That misses the point. The point is twofold - that (a) the best way to get Bin Laden is to win the trust of the locals (as has happened in Iraq), and (b) you do not publicly state that you will bomb a country with or without their support and then expect to sit down and deal with them diplomatically with any hope of success.
But if you actually bomb them, then you can deal??? The debate over Pakistan is silly-it's already being bombed, and of course the result is that now the Taliban is taking over large swaths of Pakistan in addition to winning the war in Afghanistan.
The best way to get Bin Laden is past; we have absolutely nothing to offer the locals in exchange at this point, and have so thoroughly bungled past opportunities that no future offers of aid or trust will be credible.
Palin and McCain putting their stock in with Zardari takes it to the level of the absurd-the man is fairly seriously mentally ill (as in medically-he needs powerful anti-psychotics to function and has been hospitalized repeatedly) and widely known as the murderer of his brothers in law (on his wife's orders!)....
But I'm supposed to take their willingness to work with the nutcase in charge of the nukes as a sign of competence?
This whole debate is winding down in Obama's favor largely because McCain/Palin proved that they do not have what it takes to manage a successful campaign. Poor responses to attacks, poorly timed attacks, and bad decisions on almost every level so far (including picking Palin) have doomed the campaign, not Obama or the media.