This week Barack Obama, one of the eight Democratic presidential candidates this election cycle, warned Pakistan that he would use military force if necessary to root out terrorists in their region. The Illinois senator's statement against Pakistan comes after he pledged to meet with leaders of rogue nations who have been rebuffed by President Bush.
While Bush has embraced Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf as a valued ally in the war on terror, Obama said he would take a harder line, saying that Musharraf must do more to shut down terrorist operations along the Afghan border or risk a U.S. military attack against the foreign fighters and the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.
"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again," Obama said, "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 will not act, we will."
Obama's tough talk against Pakistan comes on the heels of last week's dispute with Hillary Rodham Clinton, his assumed main rival for the Democratic nomination, in which the New York senator accused him of being "irresponsible and naive" for saying he would meet with heads of states such as Cuba, North Korea, Syria and Iran without conditions.
Obama's new policy is designed to show that he would be a tough commander in chief when times demand it, even though he opposed the Iraq war and wants to open a dialogue with foreign foes. His foreign policy ideas stake ground opposite of current U.S. policy when many voters are dissatisfied with the country's direction in the world. The Illinois senator is determined to show he can give diplomacy a fresh start.
Thousands of Taliban fighters are based in Pakistan's jagged mountain region, where they can pass into Afghanistan, train for suicide operations and find refuge from local tribesmen. Intelligence experts warn that al-Qaeda could be rebuilding to mount another attack on the United States.
However attacks in the harsh region could prove especially difficult given the tension it would create for U.S. ally Musharraf. Such action could possibly destabilize the nuclear power.
Obama's speech opened him to new criticism from rivals for the presidential nomination. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said the United States should practice tough diplomacy with Musharraf, but "not to unnecessarily inflame the Muslim world."
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden was harsher, and said Obama showed inexperience in foreign policy.
"The way to deal with it is not to announce it, but to do it," the Delaware senator said.
Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd said he would make fighting terrorists a top priority if elected president, "but I will not declare my intentions for specific military action to the media in the context of a political campaign. It is dangerous and irresponsible to leave even the impression the United States would needlessly and publicly provoke a nuclear power."
Ironically the Clinton campaign did not comment on Obama's speech, seeing as one of its main goals was to link the current Bush policies to Clinton. Instead the current democratic frontrunner spent the week in a war of words with Vice President Cheney, who claimed Clinton's demands for information on whether there were any plans for troop withdrawal emboldened the enemy. Eventually a member of the Bush Administration wrote a letter of apology to the New York senator but not before the rest of the media picked up on it. Clinton should actually thank the vice president since it allowed her to refute Obama's claims that she was nothing more than "Bush-Cheney lite" without actually having to engage Obama, which helps elevate his standing as a legitimate rival.
Speaking of a legitimate rival, Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani accused Democrats of favoring a controlling "nanny government."
The former New York mayor opened a two-day campaign trip in New Hampshire, the first primary state. He also claimed that Democrats would raise taxes 20 percent to 30 percent. He offered no specifics to back up those figures.
"Democrats are kind of falling over each other seeing who can raise taxes faster," Giuliani said. "It looks like they're going to raise taxes anywhere between 20 to 30 percent. John Edwards just said he's going to raise the capital gains tax double that. Last time we did that, we lost 40 percent in revenue. The last time we did what John Edwards is discussing, the United States lost revenue by basically discouraging people from making investments."
Edwards has proposed raising capital gains taxes for the wealthy while creating tax breaks for the middle class. John Edwards' spokeswoman said Giuliani's assessment is flat wrong.
"I think voters get really confused when they hear Giuliani speak, since it's hard to tell the difference between the failed economic policies of George Bush and the failed economic policies supported by Rudy Giuliani," Kate Bedingfield said.
At a later appearance in Wolfeboro, Giuliani said the solution lies in lower taxes.
"We should solve this problem of taxes being too high by lowering taxes," he said, standing on the steps of an ice cream shop.
In the past, Giuliani called the Democrats the "party of losers" and singled out Edwards and Democratic Sen. Barack Obama for criticism on economics and foreign policy.
Giuliani argued that he favors less government and lower taxes.
"That's what makes America great, not this nanny government that Democrats want to give us, where government controls your entire life," he said. He made no mention of his support of the current government's controversial domestic wiretapping program or its tendency to trample over civil liberties. He also refused to answer charges that his version of less government wants to control thought and speech but would leave it to local government to help out when disaster strikes.
Giuliani leads in some national polls, but trails former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney by double figures in the most recent New Hampshire surveys.
Giuliani was supposed to outline his health care plan this week. Giuliani's goal is to give individuals more control over health care decisions and to encourage state officials to come up with innovative solutions.
Key to his plan is a $15,000 tax deduction for families to buy private health insurance, instead of getting insurance through employers. Any leftover funds could be rolled over year-to-year for medical expenses, under Giuliani's plan.
"That cash allows you to go out and buy cheaper and cheaper policies; you can have higher and higher deductibles," Giuliani said earlier this month in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
He compared private health plans to plasma TVs, saying the plans would come down in cost as demand grows. Of course that ignores the fact that an increase in demand has never caused a lowering of prices. His plan also ignores the fact that if people are given a $15,000 tax deduction there is no guarantee they would use it for health care. The only thing his program does is let businesses off the hook for making sure their workers have adequate health insurance.
Giuliani's plans don't hold up to scrutiny. Lowering taxes are not always the magic tonic, catch all answer that Giuliani would have you believe. Perhaps if the government had been a little bigger the country would have recovered from some of the disasters that have befallen us by now. As it stands the city of New Orleans still lies in ruin and there is still a giant crater in New York City where the towers used to be. In light of this country's crumbling infrastructure that must be repaired lest more disasters like last week's bridge collapse in Minnesota start, it seems that anyone who would intentionally cause less resources to be available during a disaster, especially in times of war, are themselves irresponsible and nave.