Obama is a fake. He tries to impress people by acting like a stage clown, making stump speeches like this one threatening to send troops into Pakistan (is that not an invasion?). He runs away from his blackness by trying to impress whites, hardly ever touching on sensitive race issues or even the fact that he really could be the first black president, or the impact it could have on America and the black community. Total fake.

He's pro-war, right? War in Afghanistan and Pakistan, that is. Global intelligence and law enforcement, and cooperation with Muslim countries (not bullying or threatening), are the only way to apprehend terrorists. That's why I support Kucinich. The peace candidate.

Dennis Kucinich is a fake. If he is true to his beliefs what the hell is he doing in the democ-RAT-ic party ?? You cannot claim to be a 'peace' candidate and still be allied with either the republicans or democrats. Its a sham and he deserves to be out on his ass for deluding his followers.

thanks for this article.the thing about obama's cynical "get out of the wrong war,into the right war" position which flummoxed me most was that several folks on this message board attempted to equate obama's tin-eared,opportunistic,poll driven,a-moral,american exceptionalist,crack-pot realist crap with the position of a genuine peace candidate like congressman dennis kucinich.the mainstream candidates all appear to be "leading" this nation towards a regional conflagration.no?

Terran, I am afraid you are right on the money!

The US ruling elites have a long, long history of having a fine disregard for peoples other than themselves; even domestically they had plenty of contempt and worse for entire groups of their fellow citizens.

One example will have to suffice for now. This is what Theodore Roosewelt had to say about the Amerindians in his book "The Winning of the West": the Indians were "the most formidable savage foes ever encountered by colonists of European stock... far more to be dreaded than the Zulus or even the Maoris." (The Winning of the West, Putnam, 1889, p. 17).

Ignorance apparently is bliss. I just cannot fathom this diatribe against Obama who is probably the least militant amongst all the candidates. We are hand-in-glove with the Pakistan military establishment for the last 60 years and if we ask them to fetch a stick they will. They just dont want their own citizens to hear it, thats all !!!
This crap about Pakistani independance from U.S. ineterests betrays a complete lack of insight into the situation in South Asia. Weve already bombed the border areas. Cheney squeezed musharrafs nuts a couple of months ago to do more if you remember and Obama is just restating that policy !!!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070805/ts_alt_afp/usvote2008republicans_070805191658;_ylt=AiHe8qNjE6QV.5w16_i8GH6uGL8C

Ofcourse everyone is only too happy to get spun like a top by our media pundits. I personally wouldnt vote for any of these idiots but at least Obama is trying to hold our 'ally' responsible !!!

Who cares what any of the D candidates think. All of the top-tear will bomb anyone to show how tough they are.

These are the dog days of August...yawn...guess we'll have to wait till September when the President gives the congress and senate his middle finger again and demands more money for whatever...and by the way who really cares what Pramit Pal Choudhouri of the Hindustan Times thinks about anything? Has Dubya gone off to his pig ranch in Crawford to go chainsaw some trees yet?

Yes, yawn indeed. Hillary Clinton says something inane about Obama and Obama has to show that he is tough minded. Ho Hum. Once again it all shows that politicians are not leaders but followers. Give them a stimulus and they will respond. Forget about principle. Who's running his race, Hillary Clinton? Who's running her race, George Bush?

As a lawyer and senator, Obama knows that in a government of enumerated powers like ours, nobody--not any member of Congress, not any mililtary official, not any president or cabinet official--nobody has a legal right to drop bombs on Pakistan without congressional action. His recommendation betrays him as a would-be dictator.

This should come as no surprise. It explains why Obama has refused to hold the current president accountable for egregious abuses of power: Obama wants to be able to exercise these same powers when he takes office. It may well be that the unwillingness of congressional Democrats to impeach and remove Bush and Cheney is actually a conscious effort to preserve the "unitary executive" for whatever Democrat assumes the throne in 2009.

You would think that sentiments like Obama's would disqualify him for office among large swaths of Democrats. You would be wrong. Democrats don't pay much attention to a politician's convictions or lack of them. Party label will do it. Raise enough money to call yourself a candidate, and you can run as a Democrat or a Republican, take your pick. Either way, it's always safe to promise warfare. Democratic voters like flags and fireworks as much as Republicans do (or at least they don't want to be seen not to).

Voters who think it would be wrong to bomb Pakistan should resolve not to support Obama or anybody who would do what he proposes. If that means giving up on the Democratic party, they might find they're well rid of a loathsome burden.

Obama started to make a statement that would have broken with the madness that has become our political culture, but has shown himself unable to take a firm stand, instead retreating to the BIG BALLS theory of government, promising that he, too, can kill and act with disregard for the sovereignty of other nations. It is backbone such as this that has given new powers of surveillance to President Bush, and denied, yet again, the will and welfare of the people.

www.unknown-arts.org/politics

If Obama targeted Pakistan with an intent to boost his poll ratings, he sure screwed up big time. A major blunder, and I'd bet John Edwards campaign staff celebrated all day long.

Pakistan had already moved two combat dividions to the border of Afgansitan, (over 100,000 well armed troops with a million more in ready reserve). That is an area of 16,000 feet mountain country. If we went in there to fight a war, it would be Korea all over again. And doesn't Pakistan have nukes? Yes indeedy, they do.

I thought Obama was a lot smarter than that. I believe he may as well just just hang it up, he didn't put his foot in his mouth, he got both of them in there and then shot himself in his "foots".

The number of responses is telling, although it is Sunday in the US still. Sadly Obama I think believes he must continue to play the election game as defined while claiming to be above the fray. As I have said all along, you cannot serve 2 masters. Politicians know this which is why they pay lipservice ONLY to the voters and homage to the campaign contributors in the form of new laws for the their products and services. Obama is a politician and frankly cannot win the race in this fashion. He has to be consistent, honorable and have integrity if he wants to win. I'm still waiting.

Another sad point in the article is the American people. Since when did discussion become a sign of weakness? Did anyone grow up being told it was OK to take stuff from smaller kids because they could? Apparently Obama's desire to talk to other leaders, whether he likes them or not is no longer called diplomacy in America. This whole concept is the announcement that the US is no longer interested in being a world leader but a tyrant.

Imagine this; after the 11 September terror attacks on NYC/DC and a field in PA, the Talilban offered to negotiate with the US to turn over bin Laden. We now know in hindsight that Bush never intended to capture bin Laden or create democracy in Afghanistan.

But imagine that even knowing the Taliban were both stalling for time and trying to figure a way out of town, Bush talked to them!! He could have used that whole time to continue to gear up the military for the Afghan invasion, all the while gathering up world opinion behind the operation and the US. SOmething sort of more like his father did, even though they sort of induced Saddam to invade Kuwait when the US State Dept. told Saddam they could care less what he did to the Kuwaiti's. That is another part of the story for later though.

Would the public reaction in the US to negotiating with the Taliban to discuss handing over bin Laden if we had proof he was involved in the 9-11 attack have been "WHOA, what kind of wimp is Bush?" I don't think so but I could be wrong. What it would show to any person using logic was that maybe the US did not have evidence that bin Laden was behind the attacks. Otherwise why not show the world your proof? How then did Bush know it was Osama the day it happened.

If we fail as the people of this country to reign in this rogue administration and Congress then we deserve whatever fate the world decides for the myriad of war crimes we have now committed as a nation. If there are any old timers online please remind the average American today that there was very little sympathy in the West for Germans after the end of WWII. The claim that "I was only following orders" rang real hollow to the Nuremburg court - which was created by the US, USSR and UK interestingly.

I'm sorry, tell me again why talking to your enemies is such a wimpy thing to do when supposedly most people in the US are Christians. Jesus taught us that we should love our enemies. I guess that is only acceptable behavior in the pews and churches but not outside of your own congregation. Don't the fundamentalists keep telling us the countries laws were founded on the Biblical Ten Commandments? Thou Shalt Not Kill ring a bell with any of you?

There's just one thing to say, Folks:
http://www.kucinich.us
All this inane press and rhetoric from bloggers and alleged (p)rogressives is merely distraction. Please turn your focus from these "biz-as-usuals" NO MATTER THE SOURCE and focus on Kucinich, Gravel, Paul, and any other TRUE
(P)rogressives and positively support them, instead of tearing down the easy corporate targets--try building up the intentionally invisible non-corporate ones!!!

"He says irrespective of ideological persuasion, almost all US citizens would disrespect a US president who would let another government veto an attack on Osama Bin Laden."

Do you beleive the rhetoric in this statement? No one has any idea whether the person is alive or not, but what Obama is saying is that basically he has the right to bomb any foreign nations people as long as he can play the "osama" card on stupid, ignorant, disgusting, pathetic americans. I do disrespect presidents who act against the UN and who illegally bomb, invade, and kill while trespassing foreign borders. The Pakistani citizens should be able to enjoy the right to organize and the right of association like we do--and that includes groups who don't like imperialism. There are two sides, and I can see them both. If you support the us military, than you support aq as well; they both feed into each other towards the start of WWIII, and that is also something your supporting if you believe in the war on terror.

Neoconned--Taliban leader Mullah Omar DID offer to turn bin-Laden over provided proof of his guilt over 9/11 was provided. But that would have nipped the whole noecon project in the bud, http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/Content/2004-10/13rai.cfm On 9/23/01, Sec of State Powell said on Meet the Press that a "white paper" would be published detailing the evidence of bin-Laden's guilt. Such a paper has NEVER been produced.

IMO, Obama is no more than a wannabe emperor, obvious Death Party member with his Pakistan comments, and no more deserving being a senator than Charles Manson--all qualities that endear him to the Imperial Establishment.

Obama screwed it up. He could have just said that he would have pursued Osama all the way into Pakistani territory if need be. Most people would agree on that.

However, this does not square with the fact there never really was a war on terror. They let Osama go (just like Count Dooku) so they he can serve as the effective Phantom Menace he has for the last six years.

So all this shadow boxing is ridiculous. Why are all the candidates trying to out-warmonger, out-torture each other? The US is in deep deep trouble when no mainstream candidate can vouch for peace and diplomacy...

Imperial mindset for sure. The Republic is already lost.

Democrats and democrat voters are now braindead if they nominate and vote for Hillary, Obama, and/or Edwards. It's shockingly clear and right out in the open that these canidates will be imperial presidents and corperate serving whores.

Good call Brown. I'm for anyone of these guys if they can get past their own political parties. Good luck. I predict that with the corporate ownership of voting machines everywhere both parties will field candidates on the corporate payroll - Clinton and Romney. Good luck folks

Bush should have pursued the the many hundreds of Taliban who crossed the border from Afghanistan into Pakistan to escape the Allied forces in 2002. Not to have done so because Musharaff said he supported Bush, while doing nothing to close the border, was an act of extreme folly.

To then become involved in the Iraq fiasco instead of first resolving the Afghanistan/Pakistan situation has proved that the Administation embarked on policies which can only be described as insanity of the highest order.

America should withdraw its forces from Afghanistan and Iraq as soon as a United Nations force can be deployed. The USA contribution should be limited to financial assistance which would prove less expensive in the long term than the bottomless pit into which untold billions are being poured at present.

These candidates have been elected by the mainstream media and every breath they take is 'breaking news.' The campaign for the 2008 race for president has become downright boring and there are still months to go. Listening to their positions on anything and everything is in response to whatever is the issue of the day. Why does it take this long to get their agenda across to voters? It could very well be done in a short period of time instead of tiring us to death. Whenever a Congressperson decided to run for president they should immediately resign their positions. Taxpayers should not have to pay to finance the time spent campaigning when they have been paid to work for the taxpayers and attend to the business at hand.

Neoconned. There is nothing wrong with the president meeting with other leaders of any country. That is not what this article refers to. Peaceful discussions and military threats are not the same thing. Obama messed up and it will hurt him big time.

I find Barack Obama to be no less repulsive a politico than Hillary Bushlite. Obama, no less than Hillary Bushlite, stated that he would use nuclear weapons against Iran. Now, this scum is telling us that he would conduct stealthy military operations against the sovereign country of Pakistan.

This dirtbag has also been making corny speeches calling for a unified citizenry in this country. Hey, Senator Obama, did it ever dawn on your opportunistic, servile mind that there might a connection between the kind of militarism that you have been advocating in public recently, the USian imperialistic foreign policy (e.g., the fact that there are at least 730 US military bases around the globe intimidating and bullying the entire planet), and the fact that the citizenry in the US is deeply divided?

Another no principled, vote begging, blown with the wind, professional politician. I'm tired of getting the same choice as a southern cotton boll. All it can hope for is the lesser of two weevils.

Are there no statesmen out there? No one with principles? Is the entire political spectrum nothing but bottom feeders?

We need somebody, but it seems that most of the eligible ones are dead, like Paul Wellstone, the various dead Kennedys. If someone shows up that looks like they might actually be for the people and the nation, they seem to get assassinated, either political, character, or they have an "accident."

Obama = Nixon in 1968.

Both claimed if elected they would pull out of Iraq. Yet both of their plans actually include expanding the wars. Obama doesn't hide this. He calls his Iraq plan redeployment, and additionally he calls for an expansion of the military-ie, more taxpayer dollars, as if we don't spend enough already, forked over to the military industrial complex.

It's all right there in the open, go look it up on his website

and Commondreams... enough of these damn propoganda pictures of government officials and Barack Obama. Even commondreamers should catch on to this.

Two things- 1-The light "illuminating" the canidate, almost seems doctored, but whether or not it is real, it has the effect of making him look more appealing.

as does

2-The "soapbox" positioning of the person in the picture. By soapbox, the canidate is placed above the rest as the photo is taken from below. We are looking up to him, he is looking down on us. He is viewed as superior and a leader because he is above us. Height, and this type of positioning is to subconciously view them as more of a leader, since we "look up to our superiors." Height and size are important subconcious, and even concious factors in how we view leadership, how we vote, and in general how we rate everyday people as social, confident, secure etc. Vice versa as well. A view looking down on the canidate would subconciously denote weakness, insecurity, timidity etc.

It's very similar to Bush's "town hall" propoganda style meetings. Proof that all these canidates work for the same corperations, and I wouldn't be suprised if Obama is somehow connected to the illuminati and/or skull and bones.

I thought Obama was educating Fox News watchers. He's telling them that it's oil in Iraq and al Qaeda in Pakistan. They, Fox viewers are so easily fooled.

Oh commondreams. you've done the same thing with the Clinton photo right below this article.

Afghan Security Minister explains how Pakistan is aiding and funding the Taliban:
http://tinyurl.com/22nq4d

This Pakistani is not voting for Mr. Obama.

Sure there's some bad people in Pakistan. A handful that are really dangerous to us. But would people tolerate the US military bombing killing huge numbres of civilians to get timothy mcveigh? Then why the Pakistanis? Is it because they are brown muslims who speak a different language than us and don't own iPods or SUV's? Why are their lives cheaper? Why military invasions to get a few crazies among them? Would we tolerate another country invading us to get at Bush/Cheney, who are far greater terrorists than any anarchists hiding out in Waziristan?

And I thought it was only Bush/Cheney who were stupid enough to start another conflict. We hit Pakistan or Iran, we are gonna be in so much trouble.

WTF was the word "soveriegnty" wrapped in quote marks for in that article?

Let's just get this straight. The word "invasion" is neither here nor there. You can't have a world where heads of state openly advocate unilateral action in other countries.

Or let me qualify that, you can have such a world, for the brief time it takes to blow up.

Don't pretend this fact goes away or is somehow mitigated by any threat of thousands of psychos. Many millions of psychos wouldn't make the slighest difference to this fact. How could they? They're logically irrelevant.

Try telling that to the victims of terrorists you say. OK I WILL:

ME: The world is going to blow up if you vote that guy in for president.

VICTIM: We need to take the initiative, you think we should just sit here on our massive arsenal, all exposed to the 1/10000000 chance that some suicide bomber will kill us, like they did my little girl! You're mad. We need to get out there and get them wherever they are.

ME: And trash the one SINGLE thing that keeps the world from falling apart: ostensible respect for national soveriegnty.

VICTIM: Whatever, I agree with Poet, who cares about some dumb Pakistanis. It's a slow news day.

ME: OK, ensuring that the world blows up in a decade or two is better than a 1/1000000 chance of getting hit by a suicide bomber, which in any case increases when you multiply them by giving them a damn good excuse to exist, like violating national soveriegnty, after putting it in quote marks.

VICITM: Your a dreamer with your head in the sand. If things were as simple as you think there wouldn't be all this subtle debate on TV.

ME: I'll quote and frame that on my wall. The lie of the millenium. The same thing that got you all pissed off about Iraq being a disaster.

VICTIM:

ME: Yeah.

The world currently has 6 billion fools in grave danger of becoming psychos, and if they want to stay on the face of this planet they need to at least pretend to respect one fundamental rule of civilization: NO UNILATERAL ACTIONS IN OTHER COUNTRIES!

Until this dawns on Obama his merits will just amount to a greater liability.

Keep your weapons at home if you want to protect yourself. Or if you can't resist stalking your enemies in other people's backyards, for God's sake do it in the dark and don't build a political platform on it. Sure you might win an election, but what kind of throwback county will voters like that have made you the sheriff of?

GLOBAL DISASTER COUNTY, where everyone's short life is likely to end with a few years of martial law.

Some things are just too obvious for most politicans or pundits to grok. Even the grassroots has hardly noticed what Obama just did, except as it relates to arcane political minutea.

My God in heaven these war mongers are coming out of the woodwork!

Thank you, witness!

Obama has no right to threaten the people of Pakistan! I only wish the leader of that country was more like Chavez; someone capable of standing up to this pathetic american imperialism bred by propaganda about "terrorists." We know where Bush is, and that is all that matters!

Repeat this to yourself 10 times before going to bed at night everyone:

THE WAR ON TERROR DOES NOT EXIST, OSAMA BIN LADEN IS NOT A PERSONAL THREAT TO ME, GEORGE BUSH IS.

We are months away from actually casting votes for the 2008 Presidential election. So much of the activity right now is to show the people who really run the country that the candidates are serious and not "naive". They do this by signalling their willingness to invade, bomb or nuke anyone they see fit.

They are saying "see, I'm safe and if I'm elected the empire will continue so keep those campaign dollars pouring in."

So we will witness the "season of the tapemeasures" where they all will get to show us that they've got a big one and even Hillary gets to play. She doesn't have one, of course, but that won't stop her from showing us how big it is.

This kind of thinking has got us to the place we are at right now. If the Dems nominate any of these clowns then let's admit it, they have lost their reason to exist and we should never vote for another one again. (Pelosi & Reid have pretty much done that anyway)

The USSR collapsed largely because the people stopped believing and accepting their Official myths. We need to do that here and then maybe we can begin to be the nation we should, and could, be. I'm afraid one of Progressivism's biggest myths is that the Dems are actually on our side.

Enough!!!!!

Obama is a self-professed admirer of Karl Rove. I think that says it all.

I just don't get it . Two or this man's names are very similar to two of America's biggest ever bogeymen. Yet Americans ,in their millions, just can't seem to have enough of him .

Is it because of a weird sense of irony running through the American psyche . Or are they drawn to him like moths to a flame.

As the saying goes ,there is nothing so powerful as a mania whose time has come.

The internet has further eroded any awareness of physical boundaries like, oh, DISTANCE. It seems that Terromericans believe that THE ENEMY can simply materialize from anywhere on the globe to appear fully armed with nuclear material in their pockets and with a few magical passes with accompanying mystical incantations can cause the US and the whole of Western civilization to vanish with the survivors helplessly herded into madrassas. The only way to stop them is to obliterate the infamous Dr. Fu Bin Laden and his diabolically-powreful hordes armed with . . . uhm . . . shoe bombs and uhm . . . box cutters . . . and uhm . . . kerosene . . .

Once again, Obama's criticism of blind American support for Pakistani military dictatorship is spun by the dictator's political hacks (with an assist from the Hillary camp) that is unable and unwilling to confront the Taliban in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas; spun into a selectively edited news analysis that portrays Obama as saying he wants to invade and occupy Pakistan the same as Bush, Cheney, Edwards, and Hillary advocated to invade and occupy Iraq. We all know who "Bush-Cheney Lite" is. Their names are on the vote record of HR 114 that authorized Bush-Cheney to invade and occupy Iraq, not Obama's.

Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2
Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114
Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

YEAs —77 Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Biden (D-DE) Bond (R-MO) Breaux (D-LA) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Campbell (R-CO) Cantwell (D-WA) Carnahan (D-MO) Carper (D-DE) Cleland (D-GA) Clinton (D-NY) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) Daschle (D-SD) DeWine (R-OH) Dodd (D-CT) Domenici (R-NM) Dorgan (D-ND) Edwards (D-NC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Feinstein (D-CA) Fitzgerald (R-IL) Frist (R-TN) Gramm (R-TX) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Helms (R-NC) Hollings (D-SC) Hutchinson (R-AR) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Johnson (D-SD) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Miller (D-GA) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Nickles (R-OK) Reid (D-NV) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Santorum (R-PA) Schumer (D-NY) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-NH) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Thomas (R-WY) Thompson (R-TN) Thurmond (R-SC) Torricelli (D-NJ) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)

NAYs —23 Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Byrd (D-WV) Chafee (R-RI) Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) Dayton (D-MN) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Graham (D-FL) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Kennedy (D-MA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Sarbanes (D-MD) Stabenow (D-MI) Wellstone (D-MN) Wyden (D-OR)

If anything, Obama should be given points for being the only Democrat candidate who has actually come out against supporting a military dictatorship as the cost of 'national security'. He has rightfully and roundly criticized Musharraf and given voice to the need for a 'democratic ally' in Pakistan. Where's the praise? I forgot, we have better things to do than actually take democracy or foreign policy seriously. Unlike Iraq, Pakistan had a functioning democracy until Musharraf overthrew it.

Common Dreams would be a better community if half of the Common Dreams know-it-alls actually read Obama's entire foreign policy speech at the Wilson Center.

"When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland. " - Barack Obama

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=events.event&event_id=269510

"We must not, however, repeat the mistakes of Iraq. The solution in Afghanistan is not just military – it is political and economic. As President, I would increase our non-military aid by $1 billion. These resources should fund projects at the local level to impact ordinary Afghans, including the development of alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers. And we must seek better performance from the Afghan government, and support that performance through tough anti-corruption safeguards on aid, and increased international support to develop the rule of law across the country.

Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal. As 9/11 showed us, the security of Afghanistan and America is shared. And today, that security is most threatened by the al Qaeda and Taliban sanctuary in the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan.

Al Qaeda terrorists train, travel, and maintain global communications in this safe-haven. The Taliban pursues a hit and run strategy, striking in Afghanistan, then skulking across the border to safety.

This is the wild frontier of our globalized world. There are wind-swept deserts and cave-dotted mountains. There are tribes that see borders as nothing more than lines on a map, and governments as forces that come and go. There are blood ties deeper than alliances of convenience, and pockets of extremism that follow religion to violence. It's a tough place.

But that is no excuse. There must be no safe-haven for terrorists who threaten America. We cannot fail to act because action is hard.

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."

dougnwagner,

Such a lovely speech it was, as I recall the first time I read it. I would have thoght there was great hope for humanity before I got to the fly in the ointment:

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

At least Hillary and co's shameful vote for the Iraq invasion is something they're trying to distance themselves from, under the bridge, and five years downstream. Obama's little shocker is part of the edge of his campaign!

I can only repeat this:

"NO UNILATERAL ACTIONS IN OTHER COUNTRIES!

Until this dawns on Obama his merits will just amount to a greater liability."

Is any one going so far as to say we should negotiate with Alquada? Did'nt
Robert Fitch interview Asoma? The US is simply making the same mistake as Alquada, responding to injustice without reason. and the cycle of terrorism goes unbroken. Alquada seeks justice while we seek markets and resources. I swear under the right conditions they would be willing to communicate. But not the US. In our psychopathic state we do not see the pain we have inflicted. Would Kucinich Do it?

Pakistan is run by a two faced lying military dictator. We had to threaten him into allowing us to fly over after 9/11 in exchange for not bombing him back to the stone age and supporting his illegal ruling of that country.

Again, the Republicans deal with scum bags every bit as bad as they are to get what they want in the short run. Remember in the early 80s Saddam was our guy when he was fighting Iran. Ten years later he is out of favor and tricked into invading his neighbor so that we could get rid of him. Then ten years after that he is part of the axis of evil. I guess you are only as good as the last favor that you did for the Repugs.

"I just don't get it . Two or this man's names are very similar to two of America's biggest ever bogeymen. Yet Americans ,in their millions, just can't seem to have enough of him ."

We're prejudging people, and rating presidential canidates now based on their names?

What, his name doesn't sound "presidential enough?"

Just like Kucinich doesn't look "presidential" because he's short?

The mob truly is fickle, eh?

When the country was founded, constitutional democracy was a new idea and it was taken at face value. Serious scholars and intellects approached it honestly as a means to establish public virtue and thereby improve their social status. But now it has been gamed, marketed, polled, focus grouped, stage-managed, and triangulated to the point it has lost almost all meaning. Bush even cavalierly claims to want to export this faux democracy to other lands, with the obvious intention of using it as cover for corruption and plunder. An elite of today is endlessly mocked by the elite's peers if the elite treats constitutional democracy seriously.

But the future belongs to the resourceful. The educated non-elites have the opportunity to use the tools that technology has provided, certainly the Internet, to try to produce a new kind of democracy, one more real and more true to "rule by the people" than any even imagined at the time of the constitutional convention in Philadelphia. The enemies of democracy do not feel restrained by the past and there is no reason for its proponents to accept restraints either.

mastershake: you're absolutely right. What's in a name . More so in a presidential race.It really shouldn't matter one bit.

( Though political pundits might find it quite a stretch to 'sell' names like Hussain to 'adoring' masses.)

Neither names , nor height , nor looks should matter.

#
RJKT August 6th, 2007 11:23 am

mastershake: you're absolutely right. What's in a name . More so in a presidential race.It really shouldn't matter one bit.

( Though political pundits might find it quite a stretch to 'sell' names like Hussain to 'adoring' masses.)

Neither names , nor height , nor looks should matter."

Cheers RJKT :-).

dougnwagner has drunk deep of the obama kool aid.

Witness - I agree that unilateral actions in other countries would be a very serious matter to avoid at all costs, but how would you solve the problem? IF (and remember Obama had a lot of Ifs in his statement) a terrorist organization is camped in another country and repeatedly launching attacks on the United States from there, and the host country refuses to do anything about it or to let us do it.

So what do you do? You seem to say that we shouldn't worry about it because each individual American has a very small chance of being killed. But a President actually has to protect ALL Americans, not just shrug because he himself is safe. And an AL Qaeda operating with impunity in Pakistan will almost certainly increase the number of deaths of Americans in terrorist attacks.

Okay, so a President has to weigh that against the many negative consequences of unilateral action in Pakistan. First, it sets a very bad precedent, and that would be regrettable, but if the world community sees us using it as a last resort, then it might be considered justifiable. Second, it will inflame the Muslim world and continue the cycle of violence. Yes, that's very bad and should be avoided whenever possible. But it doesn't mean we should never act if acting is necessary. Third, it MIGHT lead to the overthrow of Musharaf and the POSSIBILITY of jihadists getting control of a country with a few nukes. That's a worst-case scenario I think, end even then I disagree with you that it would mean "ensuring that the world blows up in a decade or two." The risk analysis is probably not so extreme.

Or, he can sit on his hands in the White House and watch buildings blow up. "What can I do?" he shrugs, a military dictator won't give me permission.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your conclusion, but I don't think a President's decisions are always so easy.

Actually doug probably had a deep sip of reality before he wrote it as he is right and so is jock, diech and cyon.
The truth is the Pakistani army is closely tied to ours. Obama's statement simply didnt resonate too well coz he tried to hold them accountable. I dont supporty any of these guys but the greatest threat today is for us to once again get manipulated (spun) by the media. We need to educate ourselves and not dish out platitudes.

Barak Bush...what an idiot

O is the 'bate & switch' king. He is going to boondoggle the US and the world worse than Clinton ever did. What a pathetic excuse for a human being! Dennis Kucinich is the ONLY possible candidate for me at this moment in time.