MyDD :: Obama Changes the Verb

Obama Changes the Verb

by Edgar08, Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 12:58:46 AM EST

Here is the quote from last week:

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?fil e=/2007/8/2/worldupdates/2007-08-02T0231 02Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-287732-2&sec =worldupdates

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

Here is what Barack Obama said tonight in the Debate during the heated exchange between Sen. Obama and Sen. Dodd:

"You obviously didn't read my speach. Because what I said ...

If we have actionable intelligence on Al-Qaeda Operatives including Bin Laden and President Musharraff can not act, then we should."

It is good to know that Sen. Obama thought twice about his speach from last week and now realizes that President Musharraff might not be in a position to act on the actionable intelligence we receive on Al-Qaeda Operatives and Bin Laden. That to expect Musharraff to be able to act on such actionable intel would put Mussharraff in an untenable situation with his people who are still, for the most part, unfortunately still very Pro-Taliban. Musharraff can be an ally with America, but Musharraff can not be a traitor to Al-Qaida. That is the fine line he is walking and it is a line that the U.S. must give him room to walk unless we do want him overthrown.

I read Obama's speach. It was poured over in great detail on Blogs and by Pundits. And I do suspect with stong confidence that these things, a change in this kind of language is not by accident. Media Advisor to the Obama Campaign Axelrod also said "can not" during the Spin Session with Chris Mathews after the debate.

It's a revision. Not a minor revision at that because it establishes a completely different set of expectations on the part of President Musharraff.

It shows Obama is thinking. That's a good thing. Because he has a very good chance of being the Democratic Party Nominee I'm just glad he understands the issue.

Tags: Barack Obama, Pakistan (all tags)

Permalink :: 35 Comments :: Post a Comment

Well, we are getting somewhere, at least... (none / 0)

Musharraff can be an ally with America, but Musharraff can not be a traitor to Al-Qaida. Whose ally is he supposed to be?

I am glad to see the debate has raised the information levels on this topic, which is an achievement in itself, but do you realise the magnitude of the admission this statement makes given the previous conventional wisdom on our relationship with Pakistan? I wonder if that is a statement you would have made two weeks ago and whether your view on this alliance has shifted since Obama's remarks.

by Shaun Appleby on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 01:15:51 AM EST

I don't think (none / 0)

Musharraff's situation has changed at all in the last year.

If it came up, it was a statement I would have made two weeks ago.

I'm all for giving Obama credit for bringing it up and forcing people to talk about it.

But I'm also for giving him credit for a minor spike in the usual ebb and flow of Anti-American sentiment in Pakistan as well.

by Edgar08 on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 01:23:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think (none / 0)

So you believe that Musharraf has obligations or commitments on his loyalty to al-Qaeda and/or the Taliban? I am not disagreeing with you, frankly, just noting that this is significantly different from the perception of him, and through him Pakistan, as our front-line ally in the 'war on terror.' Don't you agree?

by Shaun Appleby on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 01:29:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes I agree (none / 0)

Our Government has to tell us he's on the up and up.

It's an untenable situation.

The best answer is to just leave Mussharraff out of the equation all together.

If we have actionable intel, don't even tell Mussharraf what we're going to, he can watch it on the news like everyone else. Which is what Biden kind of tried to say when everyone realized he was totally ignoring a woman who had lost her husband in work related accident. Biden is now toast if he wasn't already anyway..

I'm sure Musharraff would prefer he just be left out of it. The problems gone and it leaves him in the clear with everyone involved.

If we kill Bin Laden and Pakistanis believe Musharraff was in on it, it won't go well for him.

by Edgar08 on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 01:36:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes I agree (none / 0)

Yes, I agree too. And my original suggestion was merely that if it were not for Obama's remarks on the subject, as controversial but relevant as they were, the US electorate would still be thinking Musharraf was with us and that we really were trying hard, with his help, to find and capture the al-Qaeda leadership.

Two weeks can be a long time in politics.

by Shaun Appleby on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 01:54:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I think it's great (none / 0)

That Obama screwing up forced people to become educated enough on the topic to know that he screwed up.

by Edgar08 on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 04:17:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think it's great (none / 0)

Screwed up, how?

by Shaun Appleby on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 04:33:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

By At First (none / 0)

Misunderstanding Musharraff's position in all this. Actually thinking that if we had the intel he should first go to Musharraff expecting Musharraff to do something.

by Edgar08 on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 04:39:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By At First (none / 0)

He had to do that. That's the conventional wisdom, and who knows with sufficient motivation it might yet happen. No one is suggesting we shouldn't give Musharraf the opportunity to come to the party. The fact that Pakistan insists there is no al-Qaeda safe haven in Warizistan is an obstacle, though, isn't it? They said it again on Monday.

The contradictions between our NIE and the Pakistani position is worth a mention. It is hard for us to really know who's right. It can't be both. The NIE summary was pretty specific:

Al-Qa'ida is and will remain the most serious terrorist threat to the Homeland... We assess the group has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability, including: a safehaven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), operational lieutenants, and its top leadership.

The FATA, of course, includes Waziristan, and it's curious name is an indication of the outstanding sovereignty issues.

by Shaun Appleby on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 05:25:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't see how he had to say that (none / 0)

I don't see why he couldn't just say what Biden's been saying, Policy is if we have the Intel we don't wait for anything from Musharraff, we move to strike.

That's the Policy.

Here's the issue as I understand it and it goes back to his statement about meeting with foreign leaders without preconditions.

There's two ways to answer the question.

Within the context of the Bush Admin (what I think you're calling Conventional Wisdom).

Or within the context of what's right.

Based on our discussions in the past I suspect you'd weigh a political response to the Bush admin heavier than a simple statement about what's right and wrong.

Listen. Cutting through the B.S. here. Policy is we move to strike regardless of what Mussharraff says or does one way or the other.

Does Obama know that?

Does it matter that Obama knows that?

by Edgar08 on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 05:37:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't see how he had to say that (none / 0)

I've never heard that policy before, and I'll bet its news to the Pakistanis, too. Bush refused to clarify the same point recently but, to my knowledge, this is all a new development. Obama really put the cat among the pigeons but no-one is criticising the substance of his position, are they? Just the fact he said it.

by Shaun Appleby on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 05:50:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I was criticizing the substance (none / 0)

of his position, and the fact that he said it.

As for the candidates, criticizing the fact that he said it is enough. I'm sorry. I know people want to spin this thousand different ways to show that it could have been a good thing, but can you stop being obtuse and just point out how you think it was good of Obama to put pressure on Mussharraff to turn Bin Laden over to us?

I don't think anything is news to the Pakistanis. They know we want to get Bin Laden.

by Edgar08 on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 06:01:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was criticizing the substance (none / 0)

You really want my opinion? The shit is going to hit the fan in Pakistan sooner or later and there is nothing Obama nor Bush nor all the King's horses and all the King's men can do about it. Or ever could. The Pakistani's have been spitting sharp chips since the nuclear deal we did with India. Don't forget, they have been dealing with Cheney.

Read the fucking Middle Eastern press every day for a month. Here's one worth reading. I especially noted this bit from the Parliamentary leader of the MMA:

"Our foreign policy revolves around the United States", he said, adding the global terrorism theory was the brainchild of the US administration and nothing else. "No one supports the incidents of terrorism taking place in the US in which innocent people lost their lives, but the way these events took place raised many eyebrows," he added.

They are really pissed and it's not because of Obama's latest remarks, that's just the icing on the cake. How about this, today's top story in the The News, notice it doesn't even mention Obama:

ISLAMABAD: Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Major (retd) Syed Tanveer Hussain has advised the government to recognise the Taliban and open all corridors for militants to wage Jihad for the liberation of Kashmir.

"India will not give freedom to the Kashmiris through dialogue so we have to wage a Jihad and our Mujahideen will secure the freedom of Kashmir within six months," he said, while speaking in the National Assembly on Tuesday during a debate on Pakistan's foreign policy.

The stunning speech of the parliamentary secretary got a positive response from the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, particularly when he praised the Taliban and asked the government to give a shut-up call to the United States over its threats to Pakistan.

He also asked the government to counter the recent US `Pressler-type bill' by allowing Jihad. "The aid that forces us to mistreat our own people should be spewed out," he added. In his hard-hitting and emotional speech, Syed Tanveer Hussain said that Pakistan should also recognise the Taliban, who were the enemies of the United States. "Taliban did not have any enmity with Pakistan but only with the United States," he added.

He alleged that the American CIA was killing the Chinese in Pakistan to harm the cordial relations between the two countries. He also asked the government to open all the corridors for the Jihadis to enter held Kashmir so that they could wage Jihad against India. "We cannot get Kashmir on negotiations table but through Jihad," he said, while raising the slogans of `Al-Jihad, Al-Jihad'.

He said the government should renounce its `love affair' with America and reject all kinds of aid. "We should improve our relations with Iran, China and Russia as the United States will not give us anything except threats," he added.

The parliamentary secretary said Muslims were being killed throughout the world under a conspiracy but "we have turned a blind eye to the same". "Our foreign policy must be based on Quran and Sunnah," he stressed. Tanveer Hussain said that Syed Hasan Nasrullah had inflicted a defeat on Israel and Pakistan should take a lesson from him.

Asim Yasin - The News 8 Aug

That's their Parliamentary Secretary for Defence talking. I think the 'Pressler-type bill' he is talking about is our 9/11 Recommendations recently passed. Read the foreign press, man. US reading habits are far to insular. You want my opinion? The al-Qaeda 'war on terror' frame that has been sold in the states is not a really useful model for trying to deal with our actual threats and Pakistan has been a duplicitous player from the outset. Bush and Cheney have been way out of their depth for a long time. We are in for big trouble and the war in Iraq is a mistake we will regret for many, many years to come. None of this is Obama's fault, for pity's sake. I am grateful he has broken the spell, we were, in public discussion, living in a fantasy world about Pakistan. But we are fools, nonetheless and nobody is going to be invading Waziristan anytime soon.

by Shaun Appleby on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 07:10:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was criticizing the substance (none / 0)

The feeling i get from people that lives overseas is that the Pakistan goverment is playing both side of the coin.

What i mean by that is, while they are telling us they're doing everything possible to root out terrorist,they are also helping those terrorist to hide and making deals with them behind our backs.

Ive heard people suggesting that Musharraf is an ally but i beg to differ...I think the guy is a snake and although he may not be in our best interest to have him overthrown,i really don't trust him....I think he has some type of deal with those terrorist in wazrisistan.

by JaeHood on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 07:55:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was criticizing the substance (none / 0)

Musharraf himself is fairly moderate and no jihadist but as he's a 'made' man the one group over which he has no leverage has leverage over him.

by Shaun Appleby on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 08:20:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was criticizing the substance (none / 0)

Let's set aside for a moment the politics on expressing a willingness to attack Pakistan unilaterally, if it came to that. I have consistently acknowledged my view that the politics will favor Obama despite the fact I disagree with his views and find them, frankly, dangerous as expressed. I want to discuss the wisdom of the policy.

Let me also grant the arguments Shaun Appleby, Jae Hood and others have made about Musharaff being a double-dealer, which is a bit overstated in my judgment but has some merit. I have acknowledged that he plays both sides of the fence in many cases.

And also let me grant that despite repeated failures in the past even with "actionable intelligence" in hand, that this future hypothetical attack "works" at taking out the al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan.

Now's the part where those defending Obama the statement can help me out:

What do you think the political dynamic internal to Pakistan would be after a unilateral US attack? Telling me you don't care because they are 'terrorist lovers' shows you are not seriously engaging this foreign policy issue.

Several Obama supporters have described how things are very tentative in Pakistan, and a coup or uprising may occur anyway. Why is this a reason to move the probability from possibility to certainty?

If Musharaff is a two-timer in some respects, what will be his response to a unilateral US attack? What makes you think he won't stop two-timing and sign up with our opponents, if only to save his own hide?

What makes you think that despite the two-timing he won't be overthrown?

So on policy grounds, we have a policy of revenge that at best works to take out some of the leaders of al Qaeda in Waziristan. No one has proven this step alone will defang al Qaeda. No one has proven there will not be a calamitous post-attack reaction in Pakistan, already teetering on the brink.

Why would a revenge attack with little or at least unproven impact on the balance of forces in the war against international terrorism be worth the risk of a Islamic jihadists possessing nuclear weapons?

Why do proponents of this policy assume India will be nonplussed by developments next door?

"We live entangled in webs of endless deceit, often self-deceit, but with a little honest effort, it is possible to extricate ourselves from them". -- NC

by Trond Jacobsen on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 08:57:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was criticizing the substance (none / 0)

I am running out of room so have responded to your post below.

by Shaun Appleby on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 09:33:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If it's Not a Useful Frame (none / 0)

Why is Obama solidifying it?

by Edgar08 on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 10:03:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Changes the Verb (none / 0)

Musharraf is with us.

To help him walk the tightrope at home, we have agreed to keep our current and future covert military activities in Pakistan quiet.

If we get bin Laden, we will keep quiet about our involvement and allow Musharrif to take credit for a Pakastani action on Pakastani soil.

It's the same deal we had with Saudi Arabia in staging for Iraq on Saudi soil. Permission granted, but keep your mouth shut about it.

That is what Clinton was talking about. I'm sorry if voters feel like the President (or future President) should brief the public on every morsel of secret diplomacy. But, that ain't happening if we want a successful foreign policy. Should Kissinger have been briefing the public on his secret trips to China?

by hwc on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 02:23:17 AM EST

Re: Obama Changes the Verb (none / 0)

No, of course not. But this is quite different, we have been given a perception, that Pakistan is our front-line ally in the GWOT, which Pakistan can't deliver on in a critical area, the al-Qaeda safe haven. Our NIE said that al-Qaeda is again becoming a threat, so the status quo deal with Pakistan was up for review anyhow. Do you know that the official line from Pakistan is that al-Qaeda does not have a safe haven in Waziristan? Not that they don't know, but definitely not. This was an issue when the NIE summary was made public earlier this year.

But the Bush administration let it pass. In fact, the whole al-Qaeda/Waziristan issue has been paid lip service by the administration but put in the 'too hard' pile. The thing that pisses me off is that they continue the GWOT framing and double the bounty on Osama. It's bullshit.

So Obama blows the whistle on this caper and suddenly he is the bad guy? My problem with the back-and-forth with Hillary on this is that it seems to me that she understands the situation perfectly well and is actually comfortable with the whole GWOT frame, as she said, and doesn't want it made an issue in case she ever has to deal with it. It is an intractable situation, you either give up on getting al-Qaeda or you give up on Musharraf. Which is it? At least Obama took a position.

by Shaun Appleby on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 02:41:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Changes the Verb (none / 0)

Thank you. You should be helping Obama's team out with some advice. Certainly Samantha ain't doing it.

by superetendar on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 10:25:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If it meant nothing (none / 0)

Why change between then and now?

by Edgar08 on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 03:51:09 AM EST

Re: Obama Changes the Verb (none / 0)

I don't think it's a significant change..Just another way to say the same thing..'Wont', cant,..who cares.

The big picture is , what do you do if you have actionable intelligence that Osama is in this specific location as we speak and we could take him out with one missile but Musharraf refuses to give us the green light for whatever reason and the question is,what do you do?...Do you allow musharraf decision to stand or do you go ahead and get Osama and try to do it as neatly and as quick as possible?

My answer to that is , i would like to think we would get the Pakistan government green light to go get those killers, but if not, we should go ahead and do i on our own.

by JaeHood on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 04:47:08 AM EST

Getting a Green Light (none / 0)

From the Pakistan Government is a bad idea.

And saying that we'll do it if they can't gives them a way out.

Saying that we'll do it if they will not, forces them into a corner.

Who cares? Mussharraff cares.

by Edgar08 on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 04:54:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Getting a Green Light (none / 0)

Look , there are terrorists inside Pakistan and those terrorist are training..They aren't training for a soccer game but they are training to come kill "AMERICANS".

As far as im concern,those killers can not be allowed to be training un-interrupted because if they get a chance to repeat 9-11, a lot of people would be screaming and asking why we allowed Musharraf to dictate on whether we could go after those killers in the mountains.

When it's set and done, i don't think it's an issue that hurts Obama at all...As long as he makes it clear that those terrorists in Pakistan are training to kill you and once they've done training,they will come for your lives...Should we wait until the killers finish training or should we hit them bastards while they're training and not even give them a chance to attack us?

by JaeHood on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 05:08:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I Totally Agree (none / 0)

I see no reason to even wait for a Green Light from Mussharraff.

by Edgar08 on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 05:10:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Changes the Verb (none / 0)

Glad to see you get your news from Ben Smith.... what a tool....

by enarjay on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 07:57:56 AM EST

Re: Obama Changes the Verb (none / 0)

No, this is a valid point. It was a subtle and highly effective change in verb. Obama pulled one on almost everyone.

better luck next universe

by thenew on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 08:53:22 AM EST

Re: Obama Changes the Verb (none / 0)

Firstly, to be honest, I think nobody is going to be attacking Warzistan. This is all just US electoral stage theatre and it is a sorry state of affairs but true. Did you notice that Clinton, Biden and Bush, for that matter have all piled on, one way or the other. And, yes, Obama forced their hands, which shows some domestic political nous but just emphasises what a dangerous environment has been created by the 'war on terror' in the aftermath of 9/11 in US public opinion. Did you read what Tancredo said? It boggles the mind. So maybe the policy is a crock, it is only one in a long line of false positions on flawed premises which have informed our foreign policy since 9/11.

When Bush piled on Monday he twice mentioned this 'actionable intelligence' as the obstacle to doing anything, as if invading Waziristan wasn't beyond diplomatic and operational reach for the US at this time anyhow, which I argue it really is. Obama is right about one thing, we have been fighting on the wrong battlefield and we have virtually broken our sword. To Obama's credit he has been harping on this for years.

But this actionable intelligence doesn't exist. The only thing the public has is the NIE 'assessment' and the Pakistanis, who would be the ones to have good field-craft intelligence on this, are telling us we're wrong even about that. Our intelligence sucks, we rely on satellites and gadgets and signals sniffing and we don't know shit about what is actually going on in these organisations on a decision making or planning level. We don't even know who are our enemies among our friends. We incarcerate people and torture them, why? Because we are monsters? No, because we are desperate for decent intelligence and can't trust our sources in the regions most important to us.

It is a crock. We are virtually powerless to act and our enemies, apparently, grow stronger. You're quite right, Musharraf is dangling by a thread already, as the Red Mosque incident clearly demonstrates. Rather than ask what the consequences of a unilateral action, which would be disastrous, would be why not ask who is outwitting whom in the global war on terror? Looks like the Taliban, al-Qaeda, the militants within the Pakistani armed forces, whomever they are, have us pretty well checked at the moment. And the fact that US leaders have to elbow each other out of the way to look tough is probably greeted with some satisfaction among our enemies.

We have got to get our asses out of Iraq.

by Shaun Appleby on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 09:32:12 AM EST

Obama Explains Obama: This shit gets old (none / 0)

You obviously didn't read my speech

Actually I'll Bomb Ya, you are the one that hasn't read your speech. So nice of you to slip in a little revision when you thought no one was looking and then tried to make it seem as if someone else was wrong.

by DoIT on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 09:45:25 AM EST

Re: Obama Changes the Verb (none / 0)

There is very little I disagree with in your statements.

If we cannot in fact implement the policy and the statement is, as you say, mere political theater, does that not make it even more irresponsible? The mere utterance of the statement is probably unlikely to topple Musharaff, by why take that risk if the actual plan is a hollow shell, if it cannot be carried out?

If the problem is an absence of on-the-ground intelligence, explain how Senator Obama flexing his muscles helps develop better intelligence?

You and I seem to agree that the war against international terrorism is a complex, multi-layered struggle with many dimensions. How has this complex challenge been made easier by Senator Obama's statement?

If al Qaeda is outwitting us it is not due to their strategic brilliance, but the historic incompetence, bad faith, and deception carried out by the Bush administraton.

"We live entangled in webs of endless deceit, often self-deceit, but with a little honest effort, it is possible to extricate ourselves from them". -- NC

by Trond Jacobsen on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 09:53:41 AM EST

Re: Obama Changes the Verb (none / 0)

Not much to disagree with there. Firstly, Obama is not going to be elected if he doesn't project a strong image to the electorate. I know the policy is a crock but I defend him on it because it is serving an essential purpose. As you noted recently the rest of the speech was measured and excellent, in many ways quite original and really attempted to change the framing we have become tangled up in on the 'war on terror.'

I think Obama has quite excellent motives, and the right ideas and advice, to get the US out of the foreign policy jam we are in. But he is never going to be elected without throwing that last line in there about doing it ourselves. And it was well chosen in that it directed the attention of the public and the media to the Terra Nullis of our terrorism policy and the whole justification for the invasion of Afghanistan and the overthrow of the Taliban. Iraq was a mistake our worse enemies couldn't have wished for in their wildest dreams but which we provided by the historic incompetence, bad faith, and deception of the Bush war council playing geopolitical roulette.

I don't know how irresponsible it is to highlight the internal inconsistencies of our terrorism mythology by identifying the safe haven and growth of al-Qaeda as an issue, but it certainly isn't dishonest. And I have no doubt that our enemies are real and intend to do us harm. Obama has re-framed the 'war on terror' to focus on those who harmed us, and that is an essential first step. But he has got to get elected to do anything meaningful and the reality is he has to take a decisive stand. No-one's saying he is wrong, just imprudent. His point is that to date prudence has achieved nothing tangible.

The Bush administration's geopolitical postures and our own bellicosity are among the most effective of our enemies weapons, it is true. But whatever leader we get is going to have to cut the Ghordian Knot so they better have a sharp sword and a keen eye. I see Hillary's position as too closely resembling that of the current administration and somehow I fear the flaws in the 'war on terror' frame wouldn't get exposed under her leadership. Obama has not only been a bit politically opportunistic he has chosen his ground carefully and peeled away a layer of bullshit.

by Shaun Appleby on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 10:30:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Changes the Verb (none / 0)

You express support for your candidate and his positions with distinction and class.

Perhaps our lingering disagreements are concentrated in two areas.

First, is it legitimate to risk inflaming geopolitical tensions in order to win the election? I am not an absolutist about this and I get your point about how Obama needs to win the election using machismo and setting up the policy reorientation after inaguration. Could he have chosen Sudan or someplace where the risk of the political theater was smaller?

Second, I do not entirely share your view that Obama will in fact implement a new kind of foreign policy, one which merits accepting as the hurly burly of winning election statements such as he made about Pakistan. You are in essence asking me to trust you and Obama to the effect that he is not really so rash.

I do think it more likely he will reorient American foreign policy than will Senator Clinton, or Edwards, for that matter. I just think those differences will prove chimerical. I support Edwards because I see narrow differences overseas but signficant differences at home. And I am very, very, very pro-union and want a President who does step out onto the lawn making a prime-time address to the public about the importance of unions and organized labor.

"We live entangled in webs of endless deceit, often self-deceit, but with a little honest effort, it is possible to extricate ourselves from them". -- NC

by Trond Jacobsen on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 12:53:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's Obama's Staff's Fault! (none / 0)

Wait for Obama to blame this one on his staff, too!

by BigBoyBlue on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 10:04:32 AM EST

Re: Obama Changes the Verb (none / 0)

Its all in the details about Pakistan, I've said it a thousand times on this site, and this is very telling of the gaffe

vote blue in 2008

by sepulvedaj3 on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 11:58:54 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.