In a June 18 article, The Washington Post stated that Sen. Barack Obama's plan for combating terrorism “mixes law enforcement, intelligence and military tools, including the possibility of invading Pakistan to pursue al-Qaeda if the Pakistani government does not cooperate.” In fact, Obama did not say he would “invade” Pakistan. Rather, during an August 1, 2007, foreign policy speech, he said, “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and [Pakistani] President [Pervez] Musharraf won't act, we will.” Obama made any actions conditional, not definite, and he subsequently noted that he “never called for an invasion of Pakistan.” Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented instances of media outlets falsely claiming that Obama said he would “invade” Pakistan.

From the June 18 Washington Post article:

In 2004, President Bush charged that his opponent for reelection, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), was advocating a pre-Sept. 11 mind-set after Kerry compared Islamic terrorism to other global scourges such as drug trafficking and said it is “primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world.” The charge appeared to help Bush sway security-minded voters on his way to reelection.

But Obama has shown himself far more eager than Kerry and other Democrats to challenge the Republicans on the issue. He argues that the Bush administration's approach to fighting terrorism has been a failure, and he proposes an approach that mixes law enforcement, intelligence and military tools, including the possibility of invading Pakistan to pursue al-Qaeda if the Pakistani government does not cooperate.

As long ago as last August, he condemned the administration's legal approach to processing terrorism suspects. He argued instead for trying detainees in civilian courts or military courts operating under traditional military law, instead of the tribunals established by the Military Commissions Act that he and many other Democrats deride as kangaroo courts.