Barack Obama has done the indefensible: He has actually said he would take millitary action inside another country without their permission to protect America's interests. Granted, he didn't propose destroying said country's infrastructure and then occupying it for several years and making it a training ground and rallying cry for terrorists, but Mona Charen still found this proposal objectionable. (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWEzZTVjMWE0NTZmZDljODE5N2Y1MDBlYjJlZmQ0NTE=) And I thought after Iraq she would avoid foreign affairs!
"To be fair"' to Sen. Obama, she admits that Pakistan is a "Terror Haven" and a "Flimsy Ally". But if we are to take the war on terror seriously, how can a 'terror haven' be an ally, flimsy or otherwise? Certainly not for their stellar human rights record. Is offending flimsy ally that is a haven for terrorists really that high a price to pay for catching the murderers of that many Americans?
The really hilarious thing, however, becomes apparent only when you think back to the 2004 elections, when John Kerry suggested building international support (presumably of our actual allies, the ones that believe in democracy, human rights, and/or the rule of law) before taking millitary action against terrorism. He was hammered for putting American security in the hands of foreign nations. But now Mona Charen, and various other Republicans, are attacking Obama because he wouldn't wait for 'terror havens' to get on board before he acted to defend American security.
This is a dispute to remember and throw back at Republicans when the general election rolls around.