This is the main reason Barack Obama cannot be president: Any Obama supporters have a response to dispute this

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080111/ap_on_re_as/pakistan pay specific attention to the first paragraph of the article. Barack Obama said he would invade Pakistan with or without the permission of president Musharraf. do you see what he would be responsible for?

Public Comments

1. Nice article. Now, where is the link for the crux of the matter; what Obama supposedly said?
2. And we werent considered invaders when we entered Afghanistan (which I agreed with) or Iraq?
3. He did not say he would invade Pakistan...he said if he had intel that Bin Ladin was in Pakistan, he would bomb Pakistan...since when do we care about invading Middle East Countries?...we invaded Iraq.
4. The main reason is because he has no substance. All he has are pep rally speeches but with mirage promises of change without any details as to how and what. That's why.
5. I'm all for it. What "permission" was given to go after OBL in Afghanistan? They were told to hand OBL over or suffer the consequences. The same applies to Musharraf.
6. If Obama makes it, we can kiss this country good-bye. With the Patriot Act at his side, his Muslim brothers will be dancing in the street. We will have turned over our power and money to someone who's agenda we will not know - until he sits in the oval office. By the way, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are both Obama supporters whether they state so publicly or not. Al Sharpton was with him when he announced his candidacy, but backed off when he knew this affiliation would bring Obama down. Look for Sharpton and Jackson to be prominent figures in the white house, if Obama gets in.
7. So you have a problem with Obama actually hunting down the person who caused 9/11
8. not even the main reason..but a good outline on how he views the sovereignty issues..
9. Hi, I'm not a Obama supporter as i don't believe he has any policies but that article does not even contain the words "Barack Obama". Can you please point out the relevance? the_end_of_the_cons: I don't think anyone has a problem with that, the thing that puts people off is causing more deaths then 9/11, creating another Iraq situation and breeding more terrorists.
10. I am assuming that you are referring to his statement made during the ABC debates. This is what he said - "OBAMA: I absolutely do stand by it, Charlie. What I said was that we should do everything in our power to push and cooperate with the Pakistani government in taking on Al Qaida, which is now based in northwest Pakistan. And what we know from our national intelligence estimates is that Al Qaida is stronger now than at any time since 2001. OBAMA: "And so, back in August, I said we should work with the Pakistani government, first of all to encourage democracy in Pakistan so you've got a legitimate government that we're working with, and secondly that we have to press them to do more to take on Al Qaida in their territory. What I said was, if they could not or would not do so, and we had actionable intelligence, then I would strike. And I should add that Lee Hamilton and Tom Keaton, the heads of the 9/11 Commission, a few months later wrote an editorial saying the exact same thing. I think it's indisputable that that should be our course. " http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4092530&page=1 Sounds like a damn good idea to me!