With Mr Cole. I think Obama has it exactly right in ruffling feathers in Afghanistan and Pakistan. These are the two countries that were/are the most responsible for harboring Al Qaeda. Until we ruffle Pakistan's feathers, we can't finish in Afghanistan.

Obama's naivety is quite shocking - he speaks on these issues as if he has years of military and national security/war related experience. Clearly, he does not, and I shudder to think of the consequences we will face internationally - particularly from terrorist networks and rouge nations - if this inexperienced opportunist is indeed elected.

Many people would like to think that we can still salvage our relationship with Arab nations; however, the harsh realities of the Middle East paint a dismal picture indeed. Many of the scenes in "Obsession: Radical Islam's War on the West" highlight these realities; indeed, it was rather stomach churning to see children being pressured to lay down their lives in the name of Allah, explaining how they would like to set GWB on fire, and bomb the U.S, among other things.

To be sure, the Left can’t admit that the surge worked, and Al-Qaeda is on the run in Iraq, nearly decimated - they remain shockingly unaware of the gravity of the dangers that exist around the globe. These dangers are addressed and analyzed in Obsession, a film that provides a telling – and ominous – look into the ever-growing world of Arab extremists.

In that vein, it's a film that I hope Obama watches - to better understand the larger picture, and the ability we have to stem the rise of such hatred by making sure the children of future generations are not spoon-fed these fetid views.

The Taliban didn't attack us. Neither did Saddam. We oughta leave them both alone -- oops, too late.

McCain referred to the Iraq-Pakistan border, not Iraq-Afghanistan, as I wrote. Same geographic problem however, known as Iran.

If enough people think that he said something wrong, I am sure Obama will have a press conference to explain what he really meant, and then we will have a new perspective on his policies.

It is just Obama being Obama. He will be on both sides of all of these issues. Of course, no telling how many revisions of his remarks we will need before he gets to the last one.

This is what qualifies as reporting? Please point to a statement by Obama that said what Juan Cole asserts. Principally Cole writes “Stepped-up military action, however, is still the central component of his plan.” Huh? Where is this idea even coming from. There is no hint from any of the quoted statements of Obama that military action is the CENTRAL COMPONENT of his plan. Rather, it is obvious that diplomacy would come first. Obama wants to send more troops to Afghanistan, so therefore he must want to infringe on Pakistan sovereignty without negotiation... What a horrible jump in logic. And if the Bush admin was pushing for strikes in the FATA areas, than where are the strikes? umm, am I missing something.

I mean, there is nothing in the article but a lot of quotes, with no context, where the author assumes 90% of what he writes. And the headline is atrociously over the top. Aggressive stance? Finish the job in Afghanistan and don’t let Al Qaeda regroup in Pakistan is hardly the most aggressive stance I’ve heard in the past 8 years. This statement, from the article, contradicts everything Cole writes:

"What I've said is that if we had actionable intelligence against high-value al-Qaida targets, and the Pakistani government was unwilling to go after those targets, that we should." He added that he would put pressure on Islamabad to move aggressively against terrorist training camps in the country's northwestern tribal areas." So he is going to put pressure on them (diplomacy) and than if that doesn't work he will act. How is that making military action the central component of his strategy? That is the strategy of every government that has ever been in a conflict! I wonder why that last part wasn't quoted...

Basically this web site has made its mission to publish hit piece after hit piece against Obama with rather flimsy evidence, than have the no-nothing parrots who come on these boards spout their own baseless Obama accusations and rumors. This site is basically bullshit.

So much has happened since; New York was attacked in 200l, Madrid endured the bombing of its railway system in 2004 because the Spanish Prime Minister Aznar supported the American invasion of Iraq in 2002 and Aznar's party has been out of power for the best part of four years because of that, London was targeted in 2005 because PM Tony Blair had given his approval to the Iraq adventure, Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan was assassinated about seven months ago and so it goes on.

9/ll should never have happened but the American security establishment was so dozey that it let the bombers through a net with huge holes in it. The entire plot was hatched in what became known as "The Hamburg Cell". The BBC made a riveting documentary on the "students" who were living in Germany when they came together to conspire at a tremendous kick in the face to America. There are claims that German Intelligence warned the US. All we do know is that there were no Iraqis involved. I've just seen a picture of Obama on tv wearing a yarmulka and he will later meet the Palestinian leader, Abbas. Whether America's meddling in the Middle East is warranted or not is for American taxpayers to decide but I'd be inclined to think that Obama's call for an international force in Afghanistan will fall on deaf ears. Obama's tour is a l00% American affair which has excluded the foreign media so far. There's been some grumbling about that but what resonates even more is the fact that Colin Powell, speaking on behalf of the US government, went to the United Nations General Assembly with what turned out to be a pack of lies.