On August 1, Obama gave this policy speech. The BBC and a lot of news agencies mischaracterized it, implying or outright stating he would march in to Pakistan.

From ABC News:

On Wednesday, Obama delivered a major anti-terrorism speech in which he essentially threatened the government of Pakistan that as president he would attack al Qaeda targets in the country with or without the permission of President Gen. Pervez Musharraf. “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will,” Obama said.

I’m not so sure that’s a “threat,” but OK. More importantly, click over to page 2 of that link:

Clinton did not take issue with that as an option, but suggested Obama should not have been delivering such messages publicly.

“I am concerned about talking about it,” she said. “I think everyone agrees that our goal should be to capture or kill bin Laden and his lieutenants but how we do it should not be telegraphed and discussed for obvious reasons.”

Clinton didn’t seem to have any problem “talking about” the subject on Wednesday, when interviewed on American Urban Radio News Network.

“I’ve long believed that we needed tougher, smarter action against terrorists by deploying more troops to Afghanistan, and if we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured,” she said.

She agrees with what he said, just not the fact that he said it. Brilliant.

It’s bad enough when American media misrepresents the candidates, but now we’re getting it from across the pond.

Obama ‘would strike’ in Pakistan

Mr Obama said Pakistan must do more to end terrorist operations
US presidential candidate Barack Obama has said he would order military action against al-Qaeda in Pakistan without the consent of Pakistan’s government.
Mr Obama made the comments in a speech outlining his foreign policy positions.

Pakistan’s foreign ministry said any threat to act against al-Qaeda from within its territory should not be used for political point scoring.

Earlier this month, Mr Obama’s chief rival, Hillary Clinton, described him as “naive” on foreign policy.

The attack from Mrs Clinton came after a televised debate between Democrat presidential hopefuls.

During the debate Mr Obama said he would be willing to meet leaders of states such as Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions.

‘Terrible mistake’

In his speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, in Washington, Mr Obama said General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s president, must do more to end terrorist operations in his country.

If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will
Barack Obama

If not, Pakistan would risk a troop invasion and the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars of US aid during an Obama presidency, the candidate said.

“It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005,” he said, referring to reports that the US had decided not to launch a strike for fear of harming ties with Pakistan.

“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will,” Mr Obama said.

Except that’s not what he said. He said this:

As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.

And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America’s commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists’ program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair — our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.

The subject he is referring to here are known al-Qaeda that we have the intelligence on already. The problem with the area of Pakistan that Obama is referring to is that it is generally lawless except for the tribal rule in that area. (It’s right along the boarder of Afghanistan.) It’s a region that Pakistan has had trouble controlling and has made very little effort to actually reign in. He’s not talking about marching troops in to the center of Islamabad; he’s talking about going over the mountains in to Waziristan to capture or kill bin Laden.

Which our current president should have done.

The rest of his speech outlining his foreign policy goals vis-a-vis the war on terror can be found here, and is really good.

Edit: Goon savetheclocktower adds this:

At no point did Obama say he’d do this unilaterally, and I don’t understand why people assume that. If the intelligence were compelling, there’d be half a dozen other nations that would be on board. We’re not the only ones pissed off at bin Laden.