On July 20,2008 Obama held an interview with Lara Logan of CBS News:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/20/...in4275864.shtml

Logan: "Under what circumstances would you authorize unilateral U.S. action against targets inside tribal areas?"

Obama: "What I've said is that if we had actionable intelligence against high-value al-Qaeda targets, and the Pakistani government was unwilling to go after those targets, that we should. My hope is that it doesn't come to that - that in fact, the Pakistan government would recognize that if we had Osama bin Laden in our sights that we should fire or we should capture him."

Logan: "Isn't that the case now? I mean, do you really think that if U.S. forces had Osama bin Laden in their sights and the Pakistanis said 'No,' that they wouldn't fire or wouldn't go after him?"

Obama: "I think actually this is current doctrine. There was some dispute when I said this last August. Both the administration and some of my opponents suggested, 'Well, you know, you shouldn't go around saying that.' But I don't think there's any doubt that that should be our policy."

Logan: "But [not going after him] is the current policy."

Obama: "I believe it is the current policy."

Logan: "So there's no change, then?"

Obama: "I don't think there's going to be a change there."

So he's not going to go invading other countries unless he's got reliable intelligence indicating that, among other things, OSB is there.

I'm confused though, and I would like to see the rest of the interview. It's hard to understand. I think that the reporter and Obama are having difficulty understanding each other.

Here, some choice exerpts that you didn't include that seem to go against what you are asserting in your post:


Ah, right after the misleading part you posted:

Logan: "So there's no change, then?"

Obama: "I don't think there's going to be a change there. I think that in order for us to be successful, it's not going to be enough just to engage in the occasional shot fired. We've got training camps that are growing and multiplying." Logan: "Would you take out all those training camps?"

Obama: "Well, I think that what we would like to see the Pakistani government take out those training camps."

Logan: "And if they won't?"

Obama: "Well, I think that we've got to work with them so they will."

Logan: "Would you consider unilateral U.S. action?"

Obama: "I will push Pakistan very hard to make sure that we go after those training camps. I think it's absolutely vital to the security interests for both the United States and Pakistan."



Are you implying that Obama...well, what are you implying?

Clearly, Obama is saying that if OSB and terrorist camps are in Pakistan, we need to do everything we can to pressure pakistan into striking against them. He's stopping short of saying he is going to invade pakistan. Whether he would or not, he shouldn't be threatening other nations on the basis of what might or might not happen or be happening. I think he's being diplomatic, saying that if there are terrorists in pakistan (and we think there are) we need to hold pakistan to the fire and compell them to act, which we possibly could do if we were not tied up in Iraq. And if the don't act, he is not prepared to make a threat based on a future hypothetical. I am glad for that.

I don't get what your trying to say supercar.

He's trying to say that he wants a president that goes around the world starting as many unilateral wars as possible. That would be McCain. Good luck with that.

Nope. Just the opposite. This quote below which are Obama's original words,was from August 2007.

"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans," he said. "They are plotting to strike again. . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7080101233.html

The point here is that the interview shown by the OP is Obamas current position which is that now he agrees we cant change the current policy. He conveniently put the soft spin on it by recounting it as "we should" instead of what he really said which was "we will". Words like these are kind of important in International diplomacy. It seems that when he got a little more information he changed his mind. I guess he didnt know, like most of the rest of us, that the reason we werent already chasing the terrorists into Pakistan was because we agreed not to in return for favors. The whole issue of why we were not going into Pakistan has been a news topic since the first year of the Afghanistan war.

Gustavo

I remember when Bush had Bin Laden cornered in the Tora Bora mountains and let him go. If they had picked up bin laden it all would have been over too fast for the Bush agenda .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQaI9uCw9hU

You posted a video of an assumption of events by people who no one pays attention to on their claims.
Really a pure National Enquirere stuff.

Next supercar thread:

Barack Obama Refuses to Change Toothpastes
Is he really the candidate of change?