You will change your own perspective if you work at your local police station, FBI, or White House.

What police officers know and you don't know. What FBI agents know and you don't know. What Senators and US President know and you don't know.

HOW DARE ARE YOU by calling them a NATIVE?!?!?! FIRST you work as a [position here] and tell us what do you think of Obama's statement! You may have a vital point on favor or oppose Obama's statement.

For me, I favor Obama.
Hey Obama, GO FOR IT!!

Also anyone who thinks that pulling out of Iraq will do more harm then good obviously has already forgotten about the wholesale slaughter of the South Vietnamese people after we left. Of course the South Vietnamese were promised that we would come back and bomb the North if the ceasefire was broken but as usual we showed how dependable the US really is in the long run.

We failed the Cuba rebels, we failed the South Vietnamese, we failed the Kurds, we failed the Shiites in Souther Iraq, and those are just the best examples of our failure to back up words with action. And people wonder why nobody trusts us to do what we say we will. But I guess you wouldn't mind the death toll from our failures to continue piling up

STOP TAKING LESSONS FROM THE MEDIA AND THINK FOR YOURSELVES.. ALL WHO SAID THEY ARE NOT SUPPORTING OBAMA ANYMORE... PLEASE READ THE SPEECH IN ITS ENTIRETY. HE DID NOT SAY LETS INVADE PAKISTAN...IF YOU ARE A TRUE SUPPORTER...GIVE THE MAN A CHANCE BY READING WHAT HE SAID NOT WHAT THE NEWS TOLD YOU. BE MORE RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS PLEASE. AMERICAN'S FUTURE CALLS FOR YOU TO READ CAREFULLY

So many comments, so much confusion, so much lack of comprehension.

I guess the media got the response it wanted...it was their intention to spin the man's best intentions to their own agenda which involves favoring Clinton and the Washington establishment.

The speech that Obama gave was a very comprehensive plan that underscores the strategies that must be employed to successfully win the so called war on terror.

Eveyone who hasn't read the speech seems to follow the Tabloid like coverage of this story. Read BBC and you see the difference between journalism and American tabloid coverage.

Obama did not suggest invading Pakistan. One sentence says that if we had actionable intelligence, we would TARGET those who killed Americans. As a student of international politics, how does that provoke a war with Pakistan or damage Musharraf. Those regions are almost within Afghanistan that they remain unpatrolled by Pakistan. Taqrgetting those people by no means jeopardize Pakistani's president or Pakistan. I do recall Obama in that same speech alluding to giving Pakistan as much support that he can but if they fail to act. Then America would act. There was nothing about sending troops into Pakistan in that speech.

You people need to wake up and get serious about your research, comprehension and analytical skills...failure to do so would do you all a great disservice.

This speech underscores vital political and military strategies...no one is advocating war with Pakistan...That was the furthest thing from Obama's mind. Increased pressure, certainly....targetting those regions if Bin Laden surfaces... of course. I guess Americans would feel much comfortable if Bin Laden slep peacefully at night.

Stop thinking with your asses and start thinking with your objective minds if that is even possible, especially since you get your information from the bias American tabloids who pose as legitimate news agencies.

The tribal areas of Pakistan, some of the most rugged terrain in the world is home to several million people. The last time any army ever went into that part of the world was in the early 1900s when the British sent twenty thousand troops to quell a rebellion. Only one british soldier returned alive. Pakistan, for the first time in its history has stationed 90,000 troops in its tribal areas.

Sending american troops into Pakistan will achieve nothing but alienate the majority of moderate Pakistanis with the most likely consequence that Pakistan will withdraw its voluntary support for the US. How is that policy smart? Obama will get the US out of Iraq and land it into a much bigger mess in Pakistan.

Obama talked about witholding F-16s. Well, the f-16s had been witheld throughout the 90s with the effect that Pakistan collaborated with China and now both Pakistan and China make their own fighter planes.

Why hasn't Pakistan captured Bin Laden? Well, surely you can tell that the Pakistan army is no where near the US army in terms of budget and strength. Then why hasn't the US army been able to defeat al-qaeda in iraq? Is Obama willing to put 90,000 american troops into Pakistan to police the tribal areas? To Pakistans credit, it has captured more al-qaeda members than any other country in the world.

Pakistan gets very little assistance from the US. Sanctions will do nothing but spew anger and hatred against the US. Afghanistan has done better than Iraq primarily because of Pakistan. Please do not let Obama destroy that.

Joe Biden really hit the nail smack dab square on the head this go around and sunk it completely in only one very swift and light blow. I did read Barack Obama’s counterterrorism speech in its entirety, and honestly, I do not know were this guy is coming from? He speaks very loosely and doses say a lot; what kind of dialog dose he expects to receive, and how is he too seek out in obtaining all the funding for his five step plan? Wow!!! Did he write the entire speech all by him self? Listening to him speak, seem as he should take up acting or reserve a little more time in rehearsing his lines. Not saying Joe Biden is the best choice; But dose American want President Bill Jefferson Clinton as our first gentleman? So I believe our choices are clear and are slim too none at these junctures in the path; with respect too our democratically nominated candidates.

How dose an inexperienced senator; such as the likes as Obama; get some idiotic notion or impression that he will be elected for the highest office in our land? I do not know exactly how many times he wrote in his speech (when I am President and/or as President will do this); at least over a dozen times, and only with his ridiculous five (5) step plan. He is promising to save the world like he some kind of god or something; what is in his mind? Dose he think he is some damn dead pharaoh that has come back from the after life!

Well he had better get started right away, or his plan is already domed for failure weather he is elected too the Presidential office or not. Dose Barack Obama’s even process the true qualities and capabilities for even the thought of handling the most powerful office in our Nation? Or dose he believe American citizens are the most ignorant people on our plant? But then again maybe some/most are just increasingly; inherently stupid and dose not pay any attention to their own livelihood and wellbeing!

Because he will need a lot more than just one hundred (100) days from the start, just to fulfill his 5th step plan that needs to be implemented priority one, and cover all his bases in doing so. Obama is nothing but a fish bowl of democratically placed double talk rhetoric all over again. If he plans on double talking our Nation while asleep at the wheel; he had better start his plans right here in our home land first. I do believe the American masses are intelligent enough too recognize the difference between the sand and water by now, even if they may be increasingly; inherently stupid.

I have reached the point of no return when it comes to making a decision for 2008 Presidential candidacy involving Barack Obama to sit in a disgraced throne occupied by previous administrations in the oval office of our White House; that he cannot possibly be filled with some sense of morality and integrity. When I will no longer give a second though or even consider his candidacy and I suspect it is mostly because of his display of his own in-experience rather than his actual potential. In any case he would benefit from being his own man once again to follow through his law practice and stop pretending to act with resistance to fatigue. Rather than pandering to what his staff perceive as the best answers for his own audience and sounds like his words may be dictated by others. We already have someone on board liken to him sitting their now.

P.S. Just for the record; personal opinions expressed in this comment are those of the writer are constitutional rights.

Is Obama proposong that we alienate the government of Pakistan such that it withdraws 100,000 troops from its tribal areas? Is obama then willing to put that number of american troops and possibly much more in a nuclear state?

Pakistan: 165 million people, has 100 nukes and missiles to deliver them, 4rth largest army in the world, has an airforce with f16s, grows most of its own food, GNP is 450 billion US$ (US aid in comparison is a mere few hundred million $).....

so let me get it straight – obama wants us to get out of iraq and attack/ alienate Pakistan instead? Is that smart?

I'm still waiting for the Obama bashers to begin attacking Hillary Clinton for agreeing with Obama. She said the same thing Obama said, so c'mon people...let's have some equal bashing time for Hillary
Well....anyone?

Stop drinking that "Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson Everyone is Racist Kool-Aid" and think for yourself. It isn't the white people infatuated on whether or not Obama is "black enough". When people don't like Rice, Powell or a conservative black person it is A'Ok. When it is a liberal black person getting criticized for anything under the sun it is racism.

Anyhow get a clue, racism still exists. Racism is also not confined to any one race. As long as there are people out their screaming racisim everytime something happens it will always be a problem

"We have to have a much smarter relationship with Pakistan and the military of Pakistan to build credibility and support for their taking the actions that only they can take within their own country. But clearly we have to be prepared.... if we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured."

Ok people...please start bashing Hillary too...I guess she's "naive" as well.

Pakistan is not in a political position to seriously hunt down the terrorists, without risking a revolt similar to what happened in Iran 1979.

We need to just seize the iniative and deal with the consequences later. Pakistani's will protest but they won't be able to blame their government.

I question the Bush Administration's commitment to winning the war when we let the enemy regroup and thrive in so called "ally" territory.

I've read that speech in its entirety atleast three times...that Pakistani posture is a last resort. This comes after he outlines increasing aid, educational support and arming the Pakistani government with all it needs to take out terrorists. He says if Pakistan fails to act then we will. In that sentence alone he promises to give the Pakistani government a chance. In that speech he said nothing about invading, he said if there were actionable intelligence he would TARGET THOSE TERRORISTS. Is that something so wrong. To me that is hardly invading and so much more practising fundamental military common sense strategy. I guess we should ignore the threats and see what happens again. That seems to be the attitude all you nay sayers have.

The many other postures he outlines in this comprehensive FIVE POINT plan unfolds in a way that does not have to lead to targetting those terrorists in Pakistan (ONE POINT)if the other measures are followed. If often bothers me that we are able to react based on headlines which are spun enermously by the msm to carry out their own agenda.

Barack Obama carefully yet forcefully proposed a sophisticated and feasible plan. When one committs to attending an international islamic forum to redefine the American struggle against extremism. That is highly indicative of a man who gets the severity and complexities of this war on terror. While taking into account the military matters, he consistently noted the battle of ideas and perception. He called for setting up America Houses, Development Teams to work to create immediate impact on peoples lives while in conflict ridden areas. All of these key points have been forgotten. Instead we focus on what the media tells us to focus on.

READ PEOPLE READ AND NOT BE TAUGHT BY THE MEDIA AND SPIN MASTERS. That speech was a very common sense, multilateralist, internationalist speech. It was a perfect balance between common sense and common troubles.

Sheesh.

United States is a great nation so this land's forefathers. It needs great leaders with vision to bring world closer together not the divisive leaders who tear the world apart. I strongly believe that if we spend the same amount of money we spent on humans killings (in the name of war on terror and so on for subsequent arms race)to relieve the global warming, the world would be a great living place. We, as Americans, as leaders of the world, have far more greater goals to go for. We have to lead the world by example, by our moral example, not by fear and counter fear chain reaction. Lets not waste our energies into these things and let's not change the living heaven into burning hell!

Kamran.

Just to be clear, iraqs population by comaprison is a 40 million....

I was hoping to vote for Obama but now I have changed my mind.

1. Pakistan has nuclear weapons.
2. If Pakistan is destabilized, then Jihadists might gain control of those nukes.
3. What steps could be taken to ensure that intervention in Pakistan doesn't have an outcome similar to the campaign that Israel waged against Hezbollah last summer, or worse?

The tribal regions (terror havens) that we often read and talk about have always been autonomous (read independent) and they always will be. Niether the pakistani government nor the american government can do anything about it unfortunately. The only way to tame them is to kill them all or buy them...and prior to the US...the soviet union and the british have tried to control them with force with little success. Money is the only answer...give them something better to do than fight.

Finally one last thought...how many people around the middle east must die before 3000 american lives are avenged? I mean hello...since the war on terror began the number of people killed in all theatres of action has been 100s of times more than 3000. And all for what? Is the world really safer?

God help us all...ignorance will undo our beloved nation.
Do yourselves a favor and READ the speech...Jesus Christ!

I'm also appalled that CNN is misleading readers with the headline, and is not pointing out that Hillary has the exact same position as Obama when it comes to striking at Al Qaeda within Pakistan's borders....CNN is in the tank for Hillary.

Pathetic.

Meeting with any foreign leader under any circumstances is not something the President of the United States for both international and national political reasons. We have issues with some of these countries and they do need resolutions. We should not be willing to let our issue with Cuba remain where it is for the next ten years. The Cuban people are not our enemies and the hard feelings between our government and their government need to die before Catro dies. But the next American President does not need to get on a plane to Havanna right after his inaguration.

Attack Pakistan? I know you want to look tough, but brother (and I mean that as a fellow American, a Christian and a black man) you were way better off looking smart.

We've elected a tough, if not so smart President. Now, we (the American people) are looking for a smart President. We think you are pretty smart, but, I didn't need any news analyst to tell me that Hilliary gave the smarter answer in the debate.

When you start getting bombed for this tough stance on Pakistan, look around the room and ask your people who came up with this idea: "Did you used to work for Bush 43?" That will give you two reasons to fire them for coming up with this tough stance. 1. If they answer yes, then they weren't smart or loyal enough to work for Bush. 2. If they answer no, then they don't have the strength of mind to recognize that Pakistan is a country which could very easily lead the world into nuclear war, not because they have anything against us, but because if the wrong guy were to replace a Musharif destablized by aggressive US actions in western Pakistan, there might be a big problem in eastern Pakistan along the disputed border with India and so you fire them for not considering that.

After all, isn't the problem with the Bush administration that they didn't consider all of the possible consequences of their actions.