Obama: Be afraid, Pakistan.
On Wednesday, Obama delivered a major anti-terrorism speech in which he essentially threatened the government of Pakistan that as president he would attack al Qaeda targets in the country with or without the permission of President Gen. Pervez Musharraf. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will," Obama said.
Edwards: Me, too!
"We have a responsibility to go find al Qaeda and (Osama) bin Laden wherever they operate," Edwards said after a fundraiser in San Francisco, appearing to agree with Obama's call during a major foreign policy speech in Washington for possible U.S. military action in Pakistan against terrorists hiding there.
Edwards said that if Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf can't control such operatives, "we have to do it."
Look, I know this is just campaign saber rattling by a couple of candidates looking beyond the primaries and worried that they won't sound tough enough. Nobody is likely to invade Pakistan, and whoever is president, Republican or Democrat, will consider the use of deadly force based on ambient circumstances. But, lord, if Bush was reckless in invading Iraq, how do they think this sounds?
Still, maybe it's a sign that in the general-election debate, the candidates will move beyond Iraq and talk about how to handle terrorism and how important that is in broader foreign policy implications. How much defense and offense should there be? How important is one organization or its leader?