enemy is but I am an American citizen and I support the Constitution.

Sorry if people have a better understanding of world politics and the implications of a disastrous policy  than you do Ameri

You're telling me that Obama calling for an invasion of Pakistan isn't news or worthy of discussion?

You know I am actually not entirely sure he is wrong on the substance of it , I will actually be in favour of unilateral action in terms of airstrike , no ground troops if that is what he is saying . What I have a problem with is how you say you don't want " Bush - Cheney lite " last week and turn around in one week and make this kind of pronouncement which in his words can be regarded as "Bush - Cheney lite". He wanted to sound like Kucinich last week and now he wants to sound like Hillary this week. Thats what you get when you are trying to score political points and you are not sincere with your beliefs , his position last week was exactly Hillary's position and he is that type of politician , his track record doesn't show someone that will meet dictators without precondition.

So, we are basically saying that Bush has been too chicken to do just that?   Hey, we know Obama is holed up in the Pakistani mountains somewhere, we have known that for a long time.  It makes no sense to go there, all guns blazing, on "intelligence," that could very well be wrong, basically invading a sovereign nation against their will, air striking into the mountains, an operation blessed with limited chance for success unless we go all out and add ground troops to the search party.   What is being scenarioed here is pure folly.  Even the Bush administration has not signalled that they would go as far as widening the war to include Pakistan to smoke Osame-Bin-Ladin out of the mountains.    

Also, if you read the entire speech, Obama stresses many other dimensions to the strategy intended to diminish any unilateral military action (conditional aid, international alliances, and other political tactics). The diary and AP article can't be bothered with that part of the story, however.

Actionable intelligence is fine. Invasion is not fine. I think his people should contact AP and get the article corrected then. They sure as hell as using words like in invasion in the article when describing his position. If he does not advocate invasion, AP is misrepresenting Obama's position to millions of its readers and it is not fair to him.

You seriously think that if we know Osama Bin Laden is in Pakistan and Musharraf won't do anything we shouldn't go in and take him out?

I cannot believe people play politics with this issue. This is above parties my friends.

never start pre-emptive wars with countries with large numbers of islamic fundamentalists -- particularly when it's not the country causing you problems.