"Teresita Schaffer, a former State Department official with responsibility for the region and now director of the South Asia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that an overt U.S. military strike inside Pakistani territory would be a particular blow to Musharraf, who is a military leader, and could well lead to his ouster. It also would bolster leaders hostile to the United States in both the struggle for national leadership and local control of the tribal areas, she said."

Which is why I'm betting he's not actually going to do it.

Edwards campaign is clueless. Instead of seizing this opportunity to get closer to Obama, he's asking all candidates to condemn Murdoch.

It's just a bizarre campaign.

I am damn suprised that Hillary managed to out manuever  Obama and Edwards on foreign policy by pre emptively moving to the left of the two of them...while accepting a commonly held hawkish belief

HA...this is priceless...really...just priceless

Obama had a clear argument for why al Qaeda isn't a sufficient reason to stay in Iraq:

[W]e must recognize that al Qaeda is not the primary source of violence in Iraq, and has little support -- not from Shia and Kurds who al Qaeda has targeted, or Sunni tribes hostile to foreigners. On the contrary, al Qaeda's appeal within Iraq is enhanced by our troop presence.

Ending the war will help isolate al Qaeda and give Iraqis the incentive and opportunity to take them out. It will also allow us to direct badly needed resources to Afghanistan.

Hey if the newly elected President of the United States knows that Osama Bin Laden is in Pakistan, and where in particular he is, we got to take him out whatever way is necessary. End of story.

If a democratic president did not do that it would be the end of the democratic party.

You are host of this site. I will, therefore, try to do this as nicely as possible.

First, please stop calling everyone who disagrees with you an "Obama partisan." It's simply false. I support Edwards. Big Tent Democrat supports Dodd. There are many who support candidates other than Obama. We disagree with you because we think you are wrong on this issue.

Second, you still have not answered the question that I keep asking you: Is there any circumstance in which you can envision that diplomatic efforts have failed, where you would think unilateral action would be necessary? Your answer seems no. That's the point in which we disagree. In a perfect world, that answer would be yes for me too, but I don't believe in principle above reality.

Third, for that matter, answer the question others asked about whether you see a difference between Afghanistan and what Obama and other Democrats, including Edwards and Clinton, are advocating. If so, what is that difference. Let's assume for argument sake, since this is fact specific, that we didn't have the world behind us, then what should we have done after 9/11 with Al Qaeda?

Fourth, calling someone "confused" just because you don't agree with them isn't an answer. It's an assertion masquerading as one.

If there are high-level al-Qaeda targets meeting just miles away from an American troop presence and are looking to perpetrate more terrorist attacks across the world, how do we not take them out? If Musharraf can't do it, we definitely should.

You're really bending over backwards to find a way to criticize Obama here, Jerome.

By the way, it seems everyone quoted as being "unhappy" in the Iowans article you linked to is identified as already being a supporter of another candidate.

1. Please stop the "and/or invading another country" stuff. Both guys were likely talking about surgical strikes (or maybe even covert ops) to take out high value targets such as Osama bin Laden.

2. Leaving Iraq is not contradictory to pursuing al-Qaeda because both Obama and Edwards have said iirc that they would leave a small number of forces there to conduct anti-terrorist operations, similar operations to what they'd like to conduct in Pakistan, which is to say very much short of an invasion or occupation.

3. That said, I don't find thinly veiled threats against (nominal) US allies helpful either, and it would be best imo if our candidates exercised a little more subtlety when talking about potentially breaking international law.

This story on the heels of yesterday's "Is Bush/Clinton fatigue Overblown?"  

Are the leaders of the blogosphere trying to make the progressive community comfortable with a Hillary fait-accompli?  I don't see much on the main pages endorsing or criticizing  a Democratic candidate, and I have blogged about the need of the netroots to coalesce behind a candidate and push with all of its might.  So, it's Hillary now, is it?  I am prepared to support Hillary if she is our nominee - but that support is limited to pulling the lever for her in the general election and biting my tongue from February to November of 2008.  My feet won't hit the pavement for her once, though, and it'll be the first time I've sat out an election (as an active campaigner) since I became old enough to vote in 1996.

But since the netroots has yet to coalesce behind a candidate, let me say a word in defense of Obama and Edwards on the Pakistan issue.  War is justified on the basis if self-defense.  I don't think anyone would doubt that Osama bin Laden attacked us and poses an imminent danger to the US.  Many on the left (including me) feel that the invasion of Afghanistan was justified after the leaders of Afghanistan harbored bin Laden and refused to yield him up to justice after he attacked us.  Now Pakistan is doing the same thing.  Afghanistan and Pakistan are not Iraq.  We would have the justification to mount military action in both countries to apprehend bin Laden.  Let's check Hillary's voting record.  Did she authorize the use of force to track down Al-Quaeda?  Yes.  And that authorization was the basis of our military action in Afghanistan.  That authorization also provides the basis to cross the mountains into Wasiristan and the Pashtun areas to get bin Laden in Pakistan.

I find it utterly hypocritical that the same hawks who support Hillary because of her aggressive foreign policy stance are now lambasting Obama and Edwards for an underlying policy that Clinton voted for and most definitely supports.  Obama and Edwards are showing the national security chops that the Hillary people claim are needed to win the general election.  So, I can only assume that the Hillary partisans are celebrating Obama and Edward's bad press while secretly agreeing with their underlying positions.  Not very sporting.  I would defend Hillary if I agreed with her even though I do not support her candidacy.

I continue to move closer to Edwards as the primary goes on, but I need to join the chorus disagreeing with Jerome regarding this point on Obama. I think the largest problem appears to be the conflation of missile strikes or quick-op teams, with an invasion.

It also, IMO, gives far too much credit to Pakistan as an ally. Pervez is taking a very risk-avoidant posture towards al-Qaeda in his country, although I think in the Bush environment he has little choice. A less stupid President would not be inciting the fear that pushes Musharraf towards the extremists, at least towards not upsetting them.

All this entire issue shows is that what Clinton said in debate #2 was absolutely correct:

"There is really not much difference between my position and my colleagues'"

SHE has not had to "blurry the lines" between herself and the others, because that has been done by Obama and Edwards.  And only because there are indeed none of these lines apparent.  

This has been a good week for you (and Bowers). You've established yourself (again) as a bold progressive willing to counter conventional blather, as opposed to the front-pagers poseurs at Kos, who've been shamefully silent.

I've been amazed at the number of progressives willing to accept the hawkish posturing and war-mongering of the top-tier contenders. As I've said a hundred times in the last couple of days, there is a good reason that Musharraf doesn't go into the north and clean house, because he knows it would imflame the country and possibly lead to a coup that would hand nukes over to Islamic militants. So what Bahawk and Edwards and Clinton are saying is, if you don't destablize your country and empower militants, then we're going to disregard international law (and good sense) and do it for you. It's disgraceful if they actually mean it, and disgraceful if they don't.

There are so many things wrong with this approach; I don't have time to sort through all of them. What I hate most perhaps is Dems' advancing the myth that military force is almost magically effective. Hell, to listen to the comments by BaHawk's supporters is to think that military force is somehow cathartic. And that anything is justified as long as it has the goal of getting Bin Laden, forget how many innocents are killed, forget international law. I've got news for you, folks: things would probably get worse, not better, even if we got extremely lucky and killed Bin Laden himself. It's easy for Dems to knock Bush for failing to get Bin Laden; it's much harder to tell the truth and admit that we could knock off all of the AQ leadership and still not be safe.

Sorry, but some problems like the presence of Islamic militants in northwest Pakistan (and all over the world) don't have easy answers, least of all military ones. This problem was hundreds of years in the making--it's a product of deep cultural and political forces--and it's going to years to unmake. It would be nice if a presidential candidate had the balls to tell this simple truth, rather than ape Republicans and pretend to be tough.

Go check out the Islamic press. Let me give you a clue: people in the Muslim world are not happy that Great not-Bush Hope is threatening military action against a Muslim country. So much for BaHawk's diplomacy!

It's been amazing to see the rationalizations coming from BaHawk's supporters, the claims that 9-11 gives the United States the right to bomb civilians in another country. Let me ask those of you who like Obama because he opposed the war in Iraq, the illegal and immoral war: do Iraqis now have the right to send missiles toward DC so long as they're aimed at people in the Bush adminstration? By your logic they do.

I understand that no top-tier contender is going to fully share my views on national security, that any candidate is going to support imperialism and American exceptionalism. But I'm sickened to see that so few "progressive" bloggers are willing to stand up against this dangerous grandstanding. Of course, if and when BaHawk's views are fulfilled to their logical conclusion, if and when he orders military strikes that destabilize Pakistan and empower militants and inflame the Muslim world, oh, well then, every "progressive" blogger will be there to denounce him and blast anyone who doesn't.  

bruh21 says we should be nice about it, but I don't see why.  When my offline friends are doing stupid things that I believe hurt their own interests and stymie their goals I try to give it to them straight.  Like most everyone here, probably, I admire Jerome a great deal.  He's a true visionary and will be remembered, I think, as one of the most important figures in this new digital age of U.S. politics.  I doubt his ego is so delicate that he can't take the heat.  He's off to a conference where thousands of people will have paid lots of money for the privilege of (among other things) telling him as much to his face.  Two years ago, I paid for the privilege at Democracy for Texas and did tell him this to his face, and I thanked him profusely and I meant it.

But yesterday this blog was wanker-central in the most basic sense of the term.  It was an utter circle-jerk. A complete waste of time, with people arguing past each other, misrepresenting the facts, taking sound bites out of context and achieving basically nothing in terms of an exchange of ideas.  A display worthy of Crossfire or Hardball.  Obviously, given the reaction of other candidates, Jerome and others twisted Obama's position to be something it wasn't.  Now he's back-peddling and trying to paint this a some kind of party-wide problem that should be open for wider discussion, or an opening for Richardson and Dodd, despite the fact that he never actually drew any meaningful distinction between Obama's scenario and Afghanistan.  Obama was attempting to get the 2005 Al Qaeda meeting on the media radar and instead he gets accused of nuking Pakistan.  I will freely admit that, taken out of the context of the previous four points, the quote sounds bad.  I will also admit that Obama needs to work with his speech writers to minimize these opportunities to paint him as green.  But aren't the blogs supposed to take the Dem's side when the media does that to them?  Aren't we supposed to stick up for our guy and point out that the Ambinders of the world are bypassing the substance of the issue to get back to the same old process frame that "Obama's green and makes mistakes"?    

Instead, Jerome still persists in equating Obama's comments with Bush.  Sigh.  Maybe Jerome should just run himself as the anti-Obama candidate, literally, and just take the exact opposite view that Obama does through out the campaign without bothering to fully examine the issue or sort out the consequences.  That or he could vote for Gravel.  I mean, really, where did this hate come from?  Was it when Obama said he wasn't surprised by anything on the blogs anymore?  I disagreed with him then, but Jerome and the other haters here seem to want to make that accusation a reality after all.  It's been nothing but pointless flame wars around here for weeks now.  As soon as I saw geekesque's diary on dkos I already knew what I was in for here.

Look, it's your blog, Jerome, and so obviously you can do whatever you want with it.  If you want to try to tear down Obama at every turn, then fine.  I'll read something else.  Frankly, I've already started to spend a lot less time reading this site.  It's just depressing to me that, this time last year, I was addicted to mydd.  I vividly remember reading about George Allen and Macaca here first.  The google bomb campaign, the Lamont analysis.  Matt and Chris were obviously a big part of it, but so were Jerome and Jonathan Singer and all the other posters.  How can this resource, with all of these smart people, spend so much time on something so pointless?  This is really the most constructive use of our time?

Jerome, why are you bringing up that congressional approval is needed for President Obama to attack Al Qaeda? While that is true, the President already has been granted such authorization:

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

   (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Obama needs no further authorization to send covert ops or surgical air strikes into the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region.

The rest of your post is the typical Obama bashing you've been doing the past couple of days. Anyone who doesn't want to go after the organization responsible for 9/11 is very far out of the mainstream and should not be advising any Presidential contender, with the exception of those who opposed the war in Afghanistan.

Obama is entirely correct in wanting to attack Bin Laden and his organization. And I would wager that a majority of Democrats--and Americans--agree.

It's unfortunate that Bush has pushed our foreign policy toward this direction, where unilateral
acts of war in other countries, with no congressional approval, have become acceptable to
some Democrats. And especially in dealing with country the size and stature of Pakistan.

Jerome --

Obama said in his speech that "America is at war with terrorists who killed on our soil." To characterize his
speech as calling for an "act of war" -- a frame that reinforces the "invade Pakistan" ledes being spouted by
reporters who couldn't be bothered to actually read the speech -- is sensational, gratuitous, and wrong.

But leave that aside for now. Although Obama signals in the speech that he would be willing, given a very
specific set of circumstances, to go into Pakistan unilaterally, at no point in the speech do I see him
pledging to do that "with no congressional approval."

If you can show otherwise, please do. If not, you really need to remove this very slippery insinuation
from your diary.

I love all the hawks who have suddenly showed up on Mydd once their candidate says something hawkish.

You're reading so much into this, it is somewhat sad.  Also, Clinton agreed too, failed to post her quotes though, eh?  

I read Obama's speech. I don't see where he says he will invade Pakistan unilaterally. You are assuming this.

He says that if Musharaff doesn't take care of Osama bin Laden we will. What's wrong with that? bin Laden is the enemy. We must get rid of him. And Musharaff supposedly is our ally.

If you read the rest of the speech you can see that Obama is not for unilateralism but for working together with other countries.

I'm really dissapointed to read this post by Jerome, especially with his comment that the only way things will get better is to "get off their oil, get out of their countries, and work with other nations to promote global accord."
This analysis shows a serious lack of understanding of radical islamist movements and their goals.

I also think that Jerome is incorrect in his take on Iraq. "Al Queda" in Iraq is not the same as "Al Queda", no matter how much Bush continues to insist they are. Al Queda in Iraq is not a serious threat to the United States, with the exception of the brave men and women on the front lines in Iraq now. Iraq may be the one country where Jerome's ideal policy of "getting out of their country" would actually help us in this fight.

I'm not sure who I will vote for in the primary, I'm in the middle between Edwards and Obama, but if I will not vote for any candidate expressing the same type of foreign policy perspective as Jerome does here.  

now you think Congress has not authorized going after Al Qaeda's leadership?  Amazing.

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.

I am disappointed in the responses by Edwards and Hillary concerning this dangerous foreign policy stance. We need to start respecting international law and regain the respect Bush lost for us. We do not need a continuation of the Bush/Obama Doctrine.

Incredible.  Most people think that Obama is way too deliberate in the debates to makes sure he does not state something wrong.  But now we are finding him to talk off the cuff and his comments seem VERY open to interpretation, in need of constant "clarification."  

In the instantanous Youtube era politicians really need to think before they speak, every WORD has meaning.   That way you don't have to say "Let me scratch that."  

THINK before talking.  

The "debate" about Obama's speech yesterday has been disheartening to say the least. Stupid AP misrepresents the speech in an early release as being about going to war with Pakistan or "invading" Pakistan and bloggers go crazy--acting as if the MSM is to be believed, responding apparently before reading the speech. How many of those blogging and commenting against Obama's speech opposed Clinton's bombings or cruise missile attacks in Afghanistan and--where was it? Sudan? Somalia? Isn't that just the sort of thing Obama was threatening? I opposed those. How many opposed the invasion of Afghanistan? or Gulf War I? I did. But then I'm an almost-pacifist. And I believe the reality is that any candidate who agreed with me has no chance of winning. Obama's views seem as close to a nonchauvinistic, moral, but realistic approach that a majority of Americans might be able to live with as I'm likely to find in a national politician. And I can't believe that any one who still claims to think that Obama was proposing a ground invasion of Pakistan in arguing in good faith.