Lee Hamilton Agrees With Obama

[obamian]

After Obama delivered his speech on terrorism, Lee Hamilton praised his remarks.

Lee Hamilton, former Democratic Congressman, Vice Chair of the 9/11 Commission, Co-Chair of the Iraq Study Group, Member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council:

Senator Obama presented a thoughtful, substantive and comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy. This is an important contribution to the national dialogue on this leading issue.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQ/CpHR

On July 30th, Lee Hamilton wrote an editorial explaining why acting tough against Pakistan is a good idea.

According to a recently released National Intelligence Estimate, the United States faces a "persistent and evolving terrorist threat" and al-Qaida is as strong today as before Sept. 11. The most important and urgent action that we can take to keep America safer is to root out al-Qaida's sanctuary in Pakistan.

Al Qaida has rebuilt the base of operations it lost in Afghanistan across the border in tribal areas of western Pakistan. Key leaders, including Osama bin Laden and top lieutenant Ayman al-Zawahiri, are probably hiding in this rugged terrain. Training camps are used by the Taliban to support its insurgency in Afghanistan, and by al-Qaida to develop its capabilities. Plots in London have been traced back to Pakistan, demonstrating al-Qaida's operational control over a global network. We must remember that it was largely the sanctuary in Afghanistan that enabled bin Laden and al-Qaida to sponsor and carry out the 9/11 attacks.

Despite this direct threat, the United States has an agreement with Pakistan that prevents us from going after this safe haven. Our forces in Afghanistan are not permitted to pursue Taliban fighters once they cross the Pakistani border. Instead, we rely on the Pakistani government, led by President Pervez Musharraf, to target al-Qaida and the Taliban. Musharraf has resisted, relying on an agreement with tribes to do the job. Last week the Bush administration declared that Musharraf's strategy has failed.

The time has come to bear down on Musharraf. For years, he has captivated the United States by presenting himself as a secular moderate in a region beset by religious extremists. But his actions have not matched his rhetoric. He has promised to cease Pakistan's support for the Taliban and round up al-Qaida, but failed to deliver. He has promised to transition Pakistan toward open democracy, but continues to govern like a military dictator. Meanwhile, he has received $10 billions in U.S. aid since Sept. 11...

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070730/OPINION/707300302/-1/LOCAL17

[ixion]

1. Great. So although it's been shown to be illegal, immoral and unconstitutional

were now going to make the so-called "Bush Doctrine" party of US policy for good. Well, that's just ducky. I'm sure the rest of the world, now looking at us while staring down the barrel of a gun, is just thrilled.

[obamian]

2. No. This is not a preemptive strike.

This is a response to 9/11. The Bush Administration has failed to get the top leaders of Al Qaeda, especially Bin Laden, and according the NIE has made the U.S. less safe than before 9/11. Iraq is the wrong battlefront, but we can't until another terrorist attack to respond.

Obama isn't advocating a full blown invasion

As Hamilton says:
Here, we have many tactical options that do not involve a substantial ground force: covert actions, special operations and air strikes, including unmanned aircrafts.

[Sweet Pea]

3. So let me get this right...

Covert actions, special operations and air strikes, in a sovereign country, without the permission of the government there, as long as it is in our national security interests, is ok?

[obamian]

5. When a government is facilitating the growth of Islamic extremism

that threatens the national security interests of the United States, we should first use all diplomatic mean possible, but if the safety of the American people is threatened by terrorists within a sovereign and they refuse to act, then we must.

The other option is to leave Al Qaeda alone. This will inevitably result on another attack on U.S. soil, which will lead to the same end result.

[ixion]

8. and how about Judeo-Xian extremism?

because these extremists, who also happen to be in control of the US and Israeli governments, are adding just as much fuel to the fire.

[Sweet Pea]

9. Are they?

Do you have any moral equivalents to beheading from the Judeo-Christian side of the argument?

Just curious.

[ixion]

13. sure: bombing people on a whim

I think that qualifies, but there are certainly others.

[Sweet Pea]

14. So...

You are equating al Queda/Islamic extremists and Judaeo-Christian tenets?

This is not to agree with your thesis that "bombing on a whim" is standard Judaeo-Christian tenets. I do not agree with that.

Edited for clarity.

[ixion]

16. you may not agree with it, but there is ample historical precedent

the Inquisition and the Crusades (the first one) just to name two.

[mrgorth]

15. Yes.

.

[ixion]

4. any military response not sanctioned by the country in which it takes place is illegal

no matter if we're crying about shadows on the wall or not.

We have no right whatsoever to go into a sovereign nation with our military, when that nation has not asked for our presence. None. Zip. Zilch.

Is that clear enough for you?

[obamian]

6. So if Germany didn't give us permission during WW II,

we shouldn't have gone in. Or if we didn't have the permission of the sovereign nation in the first Gulf War, Kosovo, or Afghanistan, we should have just not done anything. We can't wait for the permission of our enemies or leaders afraid of our enemies to respond to an attack.

[ixion]

7. have some more Kool-Aid

:eyes:

This is crux of the problem with the so-called "war" on "terror". A "war" is an action between two nation-states, not a group of people who may or may not be affiliated with said nation.

And incidentally, we did NOT invade Iraq in the the first Gulf "war", we pushed them back out of Kuwait.

Kuwait, incidentally, was lopped off from Iraq in the 40's by Great Britain. They had a habit of doing this in their empire days.

We had the UN's blessing in Kosovo and Afghanistan. Being someone who is entirely opposed to violence as an attempt at a solution, I supported neither.

Your rhetoric about not waiting for our enemies is straight from the neocon playbook, and shows that deep down you seem to be terrified and paranoid.

Enjoy, but please don't ask me to ride along.

[Ethelk2044]

11. Obama did not say he would invade Pakistan. Read or Look at a video of his speech

[Ethelk2044]

10. Your post is Bull Shit. That is not what Obama said. Get your facts straight.

[ellacott]

12. I think most people forget Bill Clinton doing this

People were crying "Wag the Dog" and No War for Monica. They had actionable intelligence but it was an unsuccessful strike.

This doesn't deviate from established policy. Policy that's been established for many years and would be policy for future Presidents, Biden, Edwards, Clinton or others.