Invading Pakistan, getting Osama. Where does Hillary stand?

I am not understanding what the big debate is over the issue. We are pretty certain Osama is in Pakistan. We have two options:

1. We can continue doing what we are doing. (Which is as we can see not working.)
2. We can make it clear to the Pakistan government that they can either get Osama and give him to us or we will go in and get him.

Obama gets slammed because he stated what 90% of the American people, Republican AND Democrat would want our government to do. They want Osama caught, and if Pakistan isn't going to act then the only alternative is for us to do it. He said he would. Later that same day Hillary and Edwards couldn't say they'd do the same fast enough. Then Hillary turns around and attacks Obama over the issue saying a President shouldn't talk about things like that.

That is where I got confused. It seems to me that we're in a Presidential campaign. How can I vote for someone if I do not know where they stand on the issues? We've endured the most secret Presidency this country has ever seen. Hillary seems to want to maintain the status quo for that secrecy. Is that true or false? She said the same thing on nuclear weapons when Obama said they were off the table. Hillary said a President shouldn't take nuclear weapons off the table. What? I don't want to vote for a crazed crackpot who wants to push the big red button. Anyone who puts nukes on the table immediately comes right off mine.

I want to talk about the issues, not hear vague statements that could be interpreted to be BOTH for AND against something. That seems to be how she is doing it so far, saying that she is neither for nor against the use of nuclear weapons. Saying that she is neither for nor against going after Osama.

Which is it? I know where I stand. Obama made his stance clear. It aligns with mine. Can someone enlighten me on Hillary's stance? Is she planning to go after Osama? Is she planning to use nuclear weapons to strike our enemies or not? Is she going to continue keeping the people in the dark about issues either through refusing to talk about them (like Bush) or being ambiguous in her statements? After two Bush terms of secrecy I am sick of it. I want to know what the hell my government is up too and I am pretty sure most Americans feel the same.



EDIT: I changed the topic. I really want to know where Hillary stands on the issue. She isn't being clear.

That was BS. How can we be "pretty certain" he is in Pakistan now?

Don

The US had intel that they were there and where they were and the DOD and CIA wanted to strike. Bush refused to allow the strikes (shades of the crap the right gives Clinton hell about, don't ya think)?

Obama did not say he would strike as the only option, he said if Pakistan did nothing, he would do something.



We have a partnership agreement with Pakistan and they have promised actively eradicate the terrorists, they have not been holding up their end of the agreement, yet we continue to finance them, make trade deals with them and give them military equipment. We have never asked them to give up their nukes.

So Obama said he would have a proactive foreign policy which includes talking to the heads of states of the nations that most trouble us. I think it's time someone tries to address the troubles in the world. He sounds like he is willing to try.

.

I still believe Osama died in 2003 of kidney failure.

I mean, come on, the guy was turning chalky in '01.

That's why they called off the action in Tora Bora. Either he died of renal failure or we collapsed a cave on him.

There is almost no way he could have avoided a CIA/SEAL pincer.

We couldn't afford to have him dead so early in the game.

Just ask them the question: If you had Osama Bin Laden in your sights, in the mountains of Pakistan, and Musharraf refused to act, would you go after him?

What are they going to do, avoid the question? Say you won't answer hypothetical questions? Say "Yes, but I really shouldn't talk about it"? What this amounts to is giving Pakistan a veto on our national security.

I am not a hawk by any means, but I believe any President should always be willing to stand up and defend the American people. I am not blind to the fact that Musharraf has his own troubles, and therefore I think it is a perfectly responsible response to say if he can't act then we will. What is Musharraf going to say? Last time I checked he doesn't really want AQ in his country. He knows we are hunting them. He knows they are there. It isn't like we are going to sweep down in the dark of night without him knowing. We'd call him in advance and say, look Mushy, we can't wait any longer. We know they're in a meeting right now so we're crossing the border to get them. Once we've got them we'll inform you on how it turned out. Here have some more cash you corrupt bastard and be a good boy. Need protection? Here take this and higher some more bodyguards. Take these weapons too, they work really well.

We're basically Musharraf's sugar daddy. It's not like he can really tell us no, and even if he did what is he going to do to stop us? Sure, they have nukes... so what? Russia had nukes, too, and we stood up to them. While we may have nukes off the table, Israel sure as hell doesn't. If Pakistan used them you can bet both India and Israel would flatten the entire country. There wouldn't be a single person left alive.

We need a new diversion.

positions if you ask me. Why should we listen to people who supported and convinced the country that going into Iraq (a country that didn't attack us and wasn't a threat to us) was the right idea but going into the lawless region on the Pakistan border (too root out the organization that supposedly attacked us)is a bad idea. That sound like some Orwellian double speak to me. And why isn't media going bananas the over the Republicans candidates threat of Attacking Iran which could be just as dangerous for us.