It doesn’t really. If he gets Bin Laden in the crosshairs, he’ll shoot to kill — as will Bush, a point Obama concedes. If he gets Al Qaeda’s training camps in the crosshairs, he’ll … pressure Pakistan to move against them, a strategy that’s failed dismally under the GOP but which will work like a charm, I suppose, once it’s infused with magic Messiah mojo and greenmail in the form of a tripling in the amount of non-military aid we currently send to the country. Are Pakistanis really going to jettison their ethno-religious identification with denizens of the tribal areas and go storming into AQ camps when their military’s had a hell of a time there over the past few years, just because the amount of U.S. lucre they’re getting increased by some arbitary amount? Can’t hurt to try, but set expectation phasers on lowest low.

As for the point noted by Geraghty at the very end, about the Iraq invasion of 2003 leading us to “take our eye off the ball” in December 2001, I’m guessing Obama’s thinking of this WaPo piece from 2006. Exit question borrowed from Ace: To the extent that Obama’s hinting he’ll hit the training camps unilaterally if Pakistan balks, does the left’s mantra that killing terrorists only breeds more terrorists apply in that case too or does Barry get to use his “get out of talking points free” card?

Link: sevenload.com