I am surprised you never heard this. It was big news when it came out last fall. This article is dated 8-1-07. I would be curious as to what he would have to say about it now to be honest. Pakistan has been pretty quiet on the news front since super Tuesday.I missed that statement - have a link?
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801
Pretty tough talk there. I wonder where else that might be applicable.By Steve Holland
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said on Wednesday the United States must be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan, adopting a tough tone after a chief rival accused him of naivete in foreign policy.
Obama's stance comes amid debate in Washington over what to do about a resurgent al Qaeda and Taliban in areas of northwest Pakistan that President Pervez Musharraf has been unable to control, and concerns that new recruits are being trained there for a September 11-style attack against the United States.
Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.
"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.
Nobody but the most white doves among Americans question the legality or moral authority involved in using military force in Afghanistan. I wish we would have used a hell of a lot more military force there to be honest.And what does the appeaser left think of that statement, when their main reference in the wars against the IFs has been "legality"?
The issue is Iraq. They are two very different things when discussing in such matters.
Also, I have never claimed invading Iraq was illegal. Nor do I believe Obama has said that directly.