>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Charles Krauthammer is a man among boys, when it comes to clarity, understanding and the ability to cut to the heart of the matter. Read his take on the election:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/23/AR2008102302867_pf.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>He usually makes more sense than this. This is just a roundup of all the McCain campaign's bogus claims about their candidate and his opponent, or should I say his opponent's acquaintances. And McCain as the seasoned, steady, wise foreign policy expert! -- oh, boy. The guy is a world war waiting to happen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Could you be more specific as to what 'bogus claims' you cite?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>And whose fault is that ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>How is 'A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation' a 'bogus-claim?'
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Its not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>But if you are supporting the republicans you have to acknowledge that they have done a lot to destablilise Pakistan and make the world a much more dangerous place.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I was questioning Mike's statement that the article was a bogus claim on 'A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation' not about who was responsible, who shared responsibility, or to point blame. As to party responsibility (I don't doubt that although it is more an administration responsibility, not a party responsibility), let's not forget the Congress is controlled by the Democrats, not the Republicans. There is plenty of blame to go around and everyone in the House, Senate, and the administration shares it. That involves all parties.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Also, who is supporting the Republicans? Certainly not me. I am not Republican. There is far too much 'party blame' around here and it gets tiring. I see it constantly - the Dems blaming the Repubs and vice versa. Whenever I see it, I tend to play the devils advocate. Don't be confused into thinking those are my beliefs. I just like a good discussion on an even playing field. The parties did not do any of this. People in those parties did by acting or not acting when necessary. Sometimes they did it for political purpose. All parties are far far too guilty of that and does nothing but damage.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Mike made the 'bogus claim' statement and still hasn't responded himself what he saw as a 'bogus claim' or did I miss it? It's very likely I did.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Pakistan's ISI became the mother of the Taliban on Clinton's watch (though not because of Clinton) Policy toward Pakistan since 9/11 has been a lot of making a less-than-best out of a bad situation. But I'm not sure there is any 'blame' for Pakistan other than whoever didn't send in people to kill key members of Pakistan's nuke program back when a group within CIA said they thought it would be a good idea.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If Pakistan did not have nukes there would be some much simply policy choices. When Obama's administration allows Iran to get nukes, we'll see just how complex it can become.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Please pass on my apologies to Tracy for not replying quickly enough on a Saturday ;-( --- I was refereeing soccer, going to an AA meeting, and doing stuff with my daughters. Sorry!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I agree with you that Pakistan is the world's most dangerous nation, with Afghanistan a close second. Islamic terrorists with their hands on launch codes is our worst nightmare. Also Israel's. Where I don't agree with you is Obama standing by idly. Where did you get that impression? He said he would talk to unfriendly nations, he didn't say he would appease them.
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't believe there is any chance Obama is willing to take the action that will be necessary to stop the Iranian nuclear program. (though I do think there is a chance that he might covertly encourage the Israelis to do so, and keep his own fingerprints off of it.)
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't think he'll stand idly by, I just think his efforts will be well-meaning and ultimately futile. I hope I'm wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>If he does what will be necessary in foreign policy his harshest opposition will come from the left.
>>>>
>>>>Let me make sure I've got this straight. You want us to invade another Middle Eastern nation that poses no threat to us?
>>>
>>>Did I miss something? I don't see those words written by Charles or insinuated either... I must be sleepy this morning...
>>
>>Boldfacing added in Charles's message. Sure doesn't sound like he is suggesting diplomacy.
>
>It's not suggesting invasion either.

I think that's exactly what he was suggesting, Maybe not with a large ground force, but at the very least bombing them. Hopefully Charles will clarify what he meant.