What a wanker. That's the whole friggin' problem with debating the war on terror. Tough talk gives someone credibility, unless they're called on it. And, sadly, nobody ever seems to do that.
Obama is trying to out-tough Hillary, and it shows. I understand that he's basically just saying things for political gain, but, well, now I can't trust him.
Obama shouldn't try to outtough Hillary. He can, however, be smarter, wiser, and more supportive of diplomacy and international laws. Rather than ending the War on Terror -- which is to say, turning it from a highly confrontational, divisive, self-defeating, and self-perpetuating war to a rational, less antagonistic, more diplomatic and political effort to reduce the likelihood of terrorism... Obama is content to be stuck in the box of groupthink like everyone else.
What a disappointment. This upcoming election should be a referrendum on the failed ideology of neoconservatism, and a chance to clean house of *ALL* those who supported it. Instead, it's becoming a bunch of pandering idiots stuck playing the "me too" game.
Given half a chance, these lemmings will lead us to the edge of the cliff, just like LBJ did in Vietnam. (How do you differentiate bombing our supposed partner Pakistan in this war, vs. bombing Cambodia in the Vietnam War?)
Rather than folding the bad hand they've been dealt, they're willing to raise the stakes. Too bad they aren't the ones who have to pay for such foolishness.
Al Gore, if you're out there somewhere... please run for President, because Kucinich is too granola, Gravel doesn't stand a chance, and none of the leading candidates seem to be showing any goddamn common sense.