Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

From the Post Politics Hour

Every weekday, members of the Washington Post political team take your questions on politics. Here's a highlight from today's chat with Anne E. Kornblut:

Alexandria, Va.: How politically sensitive do you think Obama's recent comments about an invasion of Pakistan will make him? It seems that this could open up criticisms on both sides and have consequences during a larger campaign should he get the bid for president. Were his comments of any consequence, or more "I'm different and new" rhetoric? Obama Attacks Pakistan; Pakistan Retaliates (Post, Aug. 3)

Anne E. Kornblut: It seems to me that this is an open question -- and a really good one. Obama's remarks over the last week, first about rogue foreign leaders, then his speech on Pakistan, followed by the comments on nuclear weapons tomorrow, have all really given us a clearer picture of how he would act and what his world view would be as president. And his opponents are all over him -- a sure sign that they think at least some of what he has said has made him vulnerable.

By Post Editor  |  August 3, 2007; 11:37 AM ET
Categories:  B_Blog , Trail Chat  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Club For Growth
Slams Huckabee

Next: Nine Days That Will Shape the Race



you cannot expect cooperation from a country that you are threatening. Obama is trying to sound tough in an election campaign, in doing so he is damaging the relationship between Pakistan and the USA. I think that is irresponsible and immature.

Posted by: jaduboy | August 3, 2007 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Seems to me like people who jump on that one particular comment and portray the Senator as endorsing an 'invasion' of Pakistan actually haven't read or viewed the whole speech. The Senator endorses a policy of going after terrorists if we have clear intelligence, and the Pakistanis refuse to act - in other words, the same policy that's been in place for a decade, or more. The Senator clearly stated he would work with Pakistan in pursuing terrorism in Waziristan - the point of facilitating their acquisition of additional F-16 fighters. Yet critics want to claim he's endorsing an 'invasion' of Pakistan - which is clearly an inaccurate portrayal of his remarks.

Posted by: bsimon | August 3, 2007 11:57 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company