by Mark Silva
If Barack Obama were president, he is asked in an interview airing Sunday on CNN, and U.S. forces in Afghanistan captured Osama bin Laden, what would he do with him?
"Well I think that if he was captured alive then we would make a decision to bring the full weight of not only U.S. justice, but world justice, down on him,'' Obama says in the interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria for the program, GPS.
"I think that, and I've said this before, that I am not a cheerleader for the death penalty, I think it has to be reserved for only the most heinous crimes,'' Obama says. "But I certainly think that plotting and engineering the death of 3,000 Americans justifies such an approach.
"Now I think this is a big hypothetical though,'' he adds. "Let's catch him first."
Obama's Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, has pledged to find bin Laden, sponsor of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 -- "track him down'' -- "I'll follow him to the gates of Hell,'' he said during a Republican debate at the Reagan library.
Obama also is criticial of the goverment of Afghan President Hamid Karzai in his GPS interview, in excerpts provided by CNN: "I think the Karzai government has not gotten out of the bunker and helped to organize Afghanistan, and the government, the judiciary, police forces, in ways that would give people confidence. So there are a lot of problems there."
The Republican National Committee asserted that Obama had "no interest in Afghanistan" prior to his campaign for president.
"Obama has never visited Afghanistan to meet our allies on the ground, yet he is audacious enough to assert that President Karzai has 'not gotten out of the bunker,'" RNC spokesman Alex Conant said. "Obama's words are naively out-of-touch with reality and offensive to America's allies. Considering Obama's negligent leadership of the Senate subcommittee charged with overseeing the NATO mission in Afghanistan, Obama has no credibility discussing Afghanistan."
Among other matters covered in the program airing at 1 pm Sunday, Obama is asked about McCain suggesting that Russia be thrown out of the Group of Eight major industrial nations.
"It would be a mistake,'' Obama says. "Look, if we're going to do something about nuclear proliferation, just to take one issue that I think is as important as any on the list, we've got to have Russia involved. The amount of loose nuclear material that is floating around in the former Soviet Union, the amount of technical know-how that is in countries that used to be behind the Iron Curtain, without Russia's cooperation, our efforts in that on that front will be greatly weakened."
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Obama comes out for the death penalty... for this week, at least. Until the inevitable flip-flop.
But if he's to be believed (as in, "change you can believe in") should you Obamaphiles be asking for a refund of your campaign contributions, since they were gotten from you under false pretences?
Posted by: bruce | July 12, 2008 3:26 PM
New Repuglican talking point:
Barack has "prejudiced the jury" by that remark. "Shows inexperience by commenting on a case..."" Yadadodaday.
They actually have people they pay, as in an ad agency bullpen, to come up with those zingers.
And of course if he had said anything less, they'd immediately accuse him of being "soft on terror".
Remember the good ole days with "soft on Communism".
Another of their faves is he is a socialist because his mother was a socialist....
It never stops.
Posted by: ornery | July 12, 2008 3:37 PM
Obama = FLIP FLOP-
MORE AND MORE
Posted by: George | July 12, 2008 8:34 PM
Obama previously said "Osama shouldn't be put to death because it would make him a martyr." Which one is it NOBAMA? This guy changes his mind as frequently as a mother changes a new born.
Posted by: aaron | July 12, 2008 8:49 PM
First, Obama is a joke.
Second, Bin Laden's actions do not fall under the civil justice system. He should be killed.
Posted by: al | July 12, 2008 9:38 PM
This guy sells more flip flops then a hawaiian beach shoe store. Was it 2 weeks ago he was saying he shouldn't be executed because it would make him a martry!??! Wtf!!!!
Posted by: Barack | July 12, 2008 9:46 PM
You know what would be the finest justice. If we were to capture Obama, imprison him, and slowly convert him until he became a champion of the Western World and Humanist (in the general sloppy sense of the word) values. That would be pretty much the ultimate punishment and our ultimate victory.
Posted by: Garance G. | July 12, 2008 9:55 PM
All I know is if Obama wants to be president..he better be willing to not only execute bin laden but anyone who commits cold blooded murder.The individual states may wimp out...but the citizens know we are sick of senseless killing.
Got to grow some b**** before the election.
Posted by: Russ | July 12, 2008 10:24 PM
What the heck?! Obama can't seem to be pinned down on any issue. He's throwing out enough soundbites that he could Ted Kennedy or Rush Limbaugh, depending on how you sample the soundbites. Unbelievable...
Posted by: Ned | July 12, 2008 10:31 PM
Consistently in-consitent, why don't you vote for an empty box
Posted by: John C | July 12, 2008 10:47 PM
The only reason we are talking about what to do with bin Laden is because Bush hasn't done his job. Don't expect McCain, another blowhard Republican, to accomplish what the first phony tough guy hasn't. That's just a fantasy.
Posted by: Richard Friedman | July 12, 2008 11:52 PM
Three things come to mind:
1. I thought Obama wanted to talk to terrorist to 'iron out' our differences over tea.
2. He probably wants Osama dead, because their names are so similar.
3. So much for Obamas 'anti death penalty' stance. In about a week, he will change again... go figure Mr. Wiggles
Posted by: city guy | July 13, 2008 12:27 AM
The only reason we are talking about what to do with bin Laden is because Bush hasn't done his job. Don't expect McCain, another blowhard Republican, to accomplish what the first phony tough guy hasn't. That's just a fantasy.
Posted by: Richard Friedman | July 12, 2008 11:52 PM
And the only reason we even had 9/11 was because Clinton didn't do his job in 1993 when OBL first attacked the World Trade Centers. No FISA, no Patriot Act, essentially nothing was done in the following 7 years. And about not catching bin Laden: Sudan even offered Osama bin Laden to the Clinton administration when OBL was sitting in plane on their runway in 1996. So Clinton not only didn't get bin Laden, he couldn't even accept him when he was being handed over on a silver platter.
If a Democrat is elected, I expect another terrorist attack on US soil within a few years. And I have history to back me up.
Posted by: Kath | July 13, 2008 12:54 AM
Flip-flopping? PLEASE. Spare me the usual crap you GOPpers spew constantly when you have nothing of substance to say. Especially when you don't even like your own candidate! I guess if you guys can buy into enough BS about Obama, it might justify a McCain vote in November, right?
Show me ANYWHERE where Obama said he DIDN'T support having bin Laden (Bush's buddy in all this) face the death penalty. Go ahead.
Besides, want to see a flip-flopper? Take a hard look at your Panamanian presidential wannabe in Juan McCain and get back to me. He flip-flops more than a freshly caught snapper on a Marathon Key dock. He was for (and against) a LOT of things before he was against (or for) them.
You're just another typical hate-based FOX-news kool-aide drinker who thinks that just because a candidate doesn't have an (R) after their name, they're automatically bad for America. Get real, already. And I bet you also think Reagan is worthy of sainthood. LOL
Your type is EXACTLY the problem, not the solution. Know your facts.
I'll also be pleasantly surprised if my post makes it past the censors.
Posted by: Jeff in South Florida | July 13, 2008 2:38 AM
I'm a Clinton supporter who will vote McCain, but is Obama a world class flip-flopper or what?
This guy has more of these than Macy's at an end of summer sidewalk sale!
Posted by: Marsha | July 13, 2008 3:03 AM
Hmmm -
IF (big hypothetical!) OBL were brought in alive, what should be done with him?
SINCE Barack has said the death penalty should be reserved for the most heinous of crimes, and Barack would be in favor of the death penalty for OBL,
Where's the inconsistency?
Posted by: Sanity | July 13, 2008 3:26 AM
By tge time the election is held, Obama will have been on both sides of every issue. He sure wants to be President. I think Jessie had it right. Cut em off. He does talk down to people. Not just black people. He talks down to hard working tax payers. Obama thinks that our money is his to take. He talks down to women. He told Hillarys women supporters to get over it. Obama is only getting all the attention because he is the first black candidate with any speaking ability. He is a do nothing Senator, with no record, no ideas how to fix anything, but uses a change message. How about some substance. How about we drill for oil. Cut taxes, not raise them. How about we quit flip flopping every issue.
Pull on in 16 months. Now, I'll talk to the commanders.
No death penalty for Osama. Now, Kill him.
I will accept public funding. Now, the system is broke, so I won't take the funding.
Flip Flip Flip, FLOP.
Say NO to BO.
Posted by: Jerry | July 13, 2008 5:49 AM
city guy needs to take off the xenophobe glasses.
But why the death penalty for a guy who's DEAD?
http://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=oIO8B6fpFSQ
Posted by: Osama bin DEAD! | July 13, 2008 6:35 AM
Mr. Friedman, we wouldn't be talking about this if Clinton hadn't punted his opportunities to capture bin Laden down the road.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a55_1187399013
Posted by: Terry | July 13, 2008 7:50 AM
What is the Repuglican talking point for today on why Georgie Boy hasn't been able to find bin Laden for the past 7 years?
Because the Bush family does business with the bin Laden family?
Because bin Laden is the "bogey man" who is worth more to them on the loose?
Or because the Warinterr was never about binLaden at all, but rather about letting Bush's sponsors in Oilpatch get even more control over the price of oil??
Posted by: ornery | July 13, 2008 9:24 AM
And the only reason we even had 9/11 was because Clinton didn't do his job in 1993 when OBL first attacked the World Trade Centers.
Posted by: Kath | July 13, 2008 12:54 AM
The only reason? Not also that the President, on whose watch 9/11 happened, was hard at work vacationing at home and ignoring memos that said that a Bin Laden attack was imminent? That ignored intelligence about Saudis in US flight schools who only wanted to learn take off maneuvers? Get over your anti-Clintonism (I didn't care for him either) and blind acceptance of your Banana Republican dictator.
Posted by: DD | July 13, 2008 12:17 PM
I have been on vacation. Can someone update me on all the positions du jour of Barack Obama. It is getting tough to keep track.
If he tacks any more right he may be on the other side of McCain.
Between the two candidates, I am truly having a tough time keeping up with current positions. These two truly emphasize all positions for all people.
http://brokengovernment.wordpress.com
Posted by: Ken Moyes | July 13, 2008 1:40 PM
Like I said, DD, in 1996 Sudanese authorities offered a Democrat Osama bin Laden in the flesh, sitting on a plane that was prevented from taking off while they contacted the Clinton administration. This was three years after the first attack on the WTC, and Clinton declined him. The first attempt and the bulk of the planning for 9/11 occurred throughout the Clinton years. Meanwhile, the memos that you speak of were very vague, with no time, place or mode mentioned. While Bush is the left's favorite whipping boy, those are the facts. Sorry.
Here's another fact: Elect a Democrat in November to have OBL and his ilk planning with renewed enthusiasm and virtually unfettered. Democrats fought the Patriot Act & FISA. Obama, who has said he would like the national anthem to be "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing", simply doesn't have what it takes to protect the nation.
Posted by: Kath | July 13, 2008 4:26 PM
I think that alot of people are afraid of BARACK OBAMA to be the next president because of the color of his skin. But they should look on the inside of the polls and see that he really is looking for CHANGE and he will find it with or with out the next critsim. I beleive that BARCK OBAM is the next PRESIDENT.
Posted by: Shawnice | September 23, 2008 9:39 PM