I can't believe you think this is a good speech. Threatening military action against Pakistan is a good idea? Giving ultimatums to foreign leaders--that's good diplomacy? He says he wants to take troops away from Iraq and put "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Maybe, after Iraq and Afghanistan, we should be just a wee bit more careful before threatening and using military action? This country is in some deep shit if a "progressive" candidate can publicly threaten military action that the proposed target of that action--an ally, a sovereign ally--says is a violation of international law, and a "progressive" like Ezra Klein says Gggggggreat!

I feel a lot worse about the state of the country that I did yesterday.

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.

Engaging the world to dry up support for terrorism is hard to do if the President is willing to throw around careless talk of shifting "the battleground" to Pakistan.

So Bruce and David, in a debate preceding the general election if Obama was asked "As President if you received strong intelligence confirming Osama Bin Laden's location in Pakistan, would you authorize military action to capture or kill him?" your preferred response would be "No, I would oppose military action in Pakistan."? Man, that would make Dukakis' death penalty response look brilliant.