The report, known as the National Intelligence Estimate, has heightened concern that the US might soon step up military action inside Pakistan against Al Qaeda beyond the limited incursions that have been condoned so far by Musharraf. But violating another nation's sovereignty for the sake of an uncertain victory against Osama bin Laden could possibly lead to serious political backlash in Pakistan, and create an opening for Islamic parties to gain an upper hand. (In the 2002 parliamentary elections, Islamist parties did their best ever.)

Another Iraq in the making?  More fuel on the fire.

Juan Cole chimes in:

What he [Obama] should be saying is that if he had an opportunity to deploy a Predator against Bin Laden he would do it, and that he is sure that Gen. Musharraf would cooperate. He is setting up an unlikely hypothetical, and in the hypothetical he is setting up an ally as essentially an enemy (implying that Musharraf is covering for Bin Laden or something).

His remarks suggested that he is attached to the Bush Doctrine of unilateral and preemptive military action, which violates the United Nations Charter. In the Republican debate, the candidate that sounded closest to Obama's stance on this was Rudy Giuliani. That should tell you something.

And he is angering the Pakistani public for no good reason. (I mean, if Musharraf, whom al-Qaeda has twice tried to kill with bombs, can't find them, how likely is it that Obama can?) His remarks are remarkably flat-footed for someone who has read the history of British colonialism in Kenya; isn't this just a variant of the White Man's Burden, a way of saying that the Wily Oriental Gentlemen aren't up to it?

et al might find this interesting:

When the US invaded Iraq in 2003, critics referred to the countries which helped the US effort not as the 'Coalition of the Willing,' but the 'Coalition of the Bribed, Bullied, and Blind' (Manchester Guardian). This paper will examine the role of American economic linkage in assembling the coalition, looking at the mix of positive and negative economic linkage which Washington employed to bolster the ranks of its allies. As we shall see, a wide range of positive instruments was used, from foreign aid and military aid to offers of access to US markets. In other cases, threats of economic sanctions were effective. When were these efforts needed? How effective were they? What is the going rate for a military ally in today's market? This paper will attempt to offer preliminary answers to these important questions.

It's amazing how Democrats have flip-flopped on the topic of unilateralism. They screamed long and loud about President Bush's go-it-alone (with dozens of other countries, but don't tell Dems that) ways and the alienation of our allies.

Those criticizing him will fall into two groups/positions if they don't flip-flop:

1.  Give the Pakistani dictator veto-power; and

2.  Don't talk about Fight Club.

Talk about "a new world order" !!!

Observing his behavior of late, I've begun to wonder if Armando himself is following in the footsteps of General Musharraf on this blog. I've begun to ask myself, is Armando trying to weed out undesirable commenters through deception, provocation, and questionable courtroom inspired tricks?  It seems unlikely, but the evidence is mounting.

After a recent exchange, I have been forced to conclude that Armando either has difficulty comprehending English text, or he's playing games with the commenters, I can find no third possibility which explains his behavior.

Of late it seems to have become common practice for Armando to delete an entire series of comments in a thread, and then post a claim that the person he has deleted has engaged in personal attacks.  I and a number of others have found ourselves on the receiving end of what more and more appears to be a manipulation disguised as law rule enforcement.

So I've begun to wonder, what possible motivation could Armando have for provoking commenters into attacking him personally.  The court room setting I think provides the answer.  Judges often strike whole sections of testimony for various reasons, and it seems possible, however unlikely, that Armando has taken a page from his courtroom experiences and begun employing a similar tactic for the removal and suppression of any comments or commenters which might threaten to undermine his position and political viewpoints. And since he is the judge of what should be stricken, it's convenient for him to label anything or anyone that embarrasses him personally or undercuts his arguments as undesirable and then set about provoking them into a personal attack, which are verboten on this site, which then allows him to delete all the comments said offender posted in that thread, even comments which do not violate the rules.  It's a disturbing trend that I believe threatens to undermine the integrity of this blog.

One can only speculate upon his motives for such a tactic, but considering the evidence at hand I am forced to conclude that it is part of his political agenda, and he seems willing to engage in questionable tactics which in my estimation are certainly not entirely open, fair and above board. Tactics which I may say reflect poorly on all the contributors to this blog.

I'm am also forced to wonder if these new questionable approaches to censoring blog comments and commenters is something that Jeralyn is aware of, and if they are being done with her countenance and blessing.

I suspect that this comment will be deleted falling under the label of a personal attack, so I will send individual e-mails concerning this issue to all the writers and commenters who contribute to talkleft, that I'm able to contact.