Wow, Obama is following my precise prediction if you recall. I said a couple of days ago he might give a 'major foreign policy speech' in order to battle Hillary's perceived strength.

Here we go. However, I believe the content of this speech is a huge tactic mistake. His message is so confused these days. In the past few days, he has visibilly taken a sharp left turn. But this speech is not welcome news for liberal wing of democratic party. People will start to doubt his sincerity because his foreign policy has a 360 degree turn over the past few days. Willing to sit down with Iranian president without 'preconditions', willing to strike inside Pakistan without 'permission' of a frendly ally? This is getting bizarre.

Obama needs to find a new strategist sooner rather than later. He is in deep hole. LOL.

recommended.

Obama seems to vacilate between pointing out his 2002 speech opposed to the Iraq Invasion and acting more hawkish than Hillary.

It reflects my fundamental problem with him.  Other than ambition, what does he really believe?

This kind of war-like talk is bad.  

Does this mean he is finding steam - or is the truth coming out - maybe it's because he is really a war hawk.

All that talk about being against the Iraq war and the puff up about his never being for it position, seems to fade into the sunset (even though he was on record of saying that he didn't have the same information at the time and didn't know how he would have voted had he been in the congress at the time).

Obama - the new war hawk on the block?

Interesting to ponder indeed.

Ok, where'd all this man's good judgement go?

Crossing that border without an invite would seal the downfall of moderate West-friendly forces in Pakistan. We'd see an escalation of anti-American sentiment in nuclear Pakistan faster than you can say, "dumb war."

If I were senator Clinton or Edwards, I would jump on this. I would politely point out I disagree with Senator Obama's strategy regarding Pakistan.

This is an even worse mistake than last week's skirmish by Obama campaign, IMHO. They are under pressure, and that's exactly when you usually make big mistake.

I think every Americans including Pakistan authorities, will agree that Osama is hiding in the moutains in this country and tribes men are protecting him from getting captured....

I see no problem in taking the fight to ALQeada...The public has a problem with the war in Iarq since they had nothing to do with 9-11, but i sincerily dont think how the message of "killing osama bin laden" will hurt Obama unless you believe that we should forget about Osama and just hope he's not planning another 9-11.

Obama had always stated he wasnt "anti-war" but he was "anti-dumb-war"...War on Iraq was dumb...Striking terrorist camps in Aghanistan is smart move and will gain him credit for at least not acting like 'war on terror' is just a bumper sticker and doesnt exist.

This would quite possibly destablize Pakistan and lead to a fundamentalist takeover of the country. A country with nukes. Yeah, that's the way to get Bin Laden: give nukes to his allies.

Look, the War is with the ones who killed us on 9/11.  I want to hear and read the whole speech.  Pakistan, shit, we have let them hide bin Laden, we have.  We have turned a blind eye.  Now look at Afghinstan, that shit is cropping up so high now with terrorists it is not even funny.  I am not for war with Pakistan, but WTF?  This is a twist, indeed.

Maybe Barry is growing a backbone ... or maybe Axlerod is paying for better scripts.

That is a naive statement. There is a reason that even Bush/Cheney did not unilaterally go into Pakistan. The chances of destabilizing the whole region are very high. Mind you it is a country with nuclear weapons. They might threaten to use it against their neighbors if any other country unilaterally attacks them. It is a question of their national pride. I can't beleive we are trading one stupid foreign policy for another.

"War with Pakistan"? Were did you get that?

Taking out Bin Laden should be the number one priority of any President. If we know where he is and Pakistan will not act then we sure as hell should.

Cruise missile and smart bombs do not equate to a war. Don't you remember Clinton did this in Afghanistan? Did anyone call that a war?

Please, you're spinning so hard your head is going to pop off.

from reading all these emotional rants and comments posted here this morning. The enemies are afraid so they vent.

This Diary is hardly credible.  You twist Obama's words to mean something he did not say.  A vociferous Edwards supporter and a rabid HRC supporter gang up and bash away...

It frequently seems like you people have forgotten that we are all going to need to support a nominee starting next spring.  Please tone down your rhetoric.  Saying that we need to strike at Osama if possible is hardly a radical, hawkish position.  Pointing out that Bush took his eye off the ball in Afganistan and Pakistan is the coreect position substantively and politically.

I'm surpried this has not been put on dailykos yet.

They are always slow to react.

Troll diary.

Wow people will argue about anything!

SO, let me get this straight: if we have good information Osama Bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan border AND Musharraf won't do anything (pretty much the scenario since September 11- it is highly likely this is the case) we do not I repeat do not think we should go in and get him?

Are we mad? Are you guys for real?

I realize we all support different candidates but this seems like something we could all agree on.

I am interpreting only the above quoted paragraph not the entire speech.

Being hawkish is when you go to war for no good reason and when you support a war for no good reason and you support increased military spending for no good reason.

When you have evidence that the person responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans on September 11 is hiding somewhere and you go after him I don't think thats hawkish. I think thats common sense.

And frankly those folks above spinning along with the diarist ought to be ashamed as well.

Obama did not call for invasion or unilateral war.  He promised to act on any actionable intelligence that we have.

That's the proper POV.  Unless you think that Kerry and Edwards were also calling for unilateral war when they criticized Bush for missing in Tora Boar and vowed not to make the same mistake.

Obama is saying the exact same thing.  But you folks know that.  You are distorting on purpose.

Shame on all of you.

From the article:

"The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid."

We are NOT going to invade Pakistan. I don't give a shit what your candidate says. It ain't going to happen. You warmongers need to take a frickin chill pill because some of us here actually believe in peace. There's been more than enough killing and dying already.

I've said for a while that Obama and Lieberman are like two peas in a pod. This only proves it.

Screw JoeBama

I like Obama, but this is shaking my support.  He's been my favorite candidate for a while now, but after this, I dunno.  I might have to give Edwards another look...

A conservative is just a liberal who hasn't needed a second chance yet.

by Larry McAwful on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 07:26:47 AM PDT

I have to say I have lost a lot of respect for some of you. Playing politics with this issue is really reprehensible. It shows an inability to draw the line at core values.

I don't know what kind of American thinks we should not go after Osama Bin Laden.

Perhaps not the kind I want to sit around sharing my views with...

Netroots? more like Netkooks.

I know the Edwards and Hillary partisans thinks this is a major blunder for Obama, but i beg to differ.

The Americans people believe we should go after Osama Bill Laden wherever he's hidding and this include Pakistan...Go ahead and poll this question:

Do you believe the president of the U.S should strike terrorist camps inside Pakistan even if Pakistan president is against it?

Im sure the Obama people took a poll on this and it probably polled very well..I dont think anyone will challenge Obama on this.

If you have intelligence that Osama is in a specific location inside Pakistan, you HAVE to strike and i just cant even imagine musharraf saying NO...

Osama killed 3000 Americans and the Public wants him dead or alive, so i just dont see how is this speech a blunder.

Democrats can not win by being "anti-war"...The war against the Nazies was a good war..The war against terrorists is a good war...The war in Iraq was a dumb war because Saddam didnt have any weapon of mass destruction + the fact we were already engage in Afghanistan.

Obama is the "Change" candidate. You got that right!

First of all, the speech hasn't been given yet. This is all speculation as far as I'm concerned. Secondly, I feel like everyone is jumping to conclusions a little bit. The possible "invasion" of Iran (which would probably amount to a couple of hundred soldiers sent to the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan where US military operatives are already working) would only come after numerous efforts (economic and diplomatic in nature) as used to convince our all, Pakistan, that it's in our mutual interests.

Also, any notion that Obama is 'flip-flopping' from his debate statement is completely unfounded. In the speech, Obama will also promise to give "a speech at a major Islamic forum in the first 100 days of his administration." He clearly wants to INCREASE diplomacy and dialogue with hostile nations which is consistent with his previous statements. Rather than presenting inconsistencies , I think this speech will reaffirm the fact that Obama is a proponent of a new, smarter direction in foreign policy- not the kind advocated by the old guard in DC.

Check out this list of advisors- (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id= 3434573&page=3)

"The Obama campaign says those assisting with the speech constituted a mix of a new generation of national security and foreign policy experts such as Samantha Power, a professor of global leadership and public policy at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government and Pulitzer Prize-winning author of "A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide"; Susan Rice, member of the National Security Council for President Clinton; Greg Craig, former Clinton administration undersecretary of state and director of policy planning; and more experienced old hands, such as President Clinton's National Security Adviser Tony Lake, former Clinton and Bush counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke and retired Maj. Gen. General Jonathan Gration."

Read this fact sheet http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/08/ sweet_blog_special_in_terroris.html before jumping to unfounded conclusions.

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

Obama is speaking now, MSNBC is covering it live.  You can also read the actual text on his website.

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/th e_war_we_need_to_win.php

How about we have a reality based discussion?

and stop spinning the shit out of this.  Geekesque has the speech and the full break down.

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

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."

Jerome just plagiarized you on the main page!

Are you going to let him get away with that?

... on this thread that are challenging Obama on this are simply endorsements of George W. Bush's complete failure in going after Bin Laden.

... is completely inaccurate.

[via TPM's ElectionCentral]

Obama's speech: No mention of "war on terror"

Barack Obama was among those raising his hands in a recent debate to indicate that he believes there is a "war on terror," but his speech today -- and read the whole thing -- marks a really sharp departure from policies past, and seems to challenge Hillary either to come along or be pushed toward the White House.

One note: The phrase "war on terror" appears nowhere in the speech.

The closest he comes: "America is at war with terrorists who killed on our soil. We are not at war with Islam."

Also absent from the speech is any reference to "Islamic terrorism," "Islamism," or "Islamofacism" -- the buzzwords of those who see a global conflict between the West and a specifically Muslim insurgency.

UPDATE: Another relevant passage: "Just because the President misrepresents our enemies does not mean we do not have them. The terrorists are at war with us. The threat is from violent extremists who are a small minority of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, but the threat is real. They distort Islam. They kill man, woman and child; Christian and Hindu, Jew and Muslim. They seek to create a repressive caliphate. To defeat this enemy, we must understand who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for."

Barack Obama:Soldier of Fortune!

If you send troops to Pakistan without their approval, isn't that called invasion? What am I missing here?

are going to blow the SHIT out of the Middle East...OMG...

/snark

How was that?  Hey, I am washing my clothes, packing, packing my dogs (going to the petsitter), packing my pinot, and will be on the Metra tomorrow for YKos.  I will get y'all's fav's photos, and of course, photos "that should not be published", anyway, holla....

The funny thing is, the only people that support an attack or invasion of Pakistan without the explicit consent of the government of Pakistan is neocons, you know the guys who advise Vice President Dick Cheney.

I don't know what Barack Obama was thinking. I support going after terrorist in Pakistan, but you need the support of the Pakistani government and military. Pakistan is fragile and going in there forcefully could result in further destabilization of the government and a possible coup, which could put nuclear weapons in the hands of extremist. So far, I have not read a single blog post from Democrat or Republican who support such a policy.

Lets forget for a moment whether he called for unilateral war or some sort of controlled "surgical" action.  The message he sent - and meant to send - was "I'm a hawk.  I'll bomb folks if I really need to."  This announcement was unarguably a political action generated in response to some perceived gaffe  he (thinks he) made in the debate re: diplomacy.  Even if this is his genuine policy position , the decision to disclose it now makes this a political move.

And whatever merits (or lack thereof) of the policy position, the political strategy is terribly flawed.  The direction he took with the "diplomacy first" track fits right inside his overall change message, and was a fantastic way to differentiate himself. He thinks he is now balancing against that position with this recent announcement, and he is wrong.  He is simply re-enforcing the "our only way out is war" concept and moving the narrative of the issue onto republican territory.  This move smacks of somebody in Chicago pushing the the mythical "center" because they saw some blip in a poll somewhere.  The move is what folks around here would refer to as "DLCism", or what Republicans (just you wait!) will call "Flip-Flopping."

Bottom line from this lefty who just can't decide between Obama and Edwards: For a guy who is big on rhetoric and pretty weak thus far on policy positions, this is not the one tangible thing to break through with as what the "politics of hope" is actually referring to.

You "leftwing" Democrats are pathetic!  Why are you all eternally surprised when your fav candidate - it doesn't matter which one - turns out to be just another warmonger?  They are inevitably ALL tied up with the War Machine - how could it be otherwise when that Machine saturates virtually every Congressional district with military contracts?  People talk about the "Israeli Lobby", but they are just a bump on the War Machine log. This, BTW, is the source of the supposed 'Israel Lobbys'' power, that the state of Israel is merely a wholly owned subsidiarity of a global War Machine that has literally run amok, completing the utter destruction of the U.S. constitution, R.I.P.  How do you like the arms deal killing just made with the 'Saudi Lobby' and its Persian Gulf satrapies?

So let's see, the current 'debate' between Billary - yes, all you future Obama/Edwards losers will  be pulling the lever for Bill, the 3rd Term Vagina Version, guess blowjobs in the Oval Office won't be a 'crime' now - and Obama is over whether to nuke or not...what a pathetic state of affairs!

And a poster above actually had the temerity - or more accurately the BLINDING STUPIDITY - to mention John Kerry in connection with the supposedly 'brilliant' tactic of "running against the left" - because you know how "right wing" the U.S. public is, and how gullible it can be in the face of such pandering.  John Freaking KERRY, the Ultimate Born Loser! A guy that should not be in politics - not even within a tiny insignificant fringe sect - simply due to his utter political incompetence.  I mean, here is a guy that manages to be boring, tedious, leaden and clumsy all in the same move!

When are you people ever going to pull your heads out of your derrières and realize that anybody that is permitted to have a shot at constitutional office is never going to do anything for US?  Oh, is that a 'rude' expression?  Stop being such obviously WILLFUL political ignoramuses, and I'll stop being so rude.  Because to watch people make such political fools of themselves - over and over again - makes me want to vomit.

The American 'democracy', such as it was, is OVER, FINISHED.  It was confirmed the moment it became clear that two obvious criminals such as Bush/Cheney would never be removed from office - quite the contrary, they are being encouraged ever onward every day by the whole Beltway political system!  

It is OVER folks, time to move on to a new strategy.