First, you stated he suggested "invading the country of a U.S. ally." This is false. He only said he would act on actionable intelligence to strike a high-value terrorist. Not invade. No troops. No army; simply a military strike - not unlike our strike in Yemen in 2002.
Are you suggesting that, if Osama bin Laden was sitting on the Pakistan side of the border, and popped up and waved, we should sit back and do nothing? Rather an odd position for your paper. Usually you are upset that liberals are imposing restrictions on the president to keep us safe from the likes of bin Laden.
Secondly, compare Obama's statement with that of President Bush: "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. ... From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."
I don't recall any uproar about how nave President Bush was for threatening every country in the region. Nor do I see how Obama's remarks even contradict Bush's statements on the issue. In fact, they fall in line with it. If we know where bin Laden is, and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf does not act, we will. At least Obama didn't say that he would declare Pakistan "hostile," as did Bush. How you contort that into being nave is beyond the pale.
Another aspect to this distorted story is how media critic Howard Kurtz was puzzled that anyone even thought Obama meant "invade" in his remarks. And when Obama blamed the media for falsely implying he said he would invade, Kurtz defended the media, since no one could be that dumb as to think what Obama said implied an invasion. I guess Kurtz doesn't read papers like yours.
Mick Travis, Evans