Ignoring the consequences of actions is one of the markers of American liberalism. A day after declaring that he would use force in Pakistan to root out terrorists, Senator Barack Obama categorically ruled out the possibility of using nuclear weapons to fight terrorism in the Near East. Pakistan, of course, is a nuclear power. Invading or bombing Pakistan, might have nuclear repurcussions. So, if President Obama invades Pakistan in search of bin Laden and his ilk, should Pakistan feel more comfortable or less comfortable about using nukes knowing that Obama has promised to refrain from using them under any circumstances?

Considering that he is just a scam act politician running for office, but not in power, I don't think Pakistan gives a flip.

The fact that that dictatorship is weak and has nukes AND is home to Osama and crew makes all this blubbering by the war machine over Iran (years away from any nukes) so completely ridiculous.

I think the focus of interest should be on the fact that Obama is correctly identifying who we are threatened by, islamic terrorists (Al Qaeda tops among them) and where they are, Pakistan. Not Iraq, not Iran, etc.

This guy's mis-statements and mistakes mean nothing to the true believers who are only paying attention to eloquent leftist speech and looking at a personal profile. For those really listening, he sounds like what he what is: an inexperienced underclassman and an empty suit.

Let's hope the true believers are a minor enough factor to have any affect on the balance of power.