Republicans don't want bin Laden to be captured!

After reading this Captain's Quarters post (I've been picking on him a lot recently), see if you draw the only logical conclusion that I drew:

[here's what Sen. Obama said]
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.

[here's Morrissey's response]
Frankly, the only idea worse than invading Iran is invading Pakistan. One might expect a serious presidential candidate to avoid looking like an idiot while provoking an ally that still helps more than he hurts in that region. Obama seems determined to prove himself unserious.

Can there be any other conclusion than he doesn't want the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 to be brought to justice? Obama says "find bin Laden" and Morrissey says "that's a bad idea"... it doesn't get any more straightforward.

Except for one thing: I'd be a complete dumbass for making that conclusion, since Morrissey's criticisms run deeper than that. Actually, I'm doing the exact same thing that Morrissey is doing with Obama. Morrissey is making the argument that Obama wants to "invade Pakistan", similarly to the way we invaded Iraq, except that it's NOT what Obama is saying at all. Obama is saying that we should send troops into the mountains where bin Laden and his crew are holed-up, and bring them in. It's a point Morrissey is either willfully or stupidly missing.

Now that THAT'S cleared up: Obama's idea is horrible.

[update]: Another Republican wants bin Laden to be free.

(Biden == Crazy) while (Dude who calls gun 'baby' == Sane)

Mickey Kaus is about as insightful as a sea otter... and not those cute, holding hands ones either. I'm talking about one of those mean, rabies-filled sea otters.

In his piece about the YouTube Democratic debate, he seems to take issue with Biden speaking his mind:

I agree that the Biden response to the gun-toting You-Tuber was revealing--it showed Biden lacks even moderately calibrated snap judgment--and it was revealing in a way that a) wouldn't have happened with a non-YouTube debate, in which the questioner most likely wouldn't have gotten past security, let alone the screeners, and b) reflected Biden's alleged fatal flaw (or one of his several alleged fatal flaws), namely his cringe-making, unhinged spontaneous reactions.

His "a" part shows exactly why these kinds of debates are so needed, but his "b" part suggests that Kaus want his politicians to dodge and lie in response to questions asked of them. It's possible that he's gotten so used to our Executive branch never giving direct answers, that it scares him when someone actually does. Sadly, Glenn Reynolds, who usually has a decent head about such things, falls in the same camp:

The big news isn't the diminution in Biden's already microscopic chances of becoming President, but the collateral damage to other candidates and the Democrats' brand. It's hard to win swing states if gun owners hate you.

I wonder if anyone of them actually watched the video? The guy isn't holding a shotgun, or a hunting rifle, or even a handgun. He's got a (automatic? semiautomatic?) AR-15 built for military use... and he's calling it his "baby". It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, this guy just has a few screws loose - and yes, I realize he was probably just being a tad facetious. Most of the other candidates would've hemmed-and-hawed around the subject, but Biden told you straight out. And it sucks that people like this idiot Kaus think he should be penalized for being honest and forthright.

The other completely stupid thing that Kaus brings up:

Am I crazy or did Barack Obama just get suckered into saying that as President within a year he'd personally meet with Fidel Castro?

I'll answer both questions with a "yes". The arguments against meeting with "enemy" foreign leaders is insane to me. Just because you meet with them doesn't mean you'll be giving out hand-jobs under their desk... it's just meeting!

Imagine if you had a hostage situation at a bank or on an airplane. Is Kaus suggesting that you shouldn't talk to the hostage-takers? Is he saying the police should just ignore them and hope they go away? Of course, that would be bats**t looney to suggest such a thing. But just because you send in a negotiator, doesn't mean you have to give in to their demands. You talk to them, and see if there's a mutually beneficial road to a peaceful solution. As Obama brought out last night, Reagan met with the Soviet leaders, and no one freaked out about that. So what's the problem with meeting with Iran or Syria? The only difference I can see is the religious one. and that's just sad.