An August 2 Los Angeles Times article reported Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) statement in an August 1 foreign policy speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars that "[i]f we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets [in Pakistan] and President Musharraf won't act, we will." The article went on to quote Stuart Rothenberg, publisher of the Rothenberg Political Report, saying of Obama's speech: “It's tough to criticize the Bush administration for unilateralism in Iraq, then say you'd be unilateral in Pakistan.” Rothenberg did not explain his apparent position that two entirely different situations -- Iraq was a sovereign country that was not involved in the 9-11 attacks, while a recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which Obama cited, indicated that Al Qaeda, which did attack the United States on 9-11, is gaining strength along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border -- call for the same policy. Indeed, in his speech, Obama made the difference clear, saying that President Bush “elevates al Qaeda in Iraq -- which didn't exist before our invasion -- and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training new recruits in Pakistan.”

From the August 2 Los Angeles Times article:

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said Wednesday that the United States should reserve the right to invade the territory of its Pakistani allies and withdraw U.S. financial aid if it believed Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was failing to do enough to stop terrorists.

“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will,” Obama said in an address at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars here. “I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America.”

[...]

But whereas Obama's 40-minute speech repositioned him on combating terrorists -- which voters now identify as their top concern -- it also opened him up to potential criticism from liberal Democrats who have provided much of his primary-season support.

“For progressive Democrats who want a more peaceful leadership in the world shown by our next president, [Obama's speech] fails the threshold of getting us out of picking fights in the Mideast, and discarding the Bush doctrine of preemptive attacks,” Jerome Armstrong, an influential liberal blogger, wrote shortly after the speech.

Stuart Rothenberg, publisher of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report, said that Obama had previously emphasized his opposition to the “unilateralism” of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. “It's tough to criticize the Bush administration for unilateralism in Iraq, then say you'd be unilateral in Pakistan,” he said. “I'm wondering if some people are going to jump on him.”

In his speech, however, Obama cited the recently released NIE in noting that the “threat to our homeland from al Qaeda is 'persistent and evolving,' ” adding: “Iraq is a training ground for terror, torn apart by civil war. Afghanistan is more violent than it has been since 2001. Al Qaeda has a sanctuary in Pakistan.” Obama went on to contrast Al Qaeda's current presence in Pakistan with Iraq, where Al Qaeda was not present prior to the U.S.-led invasion in 2003:

Just because the President misrepresents our enemies does not mean we do not have them. The terrorists are at war with us. The threat is from violent extremists who are a small minority of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, but the threat is real. They distort Islam. They kill man, woman and child; Christian and Hindu, Jew and Muslim. They seek to create a repressive caliphate. To defeat this enemy, we must understand who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for.

The President would have us believe that every bomb in Baghdad is part of al Qaeda's war against us, not an Iraqi civil war. He elevates al Qaeda in Iraq -- which didn't exist before our invasion -- and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training new recruits in Pakistan. He lumps together groups with very different goals: al Qaeda and Iran, Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents. He confuses our mission.

Moreover, while quoting Rothenberg on Obama's purported “unilateralism,” the Times failed to report that Obama repeatedly stressed the need to work with foreign governments and foreign armies in combating terrorism:

It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.

[...]

As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban. As we step up our commitment, our European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome restrictions that have hampered NATO's efforts. We must also put more of an Afghan face on security by improving the training and equipping of the Afghan Army and Police, and including Afghan soldiers in U.S. and NATO operations.

[...]

I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America. This requires a broader set of capabilities, as outlined in the Army and Marine Corps's new counter-insurgency manual. I will ensure that our military becomes more stealth, agile, and lethal in its ability to capture or kill terrorists. We need to recruit, train, and equip our armed forces to better target terrorists, and to help foreign militaries to do the same. This must include a program to bolster our ability to speak different languages, understand different cultures, and coordinate complex missions with our civilian agencies.

[...]

This cannot just be an American mission. Al Qaeda and its allies operate in nearly 100 countries. The United States cannot steal every secret, penetrate every cell, act on every tip, or track down every terrorist -- nor should we have to do this alone. This is not just about our security. It is about the common security of all the world.