CNN

I happen to love and admire Romney's plan for America. And just because he's not dumb enough to grace dictators with a presidential visit, it doesn't mean that he plans to "ignore them." He plans on visiting and strengthening relationships with our ALLIES first, which I happen to think is very wise. As for being a "flip-flopper," it's being WAY overplayed. As Gov. of Mass., he promised not to touch the laws already in place concerning gay marriage and abortion, even though he personally felt it was wrong. Sort of an "I won't endorse it, but I won't attack what you've already created" approach for the sake of making progress in other areas (like eliminating Mass.'s budget deficit and enabling EVERYONE to get affordable health insurance.) He was clear about it all from the very beginning. Anyway, he's a great man with a great vision of what America needs. I know I'm in a room full of Democrats, but I had to get it out there.

"Its nothing but arogance when you talk about attacking Pakistan. What do you know about Pakistan. If there are some bad people in Pakistan that means you attack Pakistan?? how ideotic that is. Would you attack USA because there are bad people here too–Ideotic
When are we going to learn from Bush’s mistakes and not attack other countries and create more hate and enemies. Dont we have enough of those."

To memon

Are you being serious? If a country is harboring the same organized that killed over 3000 innocent people on US soil, and will probably not hesitate to do the same thing, or even worse, should we just let them be and give them more time to plot up an even more deadly attack on us?

The idea that we could somehow use nukes to passify terrorists is laughable at best, criminal at worst. Nuclear deterence works against massive infastructures that can be destroyed. A terrorist with some dynamite, nails and a laptop can be over a border in minutes, why is he going to care who you nuke? By talking about it, or worse by doing it, you're serving the terrorist's desire to spread havok and yes, terror.

That's why Barrack Obama was saying that he would not use nukes against terrorist targets in Pakistan or elsewhere. That would be the preverbial using a bazooka on a cockroach. Obama doesn't deserve to be attacked for his statement. He was, as he has consistantly been, the only candidate to actually speak common sense instead of blind propaganda.

Barrack Obama is blunt, he makes sense, and because he's not using politik speak 24/7 other candidates think they can attack him for his words. What they have failed to yet is the power of such common sense statements and how they reflect my own and hopefully many others beliefs.

They're trying to swift boat him by twisting his words but it won't work because the man knows how to stand up for himself.

Obama was absolutely right about what he said both concerning Pakistan and also at the YouTube debate about when to talk to world leaders. Look at what he said in context. Of course you have to do groundwork before you meet with any leader good or bad. He wasn’t speaking of blindly “having them over for tea.” He was saying the time for blustering and non-communication is past, which is exactly what Hilary has said in the past. He simply said it more effectively and much more bluntly.

She and other critics are just pandering and trying to pick a fight because they know he's gaining. To his credit, Obama hasn’t lay down on this issue, he’s been swinging full force back at Clinton, proving that he’s got the mettle that Kerry lacked.

Kerry would have let himself get tagged a whimp, but Obama, no way is that dude a wimp. Look at him, he’s fierce, he’s determined, and the more the country knows about him, the more he’s going to be unstoppable.

Clinton is resting on her laurels, plain and simple. She is content with the status quo and frankly that scares me silly. We need a president in office that can undo the mass damage that has been done by Bush. Clinton would be "okay." She would not inspire, she would lead those who like her but she would not lead the nation, which includes both friend and foe.

I rejoice at Obama because I feel like he could bring the fractured nation and the fractured world together in some very important ways.

Its nothing but arogance when you talk about attacking Pakistan. What do you know about Pakistan. If there are some bad people in Pakistan that means you attack Pakistan?? how ideotic that is. Would you attack USA because there are bad people here too–Ideotic
When are we going to learn from Bush's mistakes and not attack other countries and create more hate and enemies. Dont we have enough of those.

Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney claimed during an August 5 debate aired on ABC's This Week that Sen. Barack Obama "went from going to sit down to tea with our enemies, but then he's going to bomb our allies. I mean, he's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week."
His reference to Dr. Strangelove was an attack on Obama apparently for saying during an August 1 speech that "if we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets" in Pakistan, "and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
In fact, in the course of the very same debate, Romney and Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani both acknowledged that they agree that a president should retain the option of attacking terrorists within the territory of an ally.

Obama is not naive for having a policy of striking Al Qaeda interests inside Pakistan, given reliable intelegent information, with or without Pakistan consent. This mindset has been echoed by George Bush.

Obama is naive thinking the U.S. news media would not reduce the concept to a single sound byte, making his comments misleading. Obama shows his inexperience by addressing the American voter, who has an attention span of 14 seconds, as someone who can comprehend the difference between taking action on an enemy and attacking an allied government. This is where Obama is lacking. He is not prepared for the realities of having his words misquoted and spun in every direction. Obama would do well to remember most voters are not going to read past the headlines.

Mitt, on the other hand, is not naive at all. Romney is simply an idiot. He made a comment during one of the GOP debates regarding Al Qaeda and terrorists say, "they've come together as Shia and Sunni and Hezbollah and Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda." Obviously Mitt has no clue what he's talking about. Shia and Sunni are elements within the Islamic religion, not unlike Babtists and Methodists are elements in the Christian religion. Shia and Sunnis date all the way back to the early times of Islam.

Mitt is the last person that should be point out someone elses mistakes.

Does this man have any relationship with the truth? Can't he recall week-old quotes with a modicum of accuracy? Must he resort to such cheap tactics like this and posing with the "No Osama . . ." sign like he did last week.

Obama would still be an unknown except that an Illinois republican senator, Fitzgerald, retired. Obama had not served 2 years when the media went orgasmic over him out of desperation. I'm from illinois and will NOT vote for him.

Anyone who thinks General Musharraf and Pakistan is our ally is the naive one. Pakistan gives the appearance of being an ally because the US Government told them they would be bombed back to the Stone Age if they did not agree with us.

But if we look back in history, General Musharraf overthrew a democratically elected Prime Minister. Now we back him. The US only made a token comment about democracy when the coup took place and it was not to restore the PM. Now some eight years later, Musharraf is going to be voted out of office and I would bet my next pay check (I only get paid once a month) that Pakistan will stop giving the appearance of being our ally once that takes place.

First off, the US is not the world’s big brother and we should stop trying to be. But since the politicians are not going to listen to that sound advice, we should lead by example and not by force. Obama is actually saying the right thing in wanting to sit down with other countries we do not agree with. Besides, Cuba is the way it is because of the United States, not because of Castro. Venezuela does not like us because we try to take advantage of poor countries. Iran does not care for us because we back Israel and we are making a mess of the Middle East. Our standing in the world arena is our own fault. Obama simply said he would sit down to try to fix that. What’s naive about that?

I think we should look at the bigger problem in that why is it that these people/groups don’t like the US? It is not because we deliver love around the world or spread democracy. There is something we are doing to them to give them the impression that they have to defend themselves by any means necessary. It is much deeper than they not agreeing with our foreign policy. Get to the root, fix the problem.

Obama should shut his big mouth before he has to eat his words. Why would anyone vote for just a head strong person. we sure don't need another war lord in Washington for another 4 yrs. His actions puts you in mind of a spoiled child trying to impress somebody. He leaves a lot to be desired

Watch frontline- there are tribal areas of Waziristan in Pakistan on the border of Afghanistan where the Pakistani government won't venture and taliban are regrouping. These tribes are as much and enemy to Musharraf as us. They are drawing a lot of support from Iraq because we are occupying that nation and destroyed it in the process. Borack is absolutely correct. Conservatives are once again proven totally incompetant.

Barack...you have my vote, I will never vote Republican again! The country is completely hosed thanks to GB.

right on. Obama would be a disaster given his recent comments. i would meet with our enemies chavez and ahbmedinedjad, but I would bomb our arguably most important ally in the war on terror. is he nuts? clearly he is simply playing politics and not thinking about what he is saying.

as to lens' simplistic post saying romney would allow pakistan to harbour terrorists, you are obviously misinformed. Pakistan just send thousands of troops to fight al quaeda and is doing what they can. if you bomb them, musharaff gets the boot and etremists take over which would force us to basically go to war with them as well or just let the radicals allow al queada to grow unfettered. you have to weigh and balance the options. you obviously have not thought through any of those.

romney realizes that words have consequences as as a presidential candidate you don't go around throwing out hypothetical comments like that. romney is more smart and tactical than obama ever will be. what has obama done that would need such tactical and executive whit? oh, wait he was a member of the state legislature, wow...... they work like a month out of the year right? Definetly experienced to run the largest corporation in the world, the United States.

"Quite simply…

Romney should learn to read and comprehend… Obama did not say he would sit down with tea… he answered a question about willingness to meet with people America imports most of its oil from… and did not say he would bomb pakistan. He said he would take out targets in those non governed areas if the pakistani government chooses not to… Both of those positions are critical and pragmatic if one wants to results in American foreign policy.

Romney should go read a book and take some comprehension lessons."

You need to learn the concept of an analogy for humor sake...

ROMNEY- WHERE EXACTLY DID OBAMA SAY HE WAS GOING TO BOMB THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN(OUR ALLY)? HE NEVER DID!

MAYBE YOU SHOULD GET YOUR POLICE POSING POSSE

http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070721/NEWS/707210336

TO GET YOU THE RIGHT INFORMATION BEFORE YOU SPIN OTHER'S WORDS.

WHERE ARE THE SO CALLED MORALS THAT THE GOP HAS ALWAYS CLAIMED TO POSSESS?

Can anyone take Romney serious, this inconsistent political idiot. Someone who has changed positions on many serious issues even to the extent of going against his religious doctrine when it came to the abortion, when running for Gov, suddenly became pro-life as a republican contender. He even is not well acquainted with the facts when he said in the first Republican debate that pres. Bush was right to invade Iraq because Saddam had refused to let the UN inspectors. I was supprised that nobody in the media corrected him on this one. Gov Romney needs to read the facts correctly before vying for office. This nation deserves better than this, thank u.

George W. Bush himself said he would invade Pakistan if actionable intelligience warranted it. I do not see the difference between what Bush said and what Barack Obama said. By the way, I am an undecided independant voter.

I beg your pardon but Senator Obama DID NOT say he would speak to possible enemy leaders without pre-condition.
I watched the debate and I have read the transcripts. A retraction of false reporting is in order.
I have no idea what agenda is being perpetuated but whatever it is it is based on a manipulation of the truth.

My only goal is to understand what the hell happened to us after a few generations. You guys and gals are all brainwashed to pick from a pre determined line up of "front" runner candidates.

None of them have anything brilliant other than the same philosophy. You all need to quit being influenced by TV and think about truth and whats right. You are going to send us straight to hell arguing about "1st" runner candidates. You all are already forcing many of us to move our business and families to other countries. Unless you Americans can reverse your trends, you WILL live in poverty as the INFORMED ones will be gone with their money and jobs.

It just so happens I totally agree with Obama's comments. He hasn't committed to anything he is just putting options out on the table. As a republican I am totally fed up with my partys personal agendas and its refreshing to see someone else willing to start with new ideas. Whatever you say about Obama the man is clearly intelligent and when he makes a decision its going to be well researched and he is going to make the decision he feels is best. Even if we don't agree with it this is a big improvement over our current president.

Jamie Crawford indulges in a brazen display of bias as she waters down Obama's comments to make them more palatable to readers, at the cost of her integrity. CNN scores again on the dark side of the journalistic ledger.

barack looks like the president from 24, so ill probably end up voting for him

With all the stupid things that are coming out of Obama's mouth as of late, all I can say is "Thank you Oprah Winfrey for inflicting us with this idiot." This man would not have probably not had his popularity boosted to the level it is with out the help of Oprah's easily led and equally naive, dough-headded fan base. I suspect Obama is also getting his policy advice from Oprah. Think about it - to the thugish dictators of the world, "Can't we just talk?" Where do you think such naivete came frome? Smooth-talking Obama is proving to be a con just like "A million little pieces" and "The Secret," two recent Oprah favorites.

People fear what they don't understand, hate what they can't conquer I guess it's the theory of man. Senator Obama has a certain presence about himself that other canidates lack. He has the ability to bring this country together. I'm not saying that his policies are perfect but I will say this meeting with dictators to discuss relevant issues doesn't make him naive; it actually shows his intelligence.

Romney has the best line of the campaign so far...I hope his religiosity does not knock him from the race. I am independent but I find this guy very appealing. After what we have been putting up with for so many years now, it feels good to see someone with matter-of-fact intelligence rather than concocted intelligence...or, as is most often the case...NO intelligence whatsoever.

So I guess we, the readers and voters, really do just here a comment or two about a position and take it at face value. The way I see it is Barack Obama has taken a very agressive foreign policy strategy with both substance and the change we need. All the democrats that have been calling him naive and inexperienced are kicking themselves because they didn't say it first or are scared to say something meaningful. I would really like to hear Clinton, Dodd or Edwards talk about what they would do about a country that either can't handle or won't handle the formally government funded Taliban and al Qaeda. Romney is just trying to get a sound bite from the whole thing. I don't remember Obama ever saying he would "invade" Pakistan, but he did say he would act on "actionable intelligence". That doesn't mean going to war with Pakistan, but it does mean attacking the terrorist that Pakistan is failing to rid itself from. You can very easily use guided munitions or missles to get the job done. Like I said, he has a very sgressive foreign policy, which is something this country and the world needs after the past few years.

Can Romney say what his plan for fighting terror would be? Serenading Pakistan for harbouring terror groups doesn't sound like a great option.

Ronald Reagan sat down with Mikhail Gorbachev. Richard Nixon opened the door to China. Franklin Roosevelt allied with Stalin.

Romney should look in the mirror if he is concerned about conflicting points of view.

Obama's comment re Pakistan:

"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007216&docId=l:649638907&start=5

Obama's comments re meeting with enemy leaders:

"Question: Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

Obama: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them - which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous. ... And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We've been talking about Iraq - one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses."

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/07/obama-vs-clinto.html

If you're going to criticize the criticism, at least acknowledge what Obama said.

It's sad to say, but he makes Dubya circa 1999 seem experienced.

I laughed. Hard... and I don't like Romney.

Hearty congratulations to Senator Obama for becoming the leading candidate for Republican Party's nomination for president in 2008. Losers only take shots at the man in front.

At first I saw Obama in a very positive light. However, in the last month he's become his own worst enemy.

He's all over the map. Him an Romney are looking alot alike. Two Candidates who either can't decide which side of the issues they are on or forget which side they are on.

Just goes to show how inside the box people like Romney are. Everyone jumps on Obama for having an original idea. What a joke.

I have to admit, while I'm a strong Obama supporter, his ideas for unilateral action in Pakistan aren't my favorite. Pakistan is barely holding back the militants as it is, we don't need to reduce Musharraf's credibility in the eyes of his people any more than it already has been. Pakistan needs to remain an "equal" partner and it seems to me that taking action without their permission would violate their trust.

But we're talking about hypothetical actions that are years away. If and when Barack becomes president, the world could be a very different place, so I'm not sure how relevant this all is. As far as his other "controversial" statements go, I think they've been a breath of fresh air that represent a sensible, ethical philosophy rather than an indication of a lack of experience.

I agree with Mitt Romney, Barak Hussein Obama is just making a fool of himself. Talk with the enemies and bomb the allies? Is that Obama's notion or understanding of diplomacy?
He's gone from dumb to dumber.

Most of the comments on here prove that Americans do not read. The people that have jumped Obama's ship are prime examples. Idiots!

We see politicians and the media trying to misconstrue Obama's words to 1) Sell a story in a rather dull "talking head" prez race, 2)Trying to play up on Obama's inexperience to raise their leadership platforms....ALL BS....we have someone for a chance offering up very real progresive politics and all th other pols are trying to all you "in the pocket" voters....these are different times and we need to also think differently....it's up to us as a nation to call this BS on the pols and truly take this country into the next century.....

Giuliani spoke about Hope, Romney spoke about projecting our values, they all agreed that high value terrorist targets in pakistan should be taken out if it means we go it alone. Is it just me or are the republican candidates sounding like Obama each time. The funny thing is that they criticize him for talking about these bold positions but agree with him in the policy aspect. Obama is definately changing the debate in american politics.

Mitt Romney either has a problem with perception or hopes that he can create such a problem for his audience. Obama said that it is time to talk directly to those we have demonized as "the enemy." Mitt's "sitting down . . . tea" is an attempt to make a show of strength into a sign of weakness. Then, he characterizes Obama's willingness to attack al Qaeda in Pakistan as they prepare their assault upon Afghanistan as "bombing our allies." We would expect Pakistan, our allie, to help us in this venture. If Mitt does not recognize leadership when he sees it, Republicans would do well to support a more forthright candidate to oppose Barack in the general election.

Obama's problem is that he isn't being realisitic about how the news media reduces everything to sound bites. One sentence taken out of context will always be used to define him. Obama hasn't learned that he will never be quoted in context. It is naive of him to not make every sentence "context proof". You do that by avoiding the issues, not facing them honestly and head on. How can you discuss an issue in 30 sec or less? That is what the debates are about. Not much of a way to communicate.

Anyone who says something negative about a candidate without getting the whole story is not part of the solution. Very few of us take the time to get the whole story.

Obama does not have what it takes to lead our nation. He is too politically immature to even begin to handle the presidency. Best he could do would be the vice-prez and learn for a while before leading this country. It’s just not his time, yet.

Posted By Donna Ezelll-Grubbs : August 5, 2007 1:50 pm

Well Donna, I guess the experience ones are the likes of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Rummy and Condi right? We better wake up from our sober in this country or else it would be too late. Experience does not come with age or how long you have been in Washington or how long you've supported a failed policy...I will vote for sound judgment over the so-called experience of Cheney, Hillary, Rumfeld, Condi etc. Americans should wise-up NOW. Barack has shown good judgment and in my opinion, he is fit to lead.

Maxwell......well said! The biggest problem we have had that led us to Bush/Cheney/Rove, besides the 'left leaning media' not doing their job, is an uninformed ignorant electorate.

Romney reminds me of a used car sales person. Talk a good game, but it's all pack of lies. Is this idiot serious.

Why are politicians constantly insulting our intelligence. Obama never said he was going to invade or bomb Pakistan, yet these bastards continue to repeat that nonsense.

Romney whose position on issues changes as the New England weather, this guy is an idiot

Wow, what's going on with these candidates, especially Romney these days? Unreal!

For the full text and video of Barack's speech, see link.

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php

Obama is a true leader!

"Flip" thinks he's being funny, but he is just confirming the fact that he is apparently unable to remember recent facts (last week...2 years ago...whatever) and has no hesitancy in distorting the truth

The sad thing is that majority of the American electorate doesn't read so the politicians can twist and spin others' statements and ideas without being held accountable for the spin. America, the richest country with political illiterates! How sad!

Mitt Romney criticizing someone for being inconsistent with their comments.,.....absolutely hilarious!!!

Well I guess we are now seeing the republicans tipping their hand. Obama is the man to beat before the national election. These pitiful attacks are so transparent. The win for obama is that he and his well thought out and honest policy and charisma will get more play in the national media. Poor HC will fade as Obama frames the national debate. Barak Obama has the courage
to take a stand on the issues. A new wind is a blowing across this nation!
The world looks on with anticipation.

Some of you need to go and actually read Obama's speech from last week. At not point in time does he mention invading Pakistan. He's talking about expanding the present military action in Afghanistan to include the mountainous Afghani-Pakistani border and beyond it, if the intelligence shows such a move would be neccessary.

withdraw troops from Iraq, where the civil war taking place is killing our soldiers and expanding the action that pursues those who were responsible for September 11th. Doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

And I simply don't understand why it's a weakness for a presidential candidate to say he's got no plans to nuke anyone. I think that would be smart –there's no way we can try to cut down on nuclear proliferation if we're going to be willing to use them again.

I wonder when Hillary's going to start talking about what she wants to do with regards to the war on terror, as opposed to simply criticizing other people's proposed actions.

Romney's ridiculous and not even worth addressing. With his numerous policy changes, he makes John Kerry look like a man of steadfast conviction.

Mitt Romney appears to be an idiot.

Barack Obama's recent comments HAVE shown that he is naive. I have actually switched my support to Hillary Clinton in light of his recent comments.

He should keep his mouth shut more often. He is not going to beat Hillary on the "experience" card. I can imagine the field day the republican nominee will have with Obama sound bites.

WOW and this is coming from Romney, a guy who's had soo many flip flops he even lost count himself. I can't believe any serious republican voter is considering to vote for this guy. He's the Hillary Clinton clone of the republican party. He'll say or be anything to get elected. He used to be pro-choice, supported amnesty for immigrants but is now opposed, was a hunter for a day. It's funny how he agrees with Obama's position but is appalled that he said it aloud.

I mean in one week he (Obama)went from saying he’s going to sit down, you know, for tea, with our enemies, but then he’s going to bomb our allies. I mean he’s gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week.”

" A negative judgment gives you more satisfaction than praise, provided it smacks of jealousy" . Go Barrack.

Romney is a comedian. This same Romney who during the last GOP debate said that the reason we invaded Iraq was because Saddam refused to let the UN inspectors in? He really needs to get a grasp of the facts before opening his mouth.

I do note that Obama's saying some strange things lately that show his inexperience. I say Obama in 2012 or 2016.

O8AMA is finally speaking up for the average American Citizen, finally a voice for the people, and are we to believe that any of the GOP candidates for President would give O8AMA praise for anything he says, get real, they all like taking shots but none of them including Hillary (Sorry), has said yet what they plan on doing with Healthcare, Eduation, or any of the things that matter to the American People, just more pandering and trying to see who can scare us the most for their vote, O8AMA is about hope, as well as protecting and uniting all of us as a country, the rest are more of the same.

Anyone that is elected will pull us out of Iraq regardless of party affiliation.The experience factor will play a dominate role in who gets the bid. These are some very perilous times for the U.S. The grown ups will have to take charge.

Obama does not have what it takes to lead our nation. He is too politically immature to even begin to handle the presidency. Best he could do would be the vice-prez and learn for a while before leading this country. It's just not his time, yet.

Let me get this straight. BO would pull us out of Iraq where we are currently fighting Al Qeada insurgents and than invade a nuclear power who is actually providing assistance to fighting insurgents. Sounds like a plan. Can anyone say "foot-in-mouth".

I think barack is showing the leadership that this country needs. Romney is breaking the record is flip-flopping. Hope the republicans can nominate this idiot....it would be a cake walk to 08 for the dems. GO BARACK

Quite simply...

Romney should learn to read and comprehend... Obama did not say he would sit down with tea... he answered a question about willingness to meet with people America imports most of its oil from... and did not say he would bomb pakistan. He said he would take out targets in those non governed areas if the pakistani government chooses not to... Both of those positions are critical and pragmatic if one wants to results in American foreign policy.

Romney should go read a book and take some comprehension lessons.

I heard Senator Obama say he would be willing to meet with "rouge" countries, but I did not hear him say he would do it without pre-conditions. I heard other candidates take his statement and try to convince us that's what he meant. Of course envoy groundwork would have to be done and I think he knows that.

Instead of assuming all Americans are ignorant and can't distinguish facts from political attacks, this would be a good opportunity for his critics to respond by showing us how they would use their "experience" in dealing with "rogue" countries. At least Senator Obama gave us a direct statement as to what he plans to do. If he feels his "experienced" critics are offering any useful information, he's in a position now where he can make changes.

I don't understand what Romney is laughing about. He would allow Pakistan to protect Al Qaeda in their country? What are Republican voters going to think about that? Romney certainly has a credibility problem. I thought it was a war on terror?

So if all the Republicans want to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq but not in Pakistan, what does that mean for the war on terror? They are sounding soft on terrorism to me. Perhaps Republican voters will rally behind Obama. Obama is just making a common sense statement, fight the terrorists in their stronghold, and the GOP candidates don't know what to do with it. And Romney seems the softest of them all. So he won't talk to enemy states to try to find a non-military way out of conflict, but he won't get tough with friendly ones if they are hurting us? I think Romney has it all wrong. Obama seems like the only candidate that is playing it straight. Everyone else, repub or dem, is doing the political two-step, talking out of both sides of their mouth.