This week, Obama claimed, again, that he’d promptly capture Osama bin Laden. OK, tell me how: Specifically, which concrete measures would he take that haven’t been taken? How would he force our intelligence agencies to locate bin Laden? And he can’t just respond, “That’s classified.”

He also claimed that fighting terrorism is a law-enforcement problem, not a military one (should we send the NYPD to Mosul and Kandahar?), and that the answer to terrorism is the approach taken after the 1993 World Trade Center attack, featuring conventional trials and prison terms.

That flaccid post-’93 response only encouraged terrorists - who are unfazed by the prospect of a US prison, where the quality of life’s better than it was at home. The Clinton administration’s hesitancy and softness gave us the subsequent attacks on the Khobar Towers housing complex in Saudi Arabia, on our embassies in East Africa, on the USS Cole and, ultimately, the events of 9/11.

The senator needs to tell us why it would be different now.

Obama has also said he’d send our troops into Pakistan, although he’ll withdraw rapidly from Iraq. His unwillingness to discuss the consequences of a hasty retreat from Baghdad is one thing - but invading Pakistan would be an order of magnitude worse.

A substantial number of Iraq’s 26 million citizens did welcome us. In Pakistan, with its 170 million Muslims and some of the most rugged terrain on earth, anti-Americanism prevails. Any US military incursion would be greeted with outrage and demands for a military response.

Nor does Obama appear to grasp that armies need fuel, ammunition, food, spare parts and other supplies. Nearly everything for our troops in landlocked Afghanistan, from bottled water to medical supplies, now comes via Pakistani ports, roads and railroads. If those long, difficult routes were cut, how would President Obama supply our troops? And no, it can’t all be done by air.

Oh, Pakistan has nukes, too.

The real story is not how McCain is like George W. Bush. The real story is how identical the Obama campaign is to every Democrat presidential campaign since McGovern. He will serve Jimmy Carter’s second term. There’s nothing new here. There is no change.

Jon.  Your question is a poignant one.  While this clip reveals that Obama, unlike Bush & McCain, is not prepared to utilize the Orwellian phrase “global war on terror” as an excuse to assault the civil liberties of Americans, the Obama campaign has sought to avoid the issue of impeachment.  The failure of Obama, Pelosi and Ried to put impeachment on the table reflects that they have chosen political expedience over devotion to the rule of law, which is why, whenever possible, we should work to replace corporatist Dems with true progressives.

By the way, there is nothing new in Obama’s avoidance of impeachment.  During the very first Dem debate, when all seven candidates were present, the moderator asked for a show of hands as to who supported the Kucinich articles of impeachment against Cheney.  Not a single candidate raised their hand, not even Senator Gravel.