“Is there really any great body of evidence to suggest that Obama is some kind of closet Code Pink member? I am having a hard time envisioning someone who cheerleaded the Israeli decimation of Lebanese cities with a bong and a “Make Love, Not War” t-shirt.”

I agree that Obama is not Code Pink by any means. But Republicans are trying to paint him into that corner, which would give an untrue representation of who he is. So in answering questions like this in the affirmative, Obama is making sure people know he’s not Code Pink. That doesn’t mean he’s Bush redux either. And like I’ve said before, showing support for Israel after the fact isn’t the same as advocating that kind of action. What’s he supposed to do, condemn Israel and lose any hope of winning either the primary or the election? The fact is, Israelis do what they want, and we don’t have a lot of influence over them. I do feel that Obama’s influence would be a moderating one, however, unlike McCain’s, which would encourage Israeli aggressiveness, and even supercede it with massive aggression of his own, continuing the endless occupation of Iraq and probably initiating war with Iran.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080612/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guantanamo

“The court specifically struck down a provision of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that denies Guantanamo detainees the right to file petition of habeas corpus.

Habeas corpus is a centuries-old legal principle, enshrined in the Constitution, that allows courts to determine whether a prisoner is being held illegally.”

Is there really any great body of evidence to suggest that Obama is some kind of closet Code Pink member? I am having a hard time envisioning someone who cheerleaded the Israeli decimation of Lebanese cities with a bong and a “Make Love, Not War” t-shirt.

“But honestly, I don’t think any American President, if they had verified intelligence of Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts, would hesitate to go after him, no matter where he was.”

Again, I think this is blurring the issue of exactly which targets are being talked about. “High value terrorist targets” is one of those phrases that can mean absolutely anyone. Assuming that the beginning and the end of that statement is “we’ll kill OBL if we know with dead certainty where he is” gives it a clarity that is not justified from the text itself.

While happily admitting that Obama is smart and crafty, I would not say that he’s lying. He’s simply seizing on an opportunity to make the point that he’s willing to use the military in some circumstances, such as the rather exceptional one asked about regarding top Al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan. This isn’t lying, this is telling the truth. It would be lying if it misrepresented his policy in some way, but it doesn’t. It just seizes on an opportunity to counter the notion that he’s some kind of hippy anti-military peacenik. Where exactly is the lie in this? The lie seems to be coming from those who claim this means Obama is willing to use the military in a reckless and relentlessly unilateral way in any circumstance, such as ordinary fighting in the region.

As far as game-changer, goes, I imagine you may end up a bit surprised by Obama. But honestly, I don’t think any American President, if they had verified intelligence of Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts, would hesitate to go after him, no matter where he was. So that kind of example doesn’t say much about overall strategy or intent in the region. McCain is the one who is lying when he says he wouldn’t go after bin Laden in that circumstance, purely to try to taint Obama’s image for political purposes.

Excellent! Glad we agree. Extend that understanding to everything that comes out of the man’s mouth, up to and including his fictional “withdrawal from Iraq” verbiage.

“actually quite hesitant to use force, but was using this opportunity to show that he’s not a total wuss”

Threatening military action (with its inevitably associated civilian casualties) to prove how mensch he is? When do we get to the part where he starts clearing the air of Bushian swagger and cowboy-like antics? Is this different from “With us or against us” or “Dead or Alive” in some way I don’t fully appreciate?

“This is a way of trying to cover over the fact that…”

Which is an artful way of saying “Lying through his teeth in order to get elected.”

“Likewise with increasing the size of the military. I don’t think he wants to increase the military in order to go around starting wars, but to make sure he doesn’t have to.”

May I submit that wanting to buy a bigger hammer is indicative that one already has a nail in mind?

Don’t get me wrong: barring any last-minute ugly revelations, Obama is almost certainly going to be our next President, and the total repudiation of the GOP this cycle is an unalloyed good in its own right. I just don’t think we should be under any illusions that this man is some sort of game changer.

As always, any Obama statement is carefully crafted so that the listener hears exactly what he wants to hear: to his supporters, it sounds tough but flexible, to his detractors, it sounds like witless posturing by a vacuous neophyte, to the merely indefferent, such as myself, it sounds…like a politician.

Brilliant, Adam … Larisonesque, even.

Yes, you’re right, it would include other high level targets, the presumption being a very limited list of Al Qaeda leaders. It would not, in my mind at least, include ordinary Taliban fighters.

I think you are right about Obama’s craftiness, but wrong in interpreting what side he is crafting his statement from. My reading of it is that Obama is actually quite hesitant to use force, but was using this opportunity to show that he’s not a total wuss, that there’s some circumstances in which he’d cross the line. This is a way of trying to cover over the fact that he’s actually much more of a peacenik about such things than he wants people to know, so he emphasizes exceptions to the rule like this. Likewise with increasing the size of the military. I don’t think he wants to increase the military in order to go around starting wars, but to make sure he doesn’t have to.

Unless, by sovereignty you mean pointing to an area you have no control over and saying I have sovereignty over that…

And I hardly think a politician running for office would consider something that gets him votes a blunder…

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20070536/

” If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

Although OBL would certainly top the list of high-value terrorist targets, it is not exclusive to him, and could certainly include Taliban fighters. As always, any Obama statement is carefully crafted so that the listener hears exactly what he wants to hear: to his supporters, it sounds tough but flexible, to his detractors, it sounds like witless posturing by a vacuous neophyte, to the merely indefferent, such as myself, it sounds…like a politician.

Cheers,

Adam.

“Change the mentality that got us into this war” my a**.