by Mike Dorning
The Barack Obama presidential campaign sent out a memo to reporters a few minutes ago to make the case that the recent controversies he has stirred on foreign policy matters are an indication he would change international relations for the better.
The Democratic candidate has stirred controversy and criticism from rivals first for a comment he made at a debate that he would be willing to meet with foreign dictators whom the United States has previously shunned. He stirred further controversy this week by first threatening to take unilateral military action against Al Qaeda havens in remote border regions of Pakistan and then for telling an Associated Press reporter that he would not use nuclear weapons on terrorist targets in Pakistan or Afghanistan.
The memo, from Samantha Power, one of the candidate's top foreign policy advisers, follows:
August 3, 2007
To: Interested Parties
From: Samantha Power -- Founding Executive Director, Harvard University Carr Center for Human Rights Policy
Re: Conventional Washington versus the Change We Need
It was Washington’s conventional wisdom that led us into the worst strategic blunder in the history of US foreign policy. The rush to invade Iraq was a position advocated by not only the Bush Administration, but also by editorial pages, the foreign policy establishment of both parties, and majorities in both houses of Congress. Those who opposed the war were often labeled weak, inexperienced, and even naïve.
Barack Obama defied conventional wisdom and opposed invading Iraq. He did so at a time when some told him that doing so would doom his political future. He took that risk because he thought it essential that the United States “finish the fight with bin Laden and al Qaeda.” He warned that a “dumb war, a rash war” in Iraq would result in an “occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.”
Barack Obama was right; the conventional wisdom was wrong. And today, we see the consequences. Iraq is in chaos. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the threat to our homeland from terrorist groups is “persistent and evolving.” Al-Qaeda has a safe-haven in Pakistan. Iran has only grown stronger and bolder. The American people are less safe because of a rash war. (continued below)
Samantha Power, Obama adviser and Pulitzer Prize-winning author of The Problem from Hell, a history of the American response to genocide, receiving an honorary Doctor of Humane Letters degree at Brown University's commencement in May. AP Photo/Stew Milne.
Over the last few weeks, Barack Obama has once again taken positions that challenge Washington’s conventional wisdom on foreign policy. And once again, pundits and politicians have leveled charges that are now bankrupt of credibility and devoid of the new ideas that the American people desperately want.
On each point in the last few weeks, Barack Obama has called for a break from a broken way of doing things. On each point, he has brought fresh strategic thinking and common sense that break with the very conventional wisdom that has led us into Iraq.
Diplomacy: For years, conventional wisdom in Washington has said that the United States cannot talk to its adversaries because it would reward them. Here is the result:
The United States has not talked directly to Iran at a high level, and they have continued to build their nuclear weapons program, wreak havoc in Iraq, and support terror.
The United States has not talked directly to Syria at a high level, and they have continued to meddle in Lebanon and support terror.
The United States did not talk to North Korea for years, and they were able to produce enough material for 6 to 8 more nuclear bombs.
By any measure, not talking has not worked. Conventional wisdom would have us continue this policy; Barack Obama would turn the page. He knows that not talking has made us look weak and stubborn in the world; that skillful diplomacy can drive wedges between your adversaries; that the only way to know your enemy is to take his measure; and that tough talk is of little use if you’re not willing to do it directly to your adversary. Barack Obama is not afraid of losing a PR battle to a dictator – he’s ready to tell them what they don’t want to hear because that’s how tough, smart diplomacy works, and that’s how American leaders have scored some of the greatest strategic successes in US history.
Barack Obama’s judgment is right; the conventional wisdom is wrong. We need a new era of tough, principled and engaged American diplomacy to deal with 21st century challenges.
Terrorist Sanctuaries: For years, we have given President Musharraf hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid, while deferring to his cautious judgment on how to take out high-level al Qaeda targets – including, most likely, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. Here is the result:
Bin Laden and Zawahiri – two men with direct responsibility for 9/11– remain at large.
Al Qaeda has trained and deployed hundreds of fighters worldwide from its sanctuary in northwest Pakistan.
Afghanistan is far less secure because the Taliban can strike across the border, and then return to safety in Pakistan.
By any measure, this strategy has not worked. Conventional wisdom would have us defer to Musharraf in perpetuity. Barack Obama wants to turn the page. If Musharraf is willing to go after the terrorists and stop the Taliban from using Pakistan as a base of operations, Obama would give him all of the support he needs. But Obama made clear that as President, if he had actionable intelligence about the whereabouts of al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan – and the Pakistanis continued to refuse to act against terrorists known to be behind attacks on American civilians – then he will use highly targeted force to do so.
Barack Obama’s judgment is right; the conventional wisdom is wrong. We need a new era that moves beyond the conventional wisdom that has brought us over-reliance on an unreliable dictator in Pakistan and an occupation of Iraq.
Nuclear Attacks on Terrorist Targets: For years, Washington’s conventional wisdom has held that candidates for President are judged not by their wisdom, but rather by their adherence to hackneyed rhetoric that make little sense beyond the Beltway. When asked whether he would use nuclear weapons to take out terrorist targets in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Barack Obama gave the sensible answer that nuclear force was not necessary, and would kill too many civilians. Conventional wisdom held this up as a sign of inexperience. But if experience leads you to make gratuitous threats about nuclear use – inflaming fears at home and abroad, and signaling nuclear powers and nuclear aspirants that using nuclear weapons is acceptable behavior, it is experience that should not be relied upon.
Barack Obama’s judgment is right. Conventional wisdom is wrong. It is wrong to propose that we would drop nuclear bombs on terrorist training camps in Pakistan, potentially killing tens of thousands of people and sending America’s prestige in the world to a level that not even George Bush could take it. We should judge presidential candidates on their judgment and their plans, not on their ability to recite platitudes.
Vision: American foreign policy is broken. It has been broken by people who supported the Iraq War, opposed talking to our adversaries, failed to finish the job with al Qaeda, and alienated the world with our belligerence. Yet conventional wisdom holds that people whose experience includes taking these positions are held up as examples of what America needs in times of trouble.
Barack Obama says we have to turn the page. We cannot afford any more of this kind of bankrupt conventional wisdom. He has laid out a foreign policy that is bold, clear, principled, and tailored for the 21st century. End a war we should never have fought, concentrate our resources against terrorists who threaten America. End the counter-productive policy of lumping together our adversaries and avoiding talking to our foes. End the era of politics that is all sound-bites and no substance, and offer the American people the change that they need.
Barack Obama’s judgment is right. It is conventional wisdom that has to change.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Gee, why am I not surprised that the government of Pakistan would have a problem with Obama going after Bin-Laden even if he's in Pakistan, like he is?
Could it be because the government of Pakistan is in the back pocket of W. and Chainsaw Dick?...YES!
Posted by: John E | August 3, 2007 3:03 PM
So Obama, to "clarify" things, has a Harvard wonk put out a 10,000-word diatribe. Can he not speak for himself...without getting foot-in-the-mouth disease? Oh, and be sure to criticize Musharraf. Maybe Bama will luck out and get a Muslim government in Pakistan. Thanks for "clarifying" Obama's statements. Muzzle, please.
Posted by: Beaufort | August 3, 2007 3:18 PM
Well, that settles it. Obama is right. And how do we know this? Because he said so.
Posted by: JB | August 3, 2007 3:19 PM
Incidentally, can anyone identify what those "great strategic successes" are that Obama attributes to skillful diplomacy? I'm curious.
Posted by: JB | August 3, 2007 3:21 PM
Wow! Is she a 'power'ful writer or what?
Point taken Samantha.
Condoleeza who?!?!
Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 3:27 PM
I am a supporter of Obama, but I think he should have spent some more time over the in International Relations department while he was at U of Chicago.
We depend on Musharraf as a very important ally in the Muslim world. In fact he is virtually our only ally of any merit. If we undermine him with his people, who already claim he is a puppet of the US, it will encourage extremists to try and overthrow the Pakistani government. Where does that leave us? With another Iraq or at best Afghanistan. We can pressure Musharraf to take more action, but do it behind closed doors rather than shaming him in front of his country and undermining his authority. I hope for Obama's sake that this was more political posturing than the actual tactics he intends to employ with such an important ally.
Posted by: Devin | August 3, 2007 3:40 PM
Yeah, the left wing of the Democrat party is knocking him with Chris Dudd leading the way. The center-left is criticizing him in Hillary. Riots in the streets and U.S. flag burning is taking place in Pakistan over Obama's comments. Hmmmm, could it be Obama is actually an Al Qaeda recruitment operative????
Posted by: John D | August 3, 2007 3:51 PM
This is as fluffy as an Obama stump speech.
"On each point, he has brought fresh strategic thinking and common sense" Um... he did? When?
Samantha Power tells again and again that Obama knows the wisdom of diplomacy and diplomacy and diplomacy and talking to your adversaries..
And in the very next breath says gee what a fabulous idea it would be to attack Pakisatan!
2 questions to both of these Bimbos:
1) If and when Musharef is deposed, who do you think will fill the vacuum and control the nuclear arsenal? Here's a hint -- they won't be Jeffersonian democrats.
Answer: The Taliban or something like it.
2) So then why would you want to hasten the fall of the Musharef government.
Here's the most outrageous joke in this whole post: that Obama supposedly wants to "end the era of politics that is all sound-bites and no substance."
Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 3:57 PM
Hmmmm, could it be Obama is actually an Al Qaeda recruitment operative????
Posted by: John D | August 3, 2007 3:51 PM
Nah, that's Tom "Let's bomb Mecca" Tancredo.
You Republics must be proud to have a foreign policy genius like that on your side.
Posted by: Tony | August 3, 2007 4:11 PM
The "Swamp" reporters have been criticized for being Barack Obama's poodles, for their fawning coverage of the senator.
After reading the above Obama press release, more accurately a press release written by an Obama supporter, it's clear that the "poodle" designation is unfair because, unlike Swamp reporters, poodles sometimes bite their owner.
Swamp reporters are better thought of as Obama's xerox machine, ready to print whatever he feeds them.
Posted by: Bruce | August 3, 2007 4:24 PM
Pakistan is one bullet away from mayhem. Go Obama!
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | August 3, 2007 4:36 PM
OBL still walks today as a free man causing havoc.He is the person responsible for 9/11.
The other person responsible for 9/11 has done nothing,let me repeat,nothing to kill OBL.
Mr.Obama is correct.We go in and get him.
Posted by: Raving Loon | August 3, 2007 4:45 PM
If we undermine him with his people, who already claim he is a puppet of the US, it will encourage extremists to try and overthrow the Pakistani government.
Posted by: Devin | August 3, 2007 3:40 PM
Take your fear mongering garbage to another blog. Fundamentalist Islam is not popular in Pakistani politics. Just look at the secular politics of the democratically elected representatives
Posted by: jethro | August 3, 2007 4:55 PM
Russia has a smaller population than Pakistan. Both are nuclear powers.
When Reagan was obviously joking about bombing the USSR the Left went crazy. How things change.
Posted by: whatnow | August 3, 2007 4:58 PM
"Barack Obama’s judgment is right; the conventional wisdom is wrong. We need a new era that moves beyond the conventional wisdom that has brought us over-reliance on an unreliable dictator in Pakistan and an occupation of Iraq."
What the...?!! This is the language he would choose to defuse an already volatile situation? He publicly calls a guy we need, and who has been working with us, an "unreliable dictator". Maybe the guy is, I don't know, but it would seem that this would be a thing best stated privately.
Who the hell does that to an ally?!! How can the guy the work with Obama if Obama wins now? Obama's just "punked" him twice in one week -- openly. More than ever, Musharef would have to demonstrate at every turn that he's not an American tool.
And Obama's supposed to be the answer. The one who can bring the world together. For crying out loud, he's got people over there burning American flags already.
Staunch Democrat that I am, I'd sadly have to take good, long look at the Republican nominee if Barack is ours. His team continues to handle this thing disastrously. I'm not sure I can trust them on foreign affairs at all.
He's not ready.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 5:31 PM
Musaraf is not representative of Parliament or society. Piece of cake. ESPECIALLY, with him having the power to disbody all form of gov(those moderates), and in charge of the army and able to declare all out martial law. No problem that he has WMD,unlike Iraq, that Pakistan is not new to verbalizing intent to use or using chemical and biological weapons (ask India), unlike Iraq, and that the black arms trade is SO to his advantage. That they are already pissed at the fact the US has signed an agreement with their enemy India, a nuclear sharing deal that will increase what India has (prohibiting for military use but omitting the traditional clause that the agreement is off if Pakistan does use it for a military purpose), or that the ME is being armed and propped up in money and arms, by the US militarily against Iran, except for them.
Unilateral action - I mean what Obama's attitude denotes - is just like Iraq except supposedly without trying to overthrow the tyrant. So is Musaraf going to sit back since they made it clear they won't be taking smak form us? So what is Musaraf going to do not increase his power by scapegoating the US to gain some legitimacy amongst the worst of the fundamentalist factions as America rides in, or are we going to prevent that somehow..bc that drags in nation building. This IS so naive. To think that we will not be dragged into conflict when uninvited, an refusing to consider the trigger that Pakistan is sitting on, unlike Iraq. The righteous Americans have woken up... So how many lives if Osama worth? Apparently, in terms of Obamas "my way of the high way" strategy and the context of the country in question the casualties that AREN'T limited to AMERICANS are still a question mark. SHAME. Obama your cause is just but your strategy...especially... taking after Bush...is immature, inconsequential, and just like Bush, but to the other extreme. We can't just pick up where Bush went wrong; left off after 9/11. You are dreaming. Power you are right. Obmama has it. Iraq shouldn't have happened like it did, and for that reason we shouldn't be looking for another conflict. Bc the problem will not be as cut and dry going and getting out; unless that is what they taught you in Harvarda bout war, or better yet, relative to those who do in fact commit genocide Nazis Hutu Srebnica are lead by individuals who will not put up a fight.
Posted by: AR | August 3, 2007 5:45 PM
Wall Street Journal? The new and improved Rumpert Moremuck version? Say it ain't so brucey!
A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll includes most of the predictable numbers — Bush is unpopular, Americans are uneasy about the economy, etc. — but respondents were also asked which party they trusted more to handle various policy issues.
The Dems enjoy huge, double-digit advantages on every domestic issue, but when asked which party is more trustworthy on dealing with the “war on terrorism,” it was the only question on which Americans were divided right down the middle — 29% said Dems, 29% said Republicans, 20% said both, and 18% said neither.
In and of itself, that’s not particularly surprising, but the trend is noteworthy. In October 2002, the GOP enjoyed a 36-point advantage on this question. But end of 2003, it had slipped to a 26-point lead. In early 2004, it slipped a few more points, and in late 2004, a few more still. By last fall, the Republicans led Dems on the question by 10 points, and now the GOP advantage has disappeared altogether.
How long, do you suppose, will the media continue to report that Republicans still enjoy far more public trust on terrorism than Dems?
Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 6:22 PM
For those who suggest that there are no "great stategic successes" to point to, take note of Reagan/Gorbachov, Nixon/Mao Zedong, and Churchill-Roosevelt/Stalin. Diplomacy at the highest levels can work, even if it's not perfect.
Posted by: BC | August 3, 2007 6:25 PM
To John D
Obama is the far left wing of the party. This guy is an empty suit with no credentials at all. I hope the empty suit keeps opening his mouth and gags on his foot. What a disaster. The press here would laugh at him if he wasn't "Chicago's own".
He is a dangerous loser.
Posted by: jim | August 3, 2007 6:33 PM
To John D
Obama is the far left wing of the party. This guy is an empty suit with no credentials at all. I hope the empty suit keeps opening his mouth and gags on his foot. What a disaster. The press here would laugh at him if he wasn't "Chicago's own".
He is a dangerous loser.
Posted by: jim | August 3, 2007 6:33 PM
To Little Johnny D'wanker:
It looks like someone on here (jim) actually thinks you know something more than what's on the inside of a comics book, unfortunately for you, the rest of us know better.
Posted by: John E | August 3, 2007 7:14 PM
correction
(prohibiting for military use but omitting the traditional clause that the agreement is off if India does use it for a military purpose)
Posted by: AR | August 3, 2007 7:23 PM
john e, you are really a funny guy. Fortunately for the rest of us, college kids and unemployed liberals don't mean anything to the real world. Back the empty suit all you want, but I'll look for you crying after the primaries, as the loser gets his moronic butt kicked. The nation will never trust this loser to defend the country. His mouth keeps spewing out nonsense, showing how truly unqualified "Chicago's own" is to run anything.
Posted by: jim | August 3, 2007 7:46 PM
"YES ANOTHER WEEK WITH THE GLOVES OFF"
THANK GOD A MAN STOOD UP AND SAID HE HAS A FOREIGN POLICY. YES AMERICA SOMEONE FINALLY STOOD UP AND SAID I HAVE A FOREIGN POLICY.
THE WORLD WAS SHOCKED BUT AMERICA SHOULD BE PROUD THAT SOMEONE FINALLY AFTER FIVE YEARS NOTHING BUT RHETORIC AND LIES,DECEIPT AND LITTLE ARREST OF THE GOP AND AFTER A SO CALLED "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED." SOMEONE FINALLY LOOKED THE TERRORIST IN THE EYE AS THEY DO HARBOR OUR "AXIS OF EVI" and our #1 "EVIL DOER" THE TALIBAN. SATANS ARMY AGAINST HUMANITY ITSELF.
WHAT DID HE SAY THAT WRONG. I WILL GO AFTER OSAMA BIN LADEN. OOOOOOHHHHHWEEEEEEEE WHAT A CONCEPT AMERICA. GOD FORBID THAT, THEN WE WOULD HAVE ACCOMPLISHED SOMETHING.
COILPRO AND THE PATRIOT ACT, AND HOMELAND SECURITY, AND THE CONSOLIDATION OF AMERICA THROUGH A PURGE OF THE PROSECUTOR APPEARS TO HAVE HIT A STUMP. A MAN WHO CAN STEP UP IN AMERICA AND END RACISM AS WE KNOW IT TODAY. PROBABLY. BUT THAT WOULDN'T BE GOOD FOR BIG BUSINESS.
YOU ALL KNOW BUSH IS PISSED OFF, SO MAKE SURE YOU DON'T SAY THE WRONG THING ON THE PHONE, BECAUSE HE IS LISTENING AND HE IS PISSED OFF THAT HE DIDN'T GET HIS GET OUT OF JAIL CARD. NOW ALL OF AMERICA KNOWS THAT YES HE DID COMMIT A CRIME AND EVEN HIS OWN GOP LEADER BOEHNER SAID IT ON TELEVISION. OH ITS ON.
YOU GO SENATOR OBAMA, YOU ARE CHANGING MY VOTE. YOU WILL MAKE A GREAT VICE PRESIDENT AND THEN PRESIDENT. JUST MAKE SURE THE BLACK VOTE DOESN'T GET CAGED AND SOLDIERS OVERSEAS VOTE DOESN'T GET THROWN THE IN THE FIRES OF BAGHDAD MAIL.
THANK YOU CONGRESS
THANK YOU NANCY PELOSI
LONG LIVE NANCY PELOSI!
Posted by: Roger Morris | August 3, 2007 7:55 PM
Roger Morris,
2 points:
First, there is a huge difference between "saying" one has a foriegn policy, and actuall;y having one. Or at least having a credible one. Obama doesn't.
Secondly, have you considered switching to decaf?
Posted by: [INSERT CLEVER POST NAME HERE] | August 3, 2007 9:18 PM
I'm starting to think Hillary, Edwards or one of the other candidates has a plant in the Obama camp or something. The ineptitude they've displayed recently just can't be random. It's as if they intend to sink their own campaign effort.
Hillary touts her experience, implicitly knocking Barack's inexperience. So what's his team's strategy? Cause an international incident with a nuclear power and ally, clearly demonstrating exactly what Hillary and others have implied. Each time they open their mouths they something completely ridiculous. They just can't be that stupid.
I mean come on. Their guy is now being mentioned in the same breath as Tom Tancredo? And they're making the president sound like a voice of reason and healing in all this:
Tribune, 8/3:
"Bush called Musharraf Friday to congratulate him on the 60th anniversary of Pakistan's independence, but also mentioned 'recent statements emanating from the U.S. regarding possible U.S. action inside Pakistani territory,' the foreign ministry said .
"Bush 'said that such statements were unsavory and often prompted by political considerations in an environment of electioneering,' the statement said, adding that Bush said the United States fully respected Pakistan's sovereignty."
Priceless. The other Democratic contenders have got to be saying to themselves, "Man, I couldn't have scripted this better. Thank you, Team Obama!"
Posted by: Biggdawg | August 3, 2007 9:24 PM
Bruce, your post was classic!
Posted by: John D | August 4, 2007 1:47 AM
Can Obama's people really be this stupid? Either they are really desperate or this lady is secretly working for Hillary. Notice how Hillary is sitting back and not saying anything. She is letting Obama destroy himself. SHe could not have planned this out any better herself. SHe calls out Obama as naive and lacking in experience and all he does over the next week is prove her right. Just when you think the story has run its course he does something else that even makes him look worse. Sorry Barrack but you are in way over your head. Now he also basically ruined any chance he had of being her running mate as well now because you cant have someone who is this dumb. I will say that it is entertaining. I can't wait to see what awful move the Obama team makes tomorrow.
Posted by: Vinny | August 4, 2007 1:49 AM
Bigdawg,
I assume your toungue was in cheek when you wondered if there was a plant in Obama's camp. After all the blunders are coming from the top. The point is taken that this level of ignorance and ineptitude is stunning.
My take on Obama has always been that he's bright (Harvard Law, after all) but relatively new to governance. And so his presidential run is an act of overweening arrogance and self importance.
Now I'm convinced that he's a knucklehead. Now I'm thinking he didn't earn his diploma the hard way. A reasonable Obama supporter used to be able to say that experience is overrated, and that Obama's intelligence and creativity make up for lack of experience.
That's no longer possible.
As I've pointed out in an earlier thread, a goodly number of the posters here have a better grasp of foreign affairs than does Barak Obama.
Posted by: [INSERT CLEVER POST NAME HERE] | August 4, 2007 8:44 AM
I've read Samantha Power. Her view of US foreign policy is that the US should function like a giant NGO, backed by the US military, freeing the
inhabitants of dysfunctional
countries across the globe, even invading them a la Iraq if they don't cooperate fast enough. Never mind if it's expensive, like our exemplary takeover of Iraq. The United States should use its power to Fix Everybody and Run the World. Talk about Bush's democracy in the Middle East initiative. This woman wants to go far beyond that, with our money.
I am so going to vote for Hillary. And I don't even like her.
Posted by: Helena | August 4, 2007 8:54 AM
Ok, I've heard everyone rip on Obama for a statement that would have been lauded had it come from President Bush.
SO what do the Wingers suggest we do about Al Qaeda's known safe haven in Pakistan? Isn't the point of threatening force to remind Musharaf that we are still serious about catching Bin Laden and decapitating Al Qaeda, something the current Commander in Chief has had absolutely no stomach for?
Posted by: Bryan | August 4, 2007 12:29 PM
Insert Clever Post Name Here,
You're right. My speculation that Obama has a plant was meant to be tongue in cheek. I don't really believe that. But it's just so hard to fathom how someone who graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law and has surrounded himself with supposedly very bright people -- a man touted as "the real deal" by the likes of Warren Buffett -- could possibly be this, this ... dumb. I just refused to accept the reality that well yeah, they actually are kinda' dumb -- about very important matters no less.
I'm a hardcore Hillary supporter, but as much as I knock Obama I would have supported him if he won the nomination. In fact, with the exception of Gravel and maybe Kucinich, either Democratic nominee would have been acceptable to me. But after this, Obama is a fringe candidate in my book -- with Gravel and Tancredo.
Posted by: Biggdawg | August 4, 2007 2:12 PM
Bryan,
First of all Bush would not have made that statement, so that point is moot to begin with. It's a red herring.
I can't speak for "the wingers", but -- just for the sake of argument -- if he had said that, I for one would call him a knucklehead.
Secondly, the current Commander in Chief's stomach has nothing to do with it. It's about what is and isn't possible. The fact is that bin Laden simply can not be caught. Period.
Good God Bryan, look at the geography. This region has some of the highest and roughest mountains in the world, and he and his people are hiding in caves and enjoying the support of the locals. The region is wild and undeveloped. A needle in a haystack comes to mind.
So let me turn your question around and point it where it should be -- at Obama and his supporters: Exactly how does Obama propose to work this miracle?
Furthermore, if the US were to attack Pakistan, and thus precipitate the fall of Musharef, how would a President Obama deal with an Islamist state with a nuclear arsenal?
Oh yeah, right. After his act of agression he'll "talk to them". I'm sure they'll listen.
Posted by: [INSERT CLEVER POST NAME HERE] | August 4, 2007 3:55 PM
Obama has well articulated, well thought out ideas to help change our largly failed foreign policies. I frankly don't care if Hillary doesn't like his ideas, that's to be expected. But for her to call him "naive" is ridiculous. He is extremely bright, Harvard com laude graduate, taught constitutional law at one of our best universities, was a community organizer for years, an Illinois State Senator for over 10 years, and now a US Senator. Many very serious thinkers in this country KNOW that Obama knows what he's talking about. WE NEED to create a dialog with our "enemies", and WE NEED to do something about Bin Lauden in Pakistan. If Hillary (and others) doesn't have the vision and courage to change the failed status quo in Washington, DON'T VOTE FOR HER.
Posted by: Richard Vetter | August 4, 2007 4:32 PM
We absolutely need someone from outside the beltway to be in the White House next time. Our foreign policy has been an abismal failure. Hillary doesn't have the courage or perspective to articulate new policies. All she can do is try and play it "safe" and go with the status quo. She's clearly in the pocket of the lobbists who give so much money to her campaign (Obama and Edwards DO NOT accept lobbist money), and she and hubby Bill have a history of accepting campaign contributions from Chinese, Indian and terrorist group-related doners. She is now courting Indian companies to come into New York (which would displace numerous US workers). Read between the lines here folks!!
Posted by: Richard | August 4, 2007 4:39 PM
biggdawg,
Yes, I assumed you were joking, but I just can't be sure about that in The Swamp. Some of the comments here seem like jokes but they're meant to be serious.
By the way, what I just said is not a joke.
Posted by: [INSERT CLEVER POST NAME HERE] | August 5, 2007 9:44 AM
"Clever post name"
I'm talking about PRESSURE. The same reason Bush was allowed by the Democratic Congress to ratchet up the pressure on Saddam, by laying military force on the table. Perhaps it a bit of a bluff, but I am not willing to accept that we should stand idly by why are ostensible "ally" signs PEACE TREATIES with Al Qaeda.
President Bush's coddling of General Musharaf is dangerous. What happened to "wanted: dead or alive?" If we are attacked again from the terrorists based in Pakistan, those lives will absolutely be on George W Bush's head.
Posted by: Bryan | August 5, 2007 5:58 PM
"Bruce, your post was classic!
Posted by: John D | August 4, 2007 1:47 AM"
Yes, kind of classic like Disco Tex, or Pauly Shore. Real classics.
Posted by: C.Morris | August 5, 2007 9:16 PM