He was doing so well. Bobby Kennedy was applauding from the grave. MLK’s dream suddenly appeared within reach. But with a twist of the tongue, a few simple words, our presidential GQ fell from grace. In claiming he would chase down terrorists in Pakistan if its government failed to cooperate with the US, Barack Obama made our mouths drop—and not in a good way. Wasn’t this the same guy who said he loved books and the Fugees? In a matter of seconds, he seemed schizophrenic, faltering in a way that either righted his leftness or wronged all his judgment. We asked some young Muslim Americans what they thought of his comments.

“I was willing to vote for Obama over Hillary just because he seemed less corrupt and I feel like it’d create more equality in the country… he seemed like a neo-JFK. About this speech… I feel like he wouldn’t actually [attack Pakistan] because all politicians talk. [His comments have] made me a little more aware of who I’ll give my vote to, or if I even choose to vote at all.” —Ali Ursani

“The problem with Obama’s statement I feel is less the mention of Pakistan and more the phrasing and the mentality behind it. It’s ridiculously accurate in a way—waging a war against Al Qaeda in Iraq, one might as well wage it at their local Dariy Queen. Terrorists are funneling into Pakistan every day. It is now the hub of Al-Qaeda activity. Pointing this out, he should get bonus points. Where Obama fails is his speed to incite violence. Bombing Pakistani villagers will no sooner eliminate terrorism than it will make a democracy of Iraq. I had always liked Obama as an alternative to Hawkish Hilary, but this makes me doubt him. Not because he insulted my homeland; when you adopt America as yours, you give up such allegiances. But because of the suggestion of violence [that would be] as poorly planned as the current active mission. Violence may be inevitable and necessary, but overall, Obama failed to incite confidence. Simply being able to point to the right country on the map may not be enough.” —Anam Syed

“We have seen the devastation of ’smart bombs’ and ‘targeted strikes’ in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon. The ‘collateral damage’ of these ‘targeted air strikes’ always happen to be homes, villages, apartment complexes, schools, hospitals, orphanages, masjids, etc. Why would strikes against Pakistan be any different? Who would provide the credible evidence as to where the ‘terrorists’ are hiding? The same CIA that hasn’t been able to find Osama for the last fifteen years? Right… Oh wait, the same folks who identified the existence of and the location of those pesky Iraqi WMDs? Give me a break.” —Ali H. Mir

“[Obama] has a chip on his shoulder and is perceived as a total liberal. This felt like his stab at letting Middle America know how much of a tough guy he is, that he is devoted to the War on Terror. He was trying to win some of their support.” —Kiran Hashmi

“I naively thought he was going to be the next Bobby Kennedy. His statement brought me down to reality [and] simplified the problem. When has invading another country solved the problem (i.e. Iraq, Vietnam, Somalia)? To my understanding of history, it only has made it worse. Let’s allow Pakistan to handle its own business. Let’s not interfere with the Pakistanis’ growing democratic movement—which may or may not oust Musharraf in the next election. Pakistan is not Afghanistan. Pakistan has been stable every since independence. Afghanistan was invaded by the Soviet Union, occupied, went through a civil war, tried to recover and was then invaded by the US—all of which contribute to its instability for the last forty years.” —Emily Deth

Will Obama’s blunder be swept under the rug or will it become his swiftboat? I’m still waiting for them to tie his middle name to America’s no-longer-living favorite enemy, the hastily executed Ace of Spades in the Coalition’s deck of terrorist playing cards.