Getting Osama and using nuclear weapons... where does Hillary stand?

[Meldread]

I am not understanding what the big debate is over these issues. We are pretty certain Osama is in Pakistan. We have two options:

1. We can continue doing what we are doing. (Which is not working.)
2. We can make it clear to the Pakistan government that they can either get Osama and give him to us or we will go in and get him.

Obama gets slammed because he stated what 90% of the American people, Republican AND Democrat would want our government to do. They want Osama and members of AQ caught, and if Pakistan isn't going to act then the only alternative is for us to do it. He said he would. Later that same day Hillary and Edwards couldn't say they'd do the same fast enough. Then Hillary turns around and attacks Obama over the issue saying a President shouldn't talk about things like that.

That is where I got confused. It seems to me that we're in a Presidential campaign. How can I vote for someone if I do not know where they stand on the issues? We've endured the most secret Presidency this country has ever seen. Hillary seems to want to maintain the status quo for that secrecy. Is that true or false? She said the same thing on nuclear weapons when Obama said they were off the table. Hillary said a President shouldn't take nuclear weapons off the table. What? I don't want to vote for a crazed crackpot who wants to push the big red button. Anyone who puts nukes on the table immediately comes right off mine.

I want to talk about the issues, not hear vague statements that could be interpreted to be BOTH for AND against something. That seems to be how she is doing it so far, saying that she is neither for nor against the use of nuclear weapons. Saying that she is neither for nor against going after Osama.

Which is it? I know where I stand. Obama made his stance clear. It aligns with mine. Can someone enlighten me on Hillary's stance? Is she planning to go after Osama? Is she planning to use nuclear weapons to strike our enemies or not? Is she going to continue keeping the people in the dark about issues either through refusing to talk about them (like Bush) or being ambiguous in her statements? After two Bush terms of secrecy I am sick of it. I want to know what the hell my government is up too and I am pretty sure most Americans feel the same.

[Meldread]

1. No one has answers?

:kick:

[Meldread]

6. I guess all the Obama bashers are too busy...

...bashing him to answer a question.

[rucky]

2. The reality is, Musharaf is hanging onto power by a thread.

and he wouldn't refuse help from the U.S.

so Obama is right - I assume he assumed consent from Musharraf as a condition, but didn't clarify that when he should have.

[Meldread]

3. I agree.

Really, to be bluntly honest we can do whatever the hell we want in Pakistan because Musharraf would be insane to not rubber stamp anything we put in front of him. If anything he'd come to us on hands and knees pleading for us to prop his corrupt dictatorial butt up. We're already giving him money and weapons, but we aren't getting any returns on our investment. Obama was right, and it is why I do not understand the debate.

Is it because Pakistani's were burning an American flag in protest? If that is the case it is stupid. Is someone going to honestly say that all that stands between us and AQ is a burning flag? We are unpopular there. They burn American flags on almost a daily basis, why should that deter us from doing what Musharraf can't? Let's not forget AQ would probably kill him too. It is a win-win situation for him to aid us.

One could argue that going in to get AQ and other terrorist groups would cause Musharraf's government to collapse and nukes to fall into the hands of terrorists. Last time I checked his government is already on the verge of collapse and the same terrorist we want to capture (not just AQ but other groups as well) are trying to kill him. So that line of logic is flawed. If anything that logic says that we MUST go into Pakistan to prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists. We all know it is just a matter of time before one of those groups finally gets lucky and takes Musharraf out.

[dkf]

4. Hillary = secrecy

She is already driving me nuts with her non answers.

[Meldread]

5. It's driving me nuts as well.

...and apparently there is no one here who knows the answers to my questions!