Edwards on Pakistan and al Qaeda: "If they can't do the job, then we have to do it."

[jefferson_dem]

Hmmmm...what say you now? ---:>

"My belief is that we have a responsibility to find bin Laden and al Qaeda wherever they operate," Edwards said on camera. "I think we need to maximize pressure on Musharraf and the Pakistani government. If they can't do the job, then we have to do it."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/01/300839.aspx

[beachmom]

1. Oh, that's classic. Absolutely classic! And if somebody comes

on here to whine that you can spin it this way or that -- well, nobody can beat the "Obama wants to invade Pakistan" distortion that's real popular around these parts.

[jefferson_dem]

5. So when does the focus group adjourn so Hillary knows where she should stand on the issue?

Just asking? :shrug:

[beachmom]

7. Well, perhaps an overnight poll will do the trick for her? n/t

[SaveElmer]

12. As you know...because it has been posted a number of times...

Hillary took a position on this last week...

[Missy M]

22. Perhaps you should find out what she had to say...

on July 27th, 2007 and you will know where she stands.

[sandnsea]

35. She needs a permission slip

Her cadre has been posting words to that affect all day. She won't go after Bin Laden without permission from Pakistan.

Me thinks Edwards didn't fall into that trap because he's already been through it once. :)

[SteppingRazor]

2. Edwards people who have been bashing Obama all day? Anyone?

Y'know, next time, instead of shooting our own, maybe we should concentrate on, say, picking apart Giuliani's healthcare plan that was just announced today. Or, you know, something else that actually serves the Democratic cause.

[TwilightGardener]

9. Edwards people, where are you? Bueller? Bueller?

(crickets)

[BeyondGeography]

3. Sensible statement by Edwards

He has done well not to follow many of his supporters here off the cliff.

[TwilightGardener]

10. Yup. He ain't stupid.

[5X]

4. that is rich, yeah, where are the obama bashers? n/t

[Adelante]

6. Just goes to show ya

Know when to hold it, folks. ;)

[killbotfactory]

8. Oh my

:spank:

[Cameron27]

11. HA!

I'm waiting for the spin, you know it's coming. ROFL

[jefferson_dem]

15. 1-2-3...1-2-3... They are limbering up for their whirling dervishes...

[maximusveritas]

13. Edwards might have won back some of my support with this statement

My negative opinion of his supporters here, on the other hand, has only been strengthened. I'm ok with that though. I can seperate the candidate from his supporters. I'll just have to ignore them and focus on what John and Elizabeth are saying.

[waiting for hope]

19. Do you plan to encompass all

Edwards supporters with your statement? - I have yet to make one comment on this for the very fact of the bashing.

[maximusveritas]

43. No, I'm just talking about a select few

who happen to be the most vocal IMO. I do realize there are plenty of Edwards supporters here who don't agree with their nonsense. That's why I've learned to just ignore those few troublemakers.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

14. That is vague. He didn't call for unilteral action

If he believes what Senator Clinton believes he is right on this; if he agrees with Obama he is wrong. We need more details.

[JANdad]

16. I agree completely...

eom

[bling bling]

26. Except they're the same, Hillary and Obama.

It's a difference in the way they *said* it.

[5X]

17. and so it begins. n/t

[jefferson_dem]

18. What exactly does Hillary believe on this? Has she issued a statement yet...

or are you going with her previous positions?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

21. What she said last week nt

[jefferson_dem]

24. Thanks. n/t

[killbotfactory]

20. It's exactly the same as Obama

He would attack Al-Qaeda if Pakistan refused to act.

I don't think his statement could be any clearer.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

23. So would anyone else. There is a diplomatic way of doing it and a * way of doing it

Clinton favors the correct approach; Obama favors the Bush-Cheney approach. We don't know which side of the fence Edwards comes down on yet.

[TwilightGardener]

27. How does one "diplomatically" take out al Qaeda in someone else's country?

I'm pretty sure ALL of them would try to secure Pakistan's cooperation, as well as that of the international community, to get rid of AQ, but what happens if that fails?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

29. By doing exactly what Hillary said last week

You work with the country, not just barge in there and open a can of worms. http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/8/1/124243/6757

==I'm pretty sure ALL of them would try to secure Pakistan's cooperatio==

That isn't what Obama said today. That is where he is wrong.

Sending troops unilaterally should be a last resort, not a first resort to look tough.

[Cameron27]

31. Sorry no, you're spinning this dmc,

Edwards' statement is no different than Obama's.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

34. Do you think Hillary's is no different than Obama's?

Edwards statement is one sentence. Let's reserve judgment until he clarifies what he meant. He could mean what Hillary meant, that we go into Pakistan with the cooperation and help of Pakistan.

[Cameron27]

42. I think Edwards' statement is no different than Obama's.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

45. I am sure the campaign will make a full statement on this

Perhaps we should wait and see what it says before taking one sentence and immediately hiding behind Edwards' as somehow vindicating Obama being wrong?

[jefferson_dem]

32. Oh please. Who the hell wants to "barge in"?

Don't discount "tough talk" as a non-diplomatic tool.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

36. Apparently Obama

Did he say anything about working with the government of the nation in question?

[TwilightGardener]

40. Uh, we've been begging Pakistan to get rid of AQ for years, unless I'm mistaken--

I thought Cheney was over there a few months ago to meet with Musharraf for this purpose.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

44. And there is a reason even * has not uniltaterally sent troops into that country nt

[TwilightGardener]

47. Yeah, Chimpy has no intention of doing it. Neither does Obama,

UNLESS, when he's President, circumstances and intelligence lead to such a decision.

[killbotfactory]

41. Yes, he did.

You claimed you read his speech, if you actually did, you would know this instead of jumping to the worst conclusion possible whenever Obama opens his mouth.

[killbotfactory]

28. LOL

Are you getting dizzy yet?

[BeyondGeography]

30. No mystery here; what part of, "If they can't do the job, we have to do it"

do you not understand?

He has enunciated a position favoring pressure on Musharraf and unilateral action against terrorists if necessary. Good for him.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

33. Where did he call for unilateral action?

Perhaps he agrees with Senator Clinton. If they can't do it, perhaps we have to do it with them. That makes a world of a difference.

[killbotfactory]

37. "If they can't do the job, we have to do it"

He was responding to the controversy around Obama's remarks.

This isn't rocket science.

[BeyondGeography]

39. "If they can't do the job, we have to do it"

follows his statement that we need to keep the pressure on Musharraf. If he comes out tomorrow saying he meant we need to "do it with them," he'll look ridiculous. The story is already being reported as follows:

"NBC's Lauren Appelbaum reports that Edwards, on the other hand, agreed with Obama..."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/01/300839.aspx

[Forkboy]

25. I don't agree with his terminology either.

The last line is not needed for any reason other than to play to the home crowd,while disregarding the effect it has the country that we have to actually deal with in order to get Bin laden.

While I'm a DK supporter I'm also a fan of Edwards in many ways.However,like Obama,I feel the extra addition of the "we will" and "we have to" , whether correct or not ,is not only provocative in a world already full of provocation,but potentially damaging in the very region we'll have to operate in.

[Buck Rabbit]

38. I would normally agree with you.

But getting a Democrat elected will require us having a candidate that the public thinks will defend the country.

I will again vote for DK in our meaningless primary, but I realize that the general election is polling close even with the disaster of Bush being in office. I was around to watch Carter barely beat Ford even after Watergate.

It is important for an "Out of Iraq" candidate to clarify that he is serious about defending the country.

Frankly, Mussaraf will co-operate so this all theoretical only. Mussaraf has already calculated his odds of survivng a fight with the US and decided it was a no-winner for him. It's in his book.

[Colobo]

46. Obama leads, Edwards and Hillary follow.

[jmp]

48. Bush led too.

Fools followed. Fools seem hellbent on making the same mistake again. Next thing you know Obama will be calling himself a war President and the decider.

But maybe everyone is misunderestimating him. :eyes: