The Obama Presidency

[DanB]

The crime wasn't planned here, they weren't caught here, the United States Constitution doesn't address war crimes.  Should Tojo and Goerring have had their trials in NYC?

The crime was committed here and the victims were American citizens.  That is how our system works.  

We have had trials of terrorists here before without incident.  Ajaj, Salameh, Abouhalima, Ismoil, McVeigh, and Muhammad have all been successfully convicted in our judicial system.  Did you complain about venue then?

And lets keep this in perspective.  These "terrorists" are not "war criminals" - two totally different concepts there. 

But they were not arrested in this country, so they could all get off on technicalities.  Do you think they should get off because their rights were violated?  Do you think any evidence obtained which violated their Miranda rights, or search and seizure rights should be thrown out?

[shs96]

^ Umm, the "normal procedure" is to uphold the United States Constitution, not conduct some military kangaroo court in Cuba.

I never said they should get off, but any evidence obtained through torture will not and should not be permissible in court. If the prosecution makes a good enough case with lawfully-obtained evidence (which I'm confident they will, or else they never would have proposed bringing them to New York), and they're convicted in a lawful court, then they should rot in the SuperMax prison for the rest of their lives.

What you say here seems contradictory to me.  First, you say bringing them to trial in NY is the "right thing to do" - it upholds the Constitution and these are the rules we live under.  Then you say they would have never brought them to NY unless they had the evidence to convict them.

Are you suggesting had they not had enough evidence to convict they would have proposed the military tribunal?  Or not been brought to trial at all?  I mean, if the right thing to do is to hold trial in NYC, then it's not relevant what evidence they have or don't have that is admissible.

This will be a very public trial with lots of opinions on what is and isn't admissible, shifting the focus from the actual crimes committed to the procedure in which they were caught and evidence was gathered.  I'm having flashbacks...if the glove don't fit, you must acquit!

[Grumpy]

This will be a very public trial with lots of opinions on what is and isn't admissible, shifting the focus from the actual crimes committed to the procedure in which they were caught and evidence was gathered.  I'm having flashbacks...if the glove don't fit, you must acquit!

Large amounts of the evidence in these cases is classified, so the trials won't be completely open to the public. I don't think these trials are going to be turning into the media circus that the OJ trial did.

[Hts121]

The crime wasn't planned here, they weren't caught here, the United States Constitution doesn't address war crimes.  Should Tojo and Goerring have had their trials in NYC?

The crime was committed here and the victims were American citizens.  That is how our system works.  

We have had trials of terrorists here before without incident.  Ajaj, Salameh, Abouhalima, Ismoil, McVeigh, and Muhammad have all been successfully convicted in our judicial system.  Did you complain about venue then?

And lets keep this in perspective.  These "terrorists" are not "war criminals" - two totally different concepts there. 

But they were not arrested in this country, so they could all get off on technicalities.  Do you think they should get off because their rights were violated?  Do you think any evidence obtained which violated their Miranda rights, or search and seizure rights should be thrown out?

If you kill someone in Florida while on vacation but don't get caught and arrested until you are back in Ohio, where do you suppose the trial would be held?  If you guessed Ohio, you'd be wrong.  Same principle applies here.

People don't "get off" because their rights are violated... evidence is excluded if it is the fruit of the poisonous tree.  Meaning, if the terrorist only confessed when we had his nuts in a vice grip, that confession is not admissible nor should it be.  How do you know if the confession was genuine or if he just couldn't take the pain anymore?  As Jesse Ventura said while telling off Elizabeth Hasselbeck - "you give me a waterboard, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I'll have him confessing to the Sharon Tate murders" - and that was coming from a former Navy Seal who knows a thing or two about waterboarding.

And finally, I don't know why you keep bringing up Miranda.  It does not apply here.  Nor was there any warrant requirement so the search and seizure concerns are not applicable either.  Quit trying to bestow our bill of rights on these terrorists Dan!

[shs96]

This will be a very public trial with lots of opinions on what is and isn't admissible, shifting the focus from the actual crimes committed to the procedure in which they were caught and evidence was gathered.  I'm having flashbacks...if the glove don't fit, you must acquit!

Large amounts of the evidence in these cases is classified, so the trials won't be completely open to the public. I don't think these trials are going to be turning into the media circus that the OJ trial did.

While portions of the evidence may not be made available to the general public, I still believe the trial will be covered publically.

Either way, the defense is entitled to know all of the evidence brought against it for cross examination (as well as the jury) - classified or not.  Not to mention what to do with the families of the victims in this case - they are also entitled to witness the proceedings of the trial.   

However, classified evidence is only admissible if it is determined to be "highly relevant".  It carries a different standard than unclassified evidence.  There is a specific law on procedures for classified evidence (CIPA).

Again, the point being, by making this a criminal trial you are agreeing to follow a specific set of procedural rules in the court room as well giving the accused the same rights as a regular citizen.

[Hts121]

What's the worst that can happen... convictions are not returned and the terrorists are released onto the streets of NYC?  I'd rather be on my way to ADX Florence if I was one of the 9/11 terrorists.  j/k... sort of.
 

[eastvillagedon]

^ Umm, the "normal procedure" is to uphold the United States Constitution, not conduct some military kangaroo court in Cuba.

I never said they should get off, but any evidence obtained through torture will not and should not be permissible in court. If the prosecution makes a good enough case with lawfully-obtained evidence (which I'm confident they will, or else they never would have proposed bringing them to New York), and they're convicted in a lawful court, then they should rot in the SuperMax prison for the rest of their lives.

What you say here seems contradictory to me.  First, you say bringing them to trial in NY is the "right thing to do" - it upholds the Constitution and these are the rules we live under.  Then you say they would have never brought them to NY unless they had the evidence to convict them.

Are you suggesting had they not had enough evidence to convict they would have proposed the military tribunal?  Or not been brought to trial at all?  I mean, if the right thing to do is to hold trial in NYC, then it's not relevant what evidence they have or don't have that is admissible.

This will be a very public trial with lots of opinions on what is and isn't admissible, shifting the focus from the actual crimes committed to the procedure in which they were caught and evidence was gathered.  I'm having flashbacks...if the glove don't fit, you must acquit!

the bottom line is that holding this circus in New York isn't really about bringing the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice. It's a show trial being used as a sop to the Democrat base who never got their pound of flesh to humiliate Bush publicly for his "war crimes"   This whole thing could have/should have been dispensed of years ago in a military tribunal, especially since this monster confessed to his crimes , but why have a quick resolution to something so obvious when there's still a lot of political mileage that can be squeezed out of it?

[shs96]

What's the worst that can happen... convictions are not returned and the terrorists are released onto the streets of NYC?

In theory, yes.  The trial is thrown out for misconduct.  Waterboarding has been legally declared torture; I'd say 183 instances of waterboarding would create a pretty strong case that there was deliberate wrongdoing on behalf of the government agents who captured the defendents, particularly depending on when they knew what. 

Ultimately the decision is up to the Judge but he has clear precedent to to have the trial dismissed for government misconduct.  You would think AG Holder would be a bit more wise to this after the Ted Stevens incident.

[Hts121]

What's the worst that can happen... convictions are not returned and the terrorists are released onto the streets of NYC?

In theory, yes.  The trial is thrown out for misconduct.  Waterboarding has been legally declared torture; I'd say 183 instances of waterboarding would create a pretty strong case that there was deliberate wrongdoing on behalf of the government agents who captured the defendents, particularly depending on when they knew what. 

Ultimately the decision is up to the Judge but he has clear precedent to to have the trial dismissed for government misconduct.  You would think AG Holder would be a bit more wise to this after the Ted Stevens incident.

So... you think that if it is shown that the government tortured this man 183 times or engaged in other wrongdoing prior to trial that he cannot be convicted for his terrorist acts?  That is totally false.  What will be "excluded" from the evidence is any confession which was obtained as a direct result of torture or other egregious government misconduct.  However, torturing a man does not automatically make him innocent and the Judge has no discretion to throw out a valid indictment simply because the man was tortured.   

The Ted Stevens case is a terrible example to use for comparison.  That verdict was thrown out because of government misconduct DURING TRIAL - withholding exculpatory evidence and falsifying records.  And Holder had nothing to do with that trial as it was before his time.

And BTW, Military tribunals do not allow the admission of statements which were made involuntarily either.

[shs96]

What's the worst that can happen... convictions are not returned and the terrorists are released onto the streets of NYC?

In theory, yes.  The trial is thrown out for misconduct.  Waterboarding has been legally declared torture; I'd say 183 instances of waterboarding would create a pretty strong case that there was deliberate wrongdoing on behalf of the government agents who captured the defendents, particularly depending on when they knew what.

Ultimately the decision is up to the Judge but he has clear precedent to to have the trial dismissed for government misconduct.  You would think AG Holder would be a bit more wise to this after the Ted Stevens incident.

So... you think that if it is shown that the government tortured this man 183 times or engaged in other wrongdoing prior to trial that he cannot be convicted for his terrorist acts?  That is totally false.  What will be "excluded" from the evidence is any confession which was obtained as a direct result of torture or other egregious government misconduct.  However, torturing a man does not automatically make him innocent and the Judge has no discretion to throw out a valid indictment simply because the man was tortured.   

The Ted Stevens case is a terrible example to use for comparison.  That verdict was thrown out because of government misconduct DURING TRIAL - withholding exculpatory evidence and falsifying records.  And Holder had nothing to do with that trial as it was before his time.

And BTW, Military tribunals do not allow the admission of statements which were made involuntarily either so I really don't understand what all the fuss is about.

1.  No, that isn't what I think.  I think - and you're agreeing - that any evidence obtained post waterboarding is likely not admissible.  Is the admissible evidence against them enough to convict? The standard of proof of a criminal trial with full Constitutional protection for the defendant is far stricter than those which would apply to an enemy combatant before a military tribunal.  How much of this evidence was obtained through methods that may be determined to violate Constitutional law?  I don't know...but you asked "what is the worse that can happen" and having the case dismissed is your answer.

2.  I only bring up the Stevens case to indicate that the topic of misconduct should be fresh in his mind and perhaps he should be more precautious about it, not to compare it in any other way.  How you extrapolated anything further is unclear to me.

3.  Requirements for what is admissible evidence in a military tribunal is less stringent that a US criminal trial

[Hts121]

No, that isn't what I think.  I think - and you're agreeing - that any evidence obtained post waterboarding is likely not admissible.

Not quite.  Evidence obtained as a result of waterboarding may not be admissible.  Evidence obtained post waterboarding is perfectly admissible if it was obtained without the use of torture OR if it would have been obtained by other means notwithstanding the use of torture.

Is the admissible evidence against them enough to convict?

I feel confident that the DOJ thoroughly analyzed this issue before giving the thumbs up to using the Federal Courts.

The standard of proof of a criminal trial with full Constitutional protection for the defendant is far stricter than those which would apply to an enemy combatant before a military tribunal. 

Wait a minute.... are they enemy combatants or terrorists? 

I only bring up the Stevens case to indicate that the topic of misconduct should be fresh in his mind and perhaps he should be more precautious about it

I am sure the DOJ will keep that in mind when making the necessary disclosures to the defense.

Requirements for what is admissible evidence in a military tribunal is less stringent that a US criminal trial

This is true, but the standard for admissibility has been revised in the military tribunal trial context to more closely mirror the Federal court system.  So, the gap is not as great as some would have you believe.

Regardless, anybody care to take a guess how many terrorist convictions these military tribunals returned during the Bush years?  Hint: if you guessed 4, you are on the high end.

[unusualfire]

Can someone tell me something. I tried to google and couldn't find any info. When Japan bombed pearl harbor. Was anyone charged and convicted for starting it. Mainly Admiral Yamamoto. Terrorist have been at war with the USA for DECADES. Is there a reason some are charged and some are not. And what we do we are never charged with anything except individual solders.

[DanB]

Breaking of the Japanese code indicated the flight path of Admiral Yamamoto's personal flight and the US was able to shoot it down, effectively assassinating him during the war.  Tojo was tried for war crimes after the war and executed by hanging.

[Jeffery]

What's the GOP spin on Obamas' escalation in A-stan?  Too little to get the job done or a waste of troops/time?

[Boreas]

^Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and John Boehner are conferring on how to make this one look bad for the USA.  "The way they always do"

IN OTHER NEWS:

Rep. Hinchey: Bush Purposely Let Bin Laden Escape To Justify Iraq War 
Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) claimed on MSNBC this afternoon that the Bush administration purposely let Osama bin Laden get away in 2001 so they could use al-Qaeda as an excuse to invade Iraq.

"Look what happened with regard to our invasion into Afghanistan, how we apparently intentionally let bin Laden get away. How we intentionally did not follow the Taliban and al-Qaeda as they were escaping," Hinchey said. "That was done by the previous administration because they knew very well that if they would capture al-Qaeda, there would be no justification for an invasion in Iraq."

When host David Shuster pushed back, Hinchey stood by his claim.

"There's no question that the leader of the military operations of the U.S. called back our military. Called them back from going after the head of al-Qaeda," he said.

"I don't think will strike a lot of people as crazy. I think it'll strike a lot of people as accurate," Hinchey said. "That's exactly what happened." 

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/rep-hinchey-bush-purposely-let-bin-laden-escape-to-justify-iraq-war.php?ref=fpb <-It's a blog

[kingfish out of water]

Bush Officials, RNC Praise Obama's Afghan Knowledge And Surge Strategy

Sam Stein
stein@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting

Two prominent Bush administration officials are publicly praising President Obama for his decision to send additional troops to Afghanistan.

In an incredibly rare occurrence, the Republican National Committee hosted a conference call on Tuesday in which the featured speaker, Dan Senor, a former Bush spokesman in Iraq, applauded the White House and said he was "quite encouraged by the president's decision."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/01/bush-officials-rnc-praise_n_375400.html

[Hts121]

What's the GOP spin on Obamas' escalation in A-stan?  Too little to get the job done or a waste of troops/time?

It looks as if they will go with a "too little, too late" theme.  It is too little because the General asked for more troops and the Commander-in-Chief should always defer to the judgment of his subordinates in the chain of command.  It is too late because Barack Hussein Obama was supposed to grant the request when it was made and not deliberate over the committment of billions of US dollars, not to mention placing thousands of additional young, American soldiers' lives at risk.  John McCain said he would have granted the request without hesitation simply because the General made it.  That is how a President is supposed to react.  Obama's indecisiveness shows weakness and our enemies are becoming emboldened, plotting the next step in the soon-to-be utter destruction of the American way of life.  They will force their Islamic socialist agenda upon all of us, forcing me to divorce my wife and marry my neighbor, Bill.

[Jeffery]

Here is the text of Obama's speech for y'all to pick apart:

Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan - the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my Administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It is an honor for me to do so here - at West Point - where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.

To address these issues, it is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.


As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda - a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world's great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda's base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban - a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.


Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them - an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 - the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda's terrorist network, and to protect our common security.

Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy - and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden - we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the UN, a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.


Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq War is well-known and need not be repeated here. It is enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq War drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention - and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.


Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance , we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.


But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda's leadership established a safe-haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it has been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient Security Forces. Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to take control over swaths of Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people.


Throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. That's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a long-standing request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan, and the extremist safe-havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian effort.


Since then, we have made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we have stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda world-wide. In Pakistan, that nation's Army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and - although it was marred by fraud - that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and Constitution.


Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe-havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan Security Forces and better secure the population. Our new Commander in Afghanistan - General McChrystal - has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: the status quo is not sustainable.

As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you have fought in Afghanistan. Many will deploy there. As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. That is why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Let me be clear: there has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war. Instead, the review has allowed me ask the hard questions, and to explore all of the different options along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and with our key partners. Given the stakes involved, I owed the American people - and our troops - no less.


This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.


I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.


Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you - a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I have visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I have travelled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.


So no - I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.


Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America's war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda's safe-havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.


These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.


To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe-haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's Security Forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future.


We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months.


The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 - the fastest pace possible - so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan Security Forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.


Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility - what's at stake is the security of our Allies, and the common security of the world.


Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's Security Forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government - and, more importantly, to the Afghan people - that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.


Second, we will work with our partners, the UN, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.


This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We will support Afghan Ministries, Governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas - such as agriculture - that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.


The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They have been confronted with occupation - by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand - America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect - to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.


Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.


We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.


In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who have argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani Army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.


In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan's capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe-haven for terrorists whose location is known, and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan's democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistani people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan's security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.


These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.


I recognize that there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the prominent arguments that I have heard, and which I take very seriously.


First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. Yet this argument depends upon a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now - and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance - would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.


Second, there are those who acknowledge that we cannot leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan Security Forces and give them the space to take over.


Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a timeframe for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort - one that would commit us to a nation building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.


As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, our or interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I do not have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I am mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who - in discussing our national security - said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs."


Over the past several years, we have lost that balance, and failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our friends and neighbors are out of work and struggle to pay the bills, and too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we simply cannot afford to ignore the price of these wars.


All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly 30 billion dollars for the military this year, and I will work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.


But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That is why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended - because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own.


Let me be clear: none of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions and diffuse enemies.


So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict. We will have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold - whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere - they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.


And we cannot count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we cannot capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.


We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. That is why I have made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to pursue the goal of a world without them. Because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever-more destructive weapons - true security will come for those who reject them.


We will have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I have spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim World - one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.


Finally, we must draw on the strength of our values - for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That is why we must promote our values by living them at home - which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom, and justice, and opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the moral source of America's authority.


Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions - from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank - that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.


We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades - a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty.


For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation's resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for - and what we continue to fight for - is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.


As a country, we are not as young - and perhaps not as innocent - as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. Now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.


In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people - from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth.


This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue - nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.


It is easy to forget that when this war began, we were united - bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. I believe with every fiber of my being that we - as Americans - can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment - they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, one people.


America - we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. Thank you, God Bless you, God Bless our troops, and may God Bless the United States of America.

[Jeffery]

I dont see too much to disagree with...?

[Civvik]

Rep. Hinchey: Bush Purposely Let Bin Laden Escape To Justify Iraq War 
Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) claimed on MSNBC this afternoon that the Bush administration purposely let Osama bin Laden get away in 2001 so they could use al-Qaeda as an excuse to invade Iraq.

"Look what happened with regard to our invasion into Afghanistan, how we apparently intentionally let bin Laden get away. How we intentionally did not follow the Taliban and al-Qaeda as they were escaping," Hinchey said. "That was done by the previous administration because they knew very well that if they would capture al-Qaeda, there would be no justification for an invasion in Iraq."

Wasn't there some marine commander who blew the whistle on this? They literally had OBL cornered in a valley and they got a call from the pentagon to not pursue, and nobody ever explained why. This was on major network news.

[Jeffery]

^
Seriously?  This sounds too much like conspiracy theory stuff.

[kingfish out of water]

Sounds a lot like something from that dumb-ass ABC movie about the lead-up to 9/11, only the scene involved Clinton.

[Hts121]

IMO, the Iraq war was the best way for the US to flex its military muscle at a time TPTB thought such a showing was necessary.  The terrain and location could not have been more ideal.  We had nearby staging locations and no mountains or jungle to deal with on our march to Baghdad.  We could line our tanks up in mile-long envoys and dot targets for airstrikes from miles away.  Simply put, we were able to show the Middle East that one of the region's greatest military powers could be toppled in a matter of months if we so desired, all while we were fighting another war.

[Boreas]

WHY IRAQ?

So how does all this, or the humble attempt at a history lesson of my last column, justify tearing down the Baghdad regime? Well, I've long been an admirer of, if not a full-fledged subscriber to, what I call the "Ledeen Doctrine."

I'm not sure my friend Michael Ledeen will thank me for ascribing authorship to him and he may have only been semi-serious when he crafted it, but here is the bedrock tenet of the Ledeen Doctrine in more or less his own words: "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business." That's at least how I remember Michael phrasing it at a speech at the American Enterprise Institute about a decade ago (Ledeen is one of the most entertaining public speakers I've ever heard, by the way).
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2007/11/12/goldberg/print.html

[EagleFan]

drivel

[MayDay]

 

drivel

And not even original - George Carlin already said it, and with no need to tell us that it's "all very riveting". And with all things Carlin - not safe for work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77dDZOwt20E

[Boreas]

You got some brown people in your country--tell them to watch thef$&k out or we'll god damn bomb them. That's my favorite George Carlin.

George Carlin explained why we couldn't get out of Vietnam: "Withdraw?? Doesn't sound very manly to me!!"

[David]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77dDZOwt20E#

I love Carlin!

---

Isn't it funny how Obama just sent like 30k more troops to Afghanistan because we're having such a hard time getting a grip on this war; another state banned gay marriage; but if you turn on the news all you're going to hear about is TIGER WOODS! Every day they link another woman to him. I like some celebrity gossip every now and then but it has a place and it's place isn't politically oriented news shows/networks. Seems like a way to distract us all.

[Hts121]

Seems like a way to distract us all.

It's all a giant conspiracy against the American way of life.  Don't you keep up on the "news" David?  And BTW, his name is no longer Tiger Woods... he wants to change it to Cheetah Woods.

[Hootenany]

Isn't it funny how Obama just sent like 30k more troops to Afghanistan because we're having such a hard time getting a grip on this war;

And he is doing this only a couple weeks before accepting the Nobel Peace Prize.  Some folks on that committee probably wish they had their votes back.  He has plenty of time to make it up to them though.

But your overall point is a good one.  It's just the way the 24/7 media needs to operate.  People can't take hard hitting news all day every day, so they report what people are willing to watch for HOURS and HOURS on end.  Personally, I would be more inclined to watch if they were more politically oriented most of the time, but I don't think the masses would.