I think you guys are missing the larger issue here, which is that we infiltrated Pakistan's sovereign airspace to conduct a targeted assassination, ala Israel. Good! I'm always happy to turn the news on and hear about us killing another bad guy. The larger issue here is that we sent a few messages - one to Musharraf that we're going after AQ in his country with or without his public consent - two that AQ can run, but they can't hide. I also like the sniper-esque uncertainty that these Predator kills must instill in the enemy. I doubt the guy ever saw or heard what hit him. Just hanging out in the tent, cursing all infidels and boom! He's gone. The Bush-haters will always find an excuse to downplay such kills and ignore the fact that we haven't been hit at home since 9/11. Did anyone think that would be the case on 9/12/01? I don't think so.

And Obama is not even president yet.:D

I was refering to one of the early debate issues where Obama said he would have us go into Pakistan if that's where Osama bin ladden was.

That wasn't the first time. There have been a few attacks over the past couple of years.

That would be B HO to the homies.

I would too. It's easier to beg forgiveness than ask permission. If I had to traverse Pakistan for a shot at killing OBL, damn right I'd order it.

Pakistan needs to either ***** or get off the pot when it comes to getting serious about these extremist nutcases living in "tribal regions". If they won't crack down on them hard and serious, we're going to do it ourselves. If that's disrespectful to their sovereignty then so be it. Respect is EARNED, not gratuitiously given. Besides, we transgressed Iraq's sovereign territory for far less (not that should become the basis of comparison, but just sayin').

Point is, if Obama actually said that, he gets a few points in my book.

"the Democrats are going to label any Republican with "has the same mindset as Bush," the one that got our country into this mess we're in now, and that one message is going to mire them down more than the Nation's distrust and dislike for Hillary/Team Clinton"

I gotta disagree with that.

As if she didn't already have the highest negatives in history, Hillary continues to remind people why they disliked her so much. Bill's helping. Of course you can be sure the Republicans will add some assistance of their own. Further, Hillary already tried the same ***** on Obama (oh my God he's a Reagan supporter). That angered more Democrats than Republicans.

Finally McCain isn't Bush- the charges will backfire. He really is a hero and Hillary's never been near a warzone (well, not counting the White House lampthrowing skirmishes back in the ninities).

If Hillary and McCain get the nod McCain will win hands down. If Obama gets the nod it's a tossup. I don't think Hillary will make it past super Tuesday but I'm not going to bet on that one.

I'm guessing you didn't see the Dem debate last night. It was a frickin love-fest, almost tossed my cookies. BUT, it showed Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama (I pray for the former) will roll over any other candidate combination.

If Obama really meant that as a signal that he would be a hard-as$, then he gets points in my book too. However, I suspect he said it only as an attempt to differentiate himself from the others and, worse yet, I suspect that statement was a tactical suggestion from one of his handlers and not a well thought out policy white paper kind of thing. Invading a sovereign nuclear sometimes ally is not the kind of thing I'd throw around in a primary debate just to score political points. It warrants serious consideration and some back channel diplomacy.