Much has been said about President Obama through his recent years of perpetual Presidential campaign. One thing that cannot be denied is his speaking ability. The highlight of the man’s accomplishments is not his skill in battle, an accomplishment in diplomacy, economic brilliance, or leadership in times of crisis. No, his greatest ability is to give a speech, and so it was that the nation and the world tuned in today to see a moment in history-a moment defined by a soundbite. Billions of people watched with baited breath to hear, “I have a dream!’ People who have lost their jobs and are suffering economically waited to be told once again that, “The only thing we have to fear is….fear itself!” Given the days, months, and years of comparing Obama to Lincoln, it was common to expect a 21st century Gettysburg address (as even Keith Olberman baited before Obama took the podium).
Yes, the President’s speech was nice. He delivered it well. After eight years of President Bush, it was a warm bath of smooth teleprompter reading. Still, he fell short.
He fell short in three areas. First, it was not at all a historic speech on the same level as something from Lincoln, King, Kennedy, or FDR, and thus is was not a marker in the history books any more than his skin color or the number next to him on the list of Presidents. Second, he failed to meet his expectations; it was average or slightly above average. Third-and most importantly, his speech was just words; it did not incite.
President Obama’s speech was about the character of the American people when united. He presented a list of challenges, goals, and repeatedly pushed for unity, bi-partisanship, and an end to the divisive politics of old.
On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.
Obama’s speech was an utter failure because it was moot. No one was moved by his calls to end partisan attacks and come together as a country; to unite and solve rather than divide for division’s sake. Instead, before and after Obama spoke his first words as President, his strongest advocates and supporters ignored him. They brought their signs calling for the arrest and impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. They boo’ed and hissed.
They sang ‘Na-na na na, na-na na na, Goodbye!” and did so with the opposite of best wishes. No, that crowd embraced partisanship, showed no class, mocked and dismissed the support that millions of Americans still have for President Bush, and they did not support their new President. They didn’t oppose him…just ignored him
In the year of America’s birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:
“Let it be told to the future world…that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive…that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it].”
America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children’s children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God’s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.
How ironic that these words from President Obama were not inspiring enough unite, to end partisan hate, and to bring about unity in support of his policies-many of which are policies started by President Bush. Yes, the crowd applauded, and they even cheered Obama’s words, but the irony is just how close those words were to ones spoken by the man they hate.
We will not tire, we will not falter and we will not fail.
President Washington, Bush, Obama…all talk about unity, and the great things that Americans can accomplish when we hold each other up and face threats together. All talk about getting tired, and faltering, and the risks of failure. All three make those comments at moments of incredible popularity. Yet, while Washington’s words clearly led to success in battle and war, and while Bush’s words at least led to support and conviction at the time….only the allegedly inspiring President Obama could present the same old American challenge, and fail to inspire the crowd to follow his lead.
We must HOPE he can CHANGE his partisan supporters lest they boo the nation to oblivion.
I agree completely. I thought the speech was a complete and total let down. I really expect much more from him and his team.
Pingback: Conservatism Today
I think this clip honestly sums up what the real Obama agenda is.
http://tinyurl.com/8mndmw
The Benediction put me off big time. It was Partisan and bordered on insulting and demeaning.
Obama is a slick talker and still campaigning. I will wait for some leadership to happen and quickly.
Speeches are easy. Governing is tough. With his voting record as his resume, comments about re-writing the Constitution, remarks about the Founding Fathers as out of touch, Re-distribution of wealth and just what the hell is this Economic Justice all about?
Nope. I’m not sold. Respect for the Office is temporary. Respect for the man must be earned. Let his supporters have their party. The American flags emblazoned with his picture and otherwise desecrated with campaign residue put a bad taste in my mouth. I served under Our Colors for 28 years, retired 3 1/2 years ago and have been to too many Funeral Services where honorable men traveled to rest covered by that Flag.
I am not impressed and feel somewhat insulted. When the carnival is over, lets see if he can Govern and Keep America Safe. Lets see if Consumer Confidence comes back under Leadership, not rhetoric.
The American Public will not allow failure. It is time to Lead, not campaign.
Lowering Our Values is lowering the bar. Lowering Our Expectations is not Leadership.
When the Carnival is over only results count. I hope that America does not regret what
their votes bought them.
I see him as a fraud. He has backtracked all his campaign spew. Bush was not the best, but this guy is nothing but trouble. So he can give a speach so can a prison inmate. Big deal, he is going to be the demise of the USA. All the libs can say what you want, I am not under his spell. He has zero chance to deliver on anything he says. And he shouldn’t blame Bush, he was a “Senator” of course never did anything there either. It is all ok he will in time be exposed, then i’m sure the Barrak Huggers will be singing another tune. Impeach bush, i bet 90% of those people did nothing for the country themselves but sponge off the system. And watch we will put troops in Africa now to please his real handler Oprah. LOL get a clue America
This was my favorite passage of the speech.
I say this, because my number one criterion in voting for a President is this: which candidate will lessen the probability of a nuclear bomb being exploded in Long Beach Harbor (living, as I do, within the blast zone — also a stone’s throw from the Naval Weapons Station for the Pacific Fleet).
George Walker Bush and John Sydney McCain — bless them both — had no possibility of changing hearts and minds in the Islamic world. Barack Hussein Obama, perhaps the first Leader to the World, as well as leader of the USA, has the possibility of changing those hearts and minds.
Along with a lot of other things, the most important of which is a forging an era of respect for our countrymen with whom we disagree on issues of politics.
His true test as a national leader will not be in the details of his plans, but whether he can rally the nation to support those plans. Strategy is cheap; execution is what matters.
I think that he’s off to a very good start.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Obama “possibility of changing hearts and minds in the Islamic world”? Larry, I swear. Your optimism and “hope” is childishly endearing. However it is not the hearts and minds of the Islamic world that need winning in order to protect the west from the global Islamic jihad movement.
Apparently you missed my post that you most recently inspired… The Bush Legacy – gifting Obama with a Muslim World rejecting jihad. Muslims need not adore the west and our culture. They need only be a partner in counterterrorism and intel. And more and more, they are rejecting jihad along with the west.
That said, they still live in fear of doing battle with the jihad movements. These thugs assassinate tribal leaders and clerics, and take over villages at the point of the gun to provide a nest for their own. And Muslims always have a distaste for Muslim on Muslim battles… even if they do not approve of the jihad movement. Obama will not change this in them.
Instead, for your fantasy to come true, that small percent of Islam dedicated to jihad would have to get won over by Obama. And that will never happen… from Obama, or any POTUS or western leader. In fact, they consider Egypt and Pakistan (to name just two) apostate Muslim countries. It’s on their future agenda to change them to Shariah law. Removing the Egyptian regime has been a well known stated quest by Zawahiri for decades.
So I fear that your hopes and dreams are but pipe dreams and bedtime fables. And if this is what you voted for when you cast your ballot for Obama, you have done the western world a serious disservice with your lack of knowledge on the enemy.
Obama is arguably the best public speaker politician in the country. He has TEAMS of people helping write his speech. It’s a speech he could have started two years ago. Instead of bringing his A game at a time when the nation and world expects AND NEEDS an A+, he brought an average C-/B+ that any Georgetown undergrad could’ve written.
With respect, that’s naive, the idea that Obama can somehow better relations with the “muslim world”.
First of all, america’s relations with the muslim world at at an all time high because the muslims respect and fear america after the strong and wise leadership of GWB. His determination in going into Iraq and Afghanistan really made them sit up and respect america. The fact that the ops are a fabulous success, made them even more astonished.
Of course they complain and act outraged, because they are afraid.
Frightened people always act angry.
When you deal with a competitor or an enemy, the last thing you want is him to be happy with you—it means he has gotten the better of you.
All the complaining and insults about GWB simply shows that many people never managed to get the better of him.
With Obama they will praise him, but also get their way with him, at the expense of america.
Anyone with basic intelligence will understand this.
I would say that the extreme muslims would also see Obama as a traitor rather than a fellow muslim—they would despise him even more than GWB, and in addition think of him as weaker.
Either way, Obama loses. If he wants to play hard ball, he is not as tough as Bush and will get taken. If he tries to be friendly, he will be despised and considered a traitor to islam, an apostate.
It really grieves me to see America putting so much hope and faith in someone who is basically a compulsive liar and whose life is devoid of any substantive achievements.
You americans made a very foolish choice and you will be paying for it in the next 4 years. Oh, by the way, your stockmarket dropped again—it knows Obama isn’t an asset to the economy.
Obama can’t even smooth relations between Democrats and Republicans. He barely smoothed over the divide in his own party, and today, his pseudo supporters on the mall demonstrated beyond a doubt that they don’t follow his lead/support his call for an end to partisan divide. No, the people in the crowd…they WANT the divide. They NEED the divide.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZMuOhuB3Wo
They are consumed by the divide
If the leader’s speech doesn’t get followed, then he’s not leading.
@sigmundringeck:
You’re right sigmund.
The markets fell today. Big time.
But, I have good news.
My toenail fungus is suddenly cured. I felt a tingle in my socks and it was all better. That happened about the time that B-Rock raised his right arm and began reciting the oath.
Funny how that happened, eh?
With regard to Obama changing hearts and minds in Jihadistan:
The whole “War on Terror” idea has been, in my opinion, a misguided notion.
President Bush said that “9/11 changed everything”
Oh, really?
9/11/2001 was, at the heart of it, no different than 2/26/1993 (the date of the first attack on the World Trade Center, also occurring in the first year of a new Presidency).
To those who say: “Bush kept us safe after 9/11,” I reply “Clinton kept us safe after 2/26.”
What was the difference between 2/26 and 9/11? Only that 9/11 had a better plan, following the relative failure of 2/26 to make a bigger boom.
What has protected us from another 9/11? Invading Iraq? Please.
What protected us from another 9/11 was putting locks on aircraft doors.
What are the real threats to our security? It’s not another 2/26/1993 and it’s not another 9/11/2001. According to the the national defense assessment of the outgoing Bush administration, it was, in descending order: (1) biological weapons, (2) dirty nuclear device, and (3) explosive nuclear device.
None of these threats is in the purview of the low life jihadists which came into Iraq following the US invasion in March, 2003. We don’t have to fear anything beyond the odd blown up building from these low lifes. What we have to fear are sophisticated attacks with sophisticated biological weapons (which do not include plague, which is easy to contain and treat, but which do include things like small pox and weaponized anthrax), which aren’t going to be acquired without a huge amount of money from sympathetic donors, supplemented by drug money.
It is no more naive to hope that Obama may dissuade individuals and countries from devoting their lives and fortunes to Jihad than it is to hope that we’ll kill all the Jihadists in misadventures like Iraq and, increasingly, Afghanistan (which has radicalized Pashtuns and others in Pakistan, created a true sanctuary in Pakistan, and motivated Islamic high rollers to fund a network of madrassas to indoctrinate the next generation of disaffected Jihadists).
Terrorists are the world’s most renewable resource. Supply side antiterrorism, combined with good intelligence and police work, will do much more to keep America safe than will sending our uniformed military to fight land wars in Asia.
Obama hit the most perfect of notes in his reference to this problem in his inauguration speech, Scott’s disappointment notwithstanding.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
There were millions of people on that mall, Scott.
I’m sure that some of them were also having public sex.
Everyone has some sort of a digital camera.
What makes it to youtube are not images of millions of Americans, behaving beautifully, but a few disaffected misfits, behaving badly.
With respect to President Bush “gifting” things to Obama (speaking to Mata, here), this also includes an emboldened Iran, to go along with the illiterate seekers of martyrdom who are now burdened with pee in their pants.
- larry weisenthal/huntington beach, ca
Gary, if it was bad enough for Keith O and Chris Matthews to complain about it…then it’s worth my repeating and remembering.
@Scott:
Were Keith O and tingly leg Chrissy complaining about it?
It was my understanding that they had nothing negative whatsoever to say about it.
After his speech, my reaction out loud was, “what did he say!??”
And, what the heck does this statement mean from the benediction prayer:
“…and when white men will embrace what is right”???? So, I guess this is an indication that we are beyond race now? The whole quote about blacks, browns, yellows and reds, etc. is racist, but this part is particularly unnerving. What does it imply?
And, Obama slipped up on the swearing in with John Roberts big time. Kind of a bad time to fumble the words, eh? Guess he wasn’t as calm as he pretended to be.
God have mercy on us who sincerely care for and love this country. And, I believe He will.
@SoCal Chris:
That segment of the benediction was pure race baiting.
No other way to describe it.
Unbelievable.
Clinton kept us safe after the 1993 WTC bombing?
Yes, that explains the 1995 Riyadh, Saudi Arabi car bomb at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen
Or the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996 where 19 servicemen lost their lives, and 372 wounded. A Hezbollah/Iran sanctioned terrorist event on American interests.
Then there was the shooting atop the Empire State Bldg in 1997, punishing the “enemies of Palestine”.
In 1998 we had double US embassy bombings… Dar es Salaam and Nairobi – by AQ, killing 225 people and injuring more than 4,000.
Then, of course, the USS Cole in Oct of 2000 in Yemen with 17 sailors killed.
All US interests attacked while we just “waited” – all done after 1993 WTC, and prior to 911. None responded to by our CIC, Clinton. This is your idea of “keeping us safe”??? I suggest he ignored a steady and increasing war on US and our interests abroad.
Now, since we went into Afghanistan, and liberated Iraq from Saddam…. other than specific battlefronts in the course of war events in Iraq or Afghanistan… perhas you’d like to document how many US embassies, military headquarters, and or American interests have been attacked since 2001 for us?
None. Why? It contradicts your next statement:
Note that only the 911 terrorist assault involved aircraft doors, Larry. They aren’t a one trick pony, ya know.
So what’s protected our embassies and military institutions abroad, as well as our own soil? They were very busy getting their butts whooped in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Both Zawahiri and Bin Laden have referred to Iraq as their central front. From the Weekly Standard article:
They concentrated their force in that region, and had little left over for assaults on our own soil. As Bush has often said, he took the fight to them so it did not have to be here.
All from the same global Islamic jihad network, Larry. And prevention of such requires counterintelligence and intel from Muslim nations. When Clinton left, Pakistan was a nuke armed enemy, Iraq was under Saddam, Afghanistan was under the Taliban, and Libya had a WMD programme in the works. North Korea had already broken their agreement with Albright-Clinton and was building weapons under their nose.
Every one of the above situations has changed. Why? President George W. Bush.
1: The goal was never to “kill all the jihadists”. The goal was to minimize their ability to act by cutting off the heads, and create western friendly environments in places formerly ruled by dictators and tyrants friendly to jihad movements.
2: Pakistan has ALWAYS been a sanctuary for terrorists. It was Benazir Bhutto, along with Mullah Omar and Maulana Fazlur Rahman who created the Taliban to begin with. This isn’t a new thing under Dubya… but perhaps, under Clinton who “kept us so safe”, you say, you never knew.
3: If you’d read the post and the NIE report I linked above, you’d realize that your comment about renewable terrorists was outdated and old talking points. Tell me Larry, why do you think the latest incarnation of suicide bombers has been comprised of a high number of children, women and disabled?
You say he “hit the perfect notes”. Perhaps, he did for you… who prefers to listen to the “same old tune” he plays.
Geez!
Larry has been round house kicked so many times today that his head has got to be hurting.
The GUSHING by the MSM anchors has made me so sick that I might have to call in to work tomorrow. Oh, wait, I’m the one who takes those calls. I guess I still have to do my share to keep the free market rolling.
Yes Aye, watch the video I put in, and listen to the commentary. That ain’t FOX News complaining.
I’d also add for Larry, first an apology for not including the following in my response to the idea that it might’ve just been a few nay sayers, and second…an explanation for that statement I just made.
As many know, almost all of my friends and family are very VERY anti-Bush. I’ve come to love facebook, and as soon as the speech was over….my friends all had woo-hoo’s and boos to add and rave about re the Bush booing. Every single one of em. I checked their profiles, and all of THEIR friends were saying the same things. They loved the booing.
No. I’m afraid that when a leader talks, tells people to drop the partisanship and unite, but they don’t…then those people are not following their leader. They are not supporting his effort to unite.
They want, need, and cannot surivive without the scapegoat that hate provides.
Mata:
Both Clinton and Bush had WTC bombings their first year in office. Thereafter, no attacks on American soil, for either President.
Add up civilian and American casualties under Clinton and under Bush — Clinton comes out way ahead. You may have forgotten a couple of other things, also. Clinton wanted $20 billion to secure ex-Soviet nukes. GOP-controllled Congress wouldn’t let him have it. Clinton proposed the Patriot Act in 1996. GOP-controlled Congress wouldn’t let him have it. Might have prevented 9/11. We’ll never know.
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?
Neither under Clinton nor under Bush did we have further attacks on American soil. Under both, we had attacks on our troops and on our diplomats, and under both there was civilian collateral damage. Only under Bush our casualties were much more numerous and devastating and civilian collateral damage under Bush was horrific.
Brilliant strategy, concentrate our forces in a convenient location by creating an entirely unnecessary war so that the enemy doesn’t need to go all over looking for targets. We should fight all of our wars that way, perhaps.
Let’s now go on to speak of national treasure. Bush declared war, cut taxes, and created what will ultimately be a $3 trillion loss of said treasure. This is another “gift” to the incoming Obama administration. As I’ve noted before, the entire national intelligence budget is a fraction of the annual cost of the Iraq war, and it is intelligence and police work which protects us from biological and nuclear weapons, and not land wars in Asia.
Iraq did not do one single thing to make America at less risk from biological or nuclear attack. Pakistan did not have a network of madrasses in the Western region of the country before Bush. I know this is so because I know a Pashtun who has repeatedly visited the region and who is involved with trying to establish an alternative, pro-Western school system. She says the difference now is night and day. We’ve killed and captured a few low lifes, but we are radicalizing a generation. Pakistan is a vastly different and more dangerous place than it was prior to the Bush administration. And Pakistan already has nuclear weapons.
With regard to the NIE report, while I haven’t read all 120 pages, I believe that it is speaking strictly of what might be called “mainstream Al Qaeda,” as opposed to speaking to all the remaining threats, from what are called “Al Qaeda inspired” groups. The Washington Times article you quote alludes to these threats.
What Iraq has proved to Jihadists is that the way to defeat the USA is not with masses of bodies, directly taking on the US Army, but with (1) biological weapons, (2) dirty nuclear devices, and (3) explosive nuclear devices. Bin Laden stated that it would take 4,000,000 dead Americans to get the US out of the Islamic World. The only suicide bomber who could create that many casualties is a suicide bomber with a nuke.
Those guys operate on God’s time. It took 100 years for Saladin to kick the Crusaders out of Jerusalem. It took 8 years of planning to turn WTC # 1 to WTC # 2. I’ve read where intelligence experts make it 50/50 that we’ll have an explosive nuclear device on US soil within 10 years, or even sooner. Nothing about Iraq lessened this risk one iota — quite the contrary.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Scott:
I stand corrected.
Chrissy spoke up, as did the female anchor.
Keith did not comment.
The Crisis by Thomas Paine during the American Revolution
——————————————————————————–
The Crisis is a collection of articles written by Thomas Paine during the American Revolutionary War. In 1776 Paine wrote Common Sense, an extremely popular and successful pamphlet arguing for Independence from England. The essays collected here constitute Paine’s ongoing support for an independent and self-governing America through the many severe crises of the Revolutionary War. General Washington found the first essay so inspiring, he ordered that it be read to the troops at Valley Forge.
December 23, 1776
THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.
….
Quitting this class of men, I turn with the warm ardor of a friend to those who have nobly stood, and are yet determined to stand the matter out: I call not upon a few, but upon all: not on this state or that state, but on every state: up and help us; lay your shoulders to the wheel; better have too much force than too little, when so great an object is at stake. Let it be told to the future world, that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive, that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet and to repulse it. Say not that thousands are gone, turn out your tens of thousands; throw not the burden of the day upon Providence, but “show your faith by your works,” that God may bless you. It matters not where you live, or what rank of life you hold, the evil or the blessing will reach you all.
….
Great job of quoting Paine as recommended by Washington with special importance for Vietnam Veterans
You’re right Aye. There’s more too it. Maybe I heard it there. He distinctly says something akin to respecting the office if I recall.
Brain’s on half duty today though, so I very well could be wrong.
Of course there’s really nothing better than the way Obie and the gang have taken the Whitehouse.gov website and fashioned it into a club with which to bash President Bush.
With this clown as their “leader” no wonder his followers are so repugnant.
Stay classy Obie.
As far as I’m concerned, your honeymoon ended when this defamatory slap in the face went up on a gov’t website that is funded, in part, by my tax dollars.
I agree that such language has no place on the Whitehouse.gov site. It was obviously put up by the same people who were running his campaign website. The offending statement is entirely appropriate as a campaign piece, but inappropriate from the standpoint of governance. But it looks like an isolated aberration. I’ll bet dollars to donuts that this was an oversight on the part of an administration which hasn’t even been in office for a half day and which is certainly occupied with a thousand other priorities.
I’m sure that they’ll change the wording, once this is pointed out to them, and that there will be a minimal amount of this stuff, going forward.
I think an exact quote from Obama’s little speech at the luncheon was “I can promise you that we’ll make some mistakes.”
I think they deserve a mulligan on this one. I gave Bush a mulligan on Harriet Myers, after he nominated Roberts and Alito.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Mata, that is a pretty big “other than”, I tend to think about all of the deaths. Do you ever contemplate the 14 Marines who were blown up by a IED near Haditha Iraq as part of American interests attacked since 2001? There have been too many deaths, before 9/11 and after 9/11.
blast, I consider it completely different when we are not actively engaged in warfare activities and being attacked (i.e. Cole, embassies, military institutions…), than when soldiers are there on a battle front.
The point is, for the events I mentioned, we were sitting ducks, assuming we were not at war. For the Iraqi or Afghanistan theatres, I expect us to take casualties as we are engaging the enemy.
Prior to that, the enemy was engaging us… and we were ignoring them in response. Since we have engaged them, the “sitting duck” incidents have gone by the wayside.
That’s a tad convenient for your argument, don’t you think? You don’t classify attacks on US interests… our military ships, our embassies, our military institutions, as part of the US? They declared war on the US long before the US decided to hear them. It took increasing events and higher death counts to wake up our CIC and the Pentagon.
Yet you still ignore the reality. How many of these attacks on our foreign soil interests have come under attack since we engaged the enemy in Afghanistan and Iraq? So why don’t you go back and read your comment, and tell us where you decided to limit that attacks on the US… including our military, which is an act of war… had to be on US soil for your comparison game?
Indeed? On on what do you base this statement with such confidence, when it flies in the face of the Pentagon reports?
You “believe”??? Larry, the NIE report I speak of is the attitude of Muslims towards jihad. Not Muslims toward al Qaeda. In case you haven’t learned yet, Hezbollah and Hamas share the same goals as the Wahabbi-Sunni-Sufi jihad. Once they clear out the infidels, they fight each other for the ultimate control.
And I didn’t link any WA Times article in this thread. Whatever are you talking about when you say it “alludes to”…. ??? The NIE report contains data INRE the pertinent threat. The Pentagon report is about the Harmony/ISG docs, and history of Saddam’s regime, captured in Iraq after we deposed him in 2003.
They always knew this. They also know that the way to defeat the west is by winning the PR/media war. Is is this precise reason why Iraq was NOT an unnecessary war, as the Pentagon reports would show you. Saddam actively worked with the jihad groups as an unofficial state weapon. They figured removing Saddam would give them a boost in the Muslim approval department…. wrong. Especially since they demonstrated such brutal warfare against fellow Muslim citizens in their efforts to start a civil war.
While you like to use the Presidential terms for your reference, the actually planning time was placed at 4-5 years for 911. And to say that an Iraq under Saddam, vs an Iraq as an Arab democracy with aid on intel and counterterrorism, is better, is the height of naive.
“sitting ducks” I donno Mata, what is worse, being a sitting duck on a warship sitting in the port of Aden (with negligent command not planning force protection) or being in an unarmored Humvee because of lack of planning? I tend to think blood is blood and who ever thought the Middle East was ever a safe place for Americans before 9/11?
Gotta go home and make dinner, now, Mata. Back l8r. West coast time.
For now, here’s a nice collection of reviews of the inaugural speech, from expert writers with differing points of view:
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/the-speech-the-experts-critique/
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Gosh darn, blast. Did the military know we were in a war zone, and in active combat when sitting in the Gulf refueling? Afterall, the CIC did not give them that info.
By contrast, the troops in the Humvee knew exactly where they were… in the middle of an active war.
I’m on west coast time as well, Larry. But obviously you’re not familiar enough with my posts and comments if you think I give any weight to what any “expert” speech writer has to say. They are nothing more than pundits, paid to reconcile political posturing to public opinion and response.
I base my opinions on what I hear, and what I know of history.
And yes, I did the courtesy of reading the link. My opinion still stands.
The meme that this is a failed speech is a failed meme, believable only by those so close minded anything said today would have been panned.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Larry: How many more mulligans are you going to give Obama and Co?
“President Obama will keep the broken promises made by President Bush to rebuild New Orleans and the Gulf Coast”
That’s nothing worse than the slap Obama took at Bush the day after Bush wished him well in his farewell address and the Sunday performance Rahm Emanuel made where he used the phrase “the last eight years” to blame all the troubles Obama and Co. expect on Bush.
Again, it’s useful to point out that no one had to issue corrections or clarifications about Bush statements on Obama.
It is painfully obvious that the gracious example President Bush set was wasted on Obama and Co. no matter how many mulligans you give them.
And yes, that voids any honeymoon for me as well.
The thesis of this article is that Obama’s call to bipartisanship and unity failed because his supporters did not act with bipartisanship and unity. True enough. Maybe we should give it a week to see if the message sinks in.
@CBDenver:
The failure to act in a sense of bipartisanship, unity, and common decency didn’t begin or end with the audience at the Inauguration.
That failure extended to the Inaugural address and the man who wrote/delivered it.
His senseless, classless, swipes at President Bush and his snub of US military men and women who fought and died in Iraq and Afghanistan are just the beginning.
Obie would be well advised to remember that he will not always enjoy the popularity that he has today.
This was not a good way to begin a Presidency. Especially in a nation that remains deeply divided.
Fit #35
Predictable from you. But then reception of a speech is personal. Especially one that imparts nothing new but the same old melody of talking points. King of nuance, Obama is.
Because I took the time to read it. Here’s the except summary from Larry’s links of “expert” speech writers
William Safire:
William Gavin:
Translation? ho hum… not extraordinary, and don’t book the marble engravers any time soon.
Jeff Shesol:
Mostly “make them think”… as in what the heck did he say???
Gordon Stewart:
Translation? A lot of nice words strung together that mean nothing, but delivered well. A hallmark of this President and his speech writers.
Mary Kate Cary:
A “good” speech that left us “wanting more”… like in clarification of anything of substance, perhaps? Something other than the same ol’ watered down vague platitudes and soaring rhetoric about nothing in particular of his campaign?
Clark S. Judge:
The *only* glowing thumbs up from an “expert” speech writer. Sort of… A nice way of saying it was respectful plagarism.
“… Using the words of George Washington”
“… As have all new presidents…”
That’s one out of six positive – in a back handed kind of way. The others? Lack luster reviews, with politically correct words meant not to offend… or praise.
Like I said… don’t care what the “experts” say. But apparently the majority had a hard time mustering any glowing report… or acknowledging his speech resembled anything historically memorable.
Which means, of course, that Scott’s analysis was pretty much spot on… even among the “experts”.
Then again, Obama no longer needs to impress with his words. He got the job. Now he needs to impress with deeds. And the clock has officially started…. tho on impact in some arenas (investors and Wall Street), it started months ago.
It was a Campaign Speech. He has the job already. The Campaign is Over.
Long on PC. Way short on Substance. It was as memorable as a fund raising pitch from a telemarketer.
He painted a pretty grim picture of America almost like his Wife’s statement about having no pride in being an American for her adult life.
Overall, I’d give him a D+. I expected better from all of the Media hype that preceded this event. It was a Campaign Speech. Period.
Wall Street was not inspired either.
Pingback: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Official Obama White House Web Page Debuts with Partisan Bush Attacks
Well, it’s a done deal folks. The liberals have gotten their fondest dream in the Oval Office…
While I will pray that Obama does well as Commander-and-Chief, and whilst I applaud the fact that he lauded McCain at a dinner recently, and has at least made a show of seeking bi-partisan support; there are still many things that trouble me…
The emphasis on race, that Obama was the first “black” President, and thus something special and ground breaking. Rather, it would have been better to simply refer to him as the 44th President of these United States. For the concept of our nation is that being an American is supposed to supersede the petty considerations of race and ethnicity, that our duties to our nation are to trump any loyalties we might have along skin color or creed.
Perhaps expecting that kind of thinking was expecting too much of the liberals and the media. At the moment I’m watching Jesse Jackson pronounce Obama’s election as the “redemption” of the United States, a sort of “payback” that was owed by the United States…
The media has been in a self-congratulatory fit this entire day, with each talking-head trying to out due the last in falling over themselves to sing Obama’s praises. Granted, I was out of the country in 2004, but I don’t remember any such pronouncements that our country was “saved” when President Bush was re-elected.
I will miss George W. Bush and his humanity, his humility in the face of the heavy duty that was placed upon his shoulders. Taking the country into war, and pressing on even in the face of the weak-kneed media’s disapproval. I pray that “W” has a peaceful retirement, and that history will bear out that he was a better President than many gave him credit for.
Well, the Liberals have gotten what they wanted; we’ll see how long it takes for Obama’s halo to tarnish after his presence doesn’t cause the economy to magically recover.
@SoCal Chris:
Wasn’t it Roberts who flubbed the line, first?
@MataHarley:
Besides the Iraq invasion which removed the dangers of a wmd-loving Saddam who was an open state sponsor of exported terror, who trained, funded, gave safe-haven to, Islamic terrorists including to those in the al Qaeda network,
President Bush also protected us from another 9/11 through such things as the Patriot Act and NSA Surveillance programs.
From the now defunct white house fact sheet on keeping America safe:
I didn’t save the WH fact sheet on the global war on terror.
Lawrence Wright who wrote the genealogy of al-Qaeda stated on-air that al-Qaeda was bogged down in Iraq.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Not the impression I got from the Duelfer Report.
Mata:
Of course we won’t settle the Bush legacy debate in this thread. But I find your arguments to be a creative stretch. Despite Bush’s assertions to the contrary, it’s absurd to think that any administration (Bush’s or Gore’s) would have proceeded with the Iraq invasion, had today’s outcome been understood in advance. There was, additionally, no imminent crisis forcing a war before the intelligence and planning were solid. The Iraq invasion was both ill-conceived and reckless. Those of us who counseled against it in advance have every right to make this point; so that we can learn lessons and mitigate consequences.
You write as though the stable future of Iraq is assured and you entirely ignore the cost-benefit considerations. Even assuming that the Iraq War shall end up producing any net long term benefits at all, we must ask whether $3 trillion might have produced much greater long term benefits, had it been applied to other areas, such as intelligence and shoring up our own economic security (e.g. Medicare/Social Security/National Debt). You continue to ignore this issue. In the end, was it even close to worth the cost?
I spent a week in Turkey, just before Thanksgiving, visiting both Ankara and Istanbul as the guest of Turkish medical societies. The Turks have a keen interest in Iraq, which shares both a border and a historically troublesome Kurdish population. Turkey has recently endured hot border clashes and suffered severe casualties. The Turks think that there is an obvious rope-a-dope going on, with all factions deciding to lie low until the US pulls out. This precisely parallels the late Lt. General William Odom’s assertion that the ultimate outcome in Iraq would be the same, whether the US left in 2005 or 2015. Odom (NSA Director under Reagan) accurately predicted in 2004 that the Sunnis would be the ones to kick foreign (i.e. “Al Qaeda” type) terrorists out of Iraq, once it was no longer in the interests of the Sunnis to have them as allies. This is precisely what happened and, coupled with the Al Sadr cease fire), this — more than “the surge” — was responsible for the temporarily improved security situation in Iraq. What will really happen in Iraq, long term, is very uncertain, and this again represents an absurdly minimal return on a massive expenditure of investment and human lives.
I read all of your “2025″ wet-finger-in-the-wind, fairy tale reading-of-tea-leaves (I note that you left out the part about the report endorsing the global warming theory), and I am very unimpressed. It is entirely theoretical and, in any event, does not credit the Iraq War for any of the hoped-for devolution of the Al Qaeda movement.
It’s pretty evident that this present prediction represents a contrarian view and that it is largely a theoretical construct. “Al Qaeda,” per se, meaning Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda, is only a segment of a larger movement, and Al Qaeda’s mistakes, as well as its successes, point the way ahead to that small but deadly segment of the Muslim population which wishes to inflict great harm upon our homeland. The way ahead for them is not to engage in head on confrontations with the US military, but to acquire and deploy biological and nuclear weapons.
Continuing with the “2025″ analysis:
For balance, here are other relevant intelligence reports and analyses:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/world/asia/09afghan.html
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10266/probability_of_a_nuclear_attack_by_terrorists_has_increased_warns_council_report.html
Finally (Mata), we were debating Homeland Security, and I made the point that both Clinton and Bush endured homeland attacks (both on the World Trade Center) their first year in office and both kept the homeland safe (Bush with the advantage of 6 years of GOP congressional control to Clinton’s merely 2 years of Dem congressional control, with, again, the GOP denying Clinton’s request for both the Patriot Act and for $20 billion to secure the ex-Soviet nuke arsenal).
The concept of starting an irrelevant war to attract the enemy to devote resources to that war as a diversion from random attacks on overseas assets, when the actual losses to the USA (in terms of both human lives and national treasure) are exponential multiples as a result of that war has to be called into serious question.
And you ignore yet other consequences: an emboldened Iran, which will surely have greatly increased influence in Iraq, following the US pull out. The fact that there were scores of Christian Churches in Iraq before the war (and one of the most important Iraqi political figures — Tariq Aziz — was openly Christian). Today, religious tolerance (along with Christianity) is a thing of the past in post-Saddam Iraq. The USA could have gotten rid of Saddam without invading Iraq, were that determined to be in our national interest. Remember Bush first giving Saddam and his sons 72 or however many hours to get out of town, only to withdraw the offer and say that we were going to invade anyway, whether they stayed or left? This proves that Bush had ambitions in Iraq which went well beyond removing the alleged threat to US security posed by this particular evil dictator.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Wordsmith said:
Wasn’t it Roberts who flubbed the line, first?
Wordsmith, I didn’t think so, but Roberts did get the wording mixed up later, I agree. But, Obama first interrupted Roberts at the beginning, talking over him before Roberts finished the first line of the “I, Barack Hussein Obama…” part. Then Obama couldn’t remember the second line, which Roberts said clearly the first time (and, I thought correctly) but the “faithfully” part was out of order, you’re right. And, then as Roberts was correctly repeating it the second time, Obama talked over him again, trying to correct himself. He was obviously very nervous, and even Michelle (if you saw her) was looking at him with an expression like, “WHAT are you doing/thinking??? Don’t mess this up, Barry!!” In looking back, I guess they both flubbed! Kind of embarrassing either way.
This is how it’s supposed to have been said, I understand:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Regarding the speech and my link to the various critiques, I was simply providing that as a point of general interest (“what are other people saying”) and not to make any particular argument.
I watched the speech again, and I think the major “problem” was simply the expectations game.
Here’s another relevant review — from abroad:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/alex_spillius/blog/2009/01/20/barack_obama_inauguration_his_worst_speech
I think that he intentionally avoided a potentially odious comparison with Martin Luther King. He wanted to keep the speech short and touch all the issues. The strongest points for me were, as stated, those dealing with national security. I think that this was the most important issue for him to address to the world, and I don’t know how he could have done it any clearer or better.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
go check the video. Seemed like Roberts was asking “so help me god” at the end, too
I think they deserve a mulligan on this one. ~ openid.aol.com/runnswim
Chicago Jesus gets no mulligan on this, or on anything else from here on out. Chicago Jesus has been given a mulligan his entire affirmative-action life. Now his actions speak louder than “just words.” And his actions to date have been appalling in a very racist, anti-American kind of way.
I’m sorry it was a speech! Get over it! My god if you haven’t been paying attention America is where it is right now because of us. Our horrific foreign policy cannot be blamed on republicans Johnson, Carter, and Clinton had horrible foreign policies as well. If we actually want change then we have to do it ourselves. That is the whole point of electing Obama, like Kennedy, he was voted more as a symbol of the changing tide. He may not be the change but his election embodies Americans collective will towards change. As FDR said “now you elected me, its up to you to keep the fire under my toes.” (paraphrased).
For Notunderhisspell: Haha are you kidding me? Don’t you realize you sound like a complete moron. Nothing you said is enlightening. Your only fear is race because you have nothing new to add. Your down playing off Bush being the worst President in history is laughable. Please get a life!
For MataHarley: It may be true that many are turning away from Islamic fundamentalism but due to our recent actions (ie Bush) many youths are growing up where their brothers and sisters are dying by the thousands because of Western interference. There is a very possible chance of a youthful revolution very similar to the 1970′s. All they really need is a fresh leader like Arafat or Khomeini, who came out of nowhere. Again things are not going to change unless their is a overall rejection of how we handle this so called “War on Terror” not just the election of a new President. (This is in reference to your last post)
jon, you didn’t even read the article-just gave your opinion, then proved the article correct by making divisive posts. Thank you
THE sailors guarding the American destroyer Cole when it was attacked by suicide bombers in Aden last month had instructions not to fire on suspicious craft and were carrying unloaded guns on the orders of their captain.
“The lax security regime appears to have been in line with formal Pentagon policy and left the crew sitting ducks when a small craft loaded with high explosive came alongside and blew up, killing 17 American sailors.
The latest disclosures, in yesterday’s Washington Post, will raise new questions about why American warships were making highly visible visits to Aden at a time of extreme volatility in the Middle East and when Yemen was listed by the State Department as a “haven for terrorists”.
The Cole was sailing under “Threat Condition Bravo”, the second lowest on a scale of four, so only a handful of guards were posted on deck as it re-fuelled at Aden on Oct 12. Crucially, the big fixed machine guns at the bow and stern were unmanned because of the relatively low level of alert.
We won the war (ground war) quite easily. What we failed to do was secure the stockpiles of weapons that were fashioned into IEDS…. asymmetrical war was created (or at least given the effective tools) through our own negligence in planning.
In either case was it the responsibility of the “sitting ducks” as you called them, or rather their leaders? I regret loss of life in a combat condition, as in all conditions, but loss of life due to poor planning or rush for war prior to being prepared is inexcusable.
Yup… sounds like a ship and crew that were not advised by the CIC and higher ups that they were at war. Otherwise none of the above would have been true. Therefore, sitting ducks for an enemy actively engaging us, while our CIC refused to engage them…. by placing them on low alert, and giving orders not to fire. Sounds like NATO rules of engagement.
But of course the status of “sitting ducks” is because of the CIC, refusing to acknowledge an enemy at war, blast. This is why I say that after the 1993 WTC bombing, we were consistently attacked by an enemy that we refused to engage.
After the 911 WTC/Pentagon bombing, we went to war and engaged them. The “sitting ducks” are no more. Now our regrettable casualties are as a result of fighting back… not sitting there waiting for us to be hit.
Much like his Presidency will be…. Then again, who set the bar for his expectations? Obama, himself.
I guess we agree to disagree. Apparently I see more value in Iraq as a western ally in counterintelligence, and no longer under a despot than you do. You measure it’s value in US dollars spent, and see better uses for it within the country for social welfare. I believe such an inward disengagement with the rest of the world… especially one that had been proliferating active enemies waging war on our US interests… is dangerous.
Really? Let me recap, and perhaps you can tell me what “truth” is stretched?
Your side of the aisle does alot of lip service on our damaged reputation in that region of the world. And yet, in every instance above, we have far better relations now than when Bush took office. Perhaps you all better start reconciling how we can have more allies, and more Muslim democracies, and how that is more damaging to the US?
The only ones that hate us more (not that we were ever loved and adored anyway…) are the jihad movements.
This is also the case from the lips of al Zawahiri himself. Thus the reason to make sure the US troop withdrawal was done not for public opinion (Obama), but done in a way where Iraq could secure itself in our wake (Bush and the SOFA). And no…. nothing is “assured”… including our own future. But unlike pre-1993, the Iraqis *have* a future to strive for that is not under a despot and a gang of police thugs.
First of all, the post was not about AGW, which is why I left it out. It’s no surprise that most governments and UN have convinced themselves about global warming… in the middle of changing climates the opposite direction. That’s for another thread.
The “entirely theoretical” is more an example of your fairy tale reading of tea leaves, however. Please note these NIE sections of Muslim disenchantment with jihad… which was *not* the case after we went into Afghanistan.
Now tell me, Larry… where was it that the global Islamic jihad network (meaning AQ and their co-ops and all splinter groups that share their ideology) killed all those Muslims the NIE report speaks of? Was it Bali? The WTC? The London or Spain incidents? Afghanistan?
Nope…
So where did all the mass murders of Muslims take place? Iraq. You deliberately ignore their historical warfare. Just how much reality needs spelling out for you?
For you to argue that point is akin to me saying I have an apple in one hand, and another apple in the other. And you coming back and saying, but you didn’t tell me you have two apples….
Mata, does the CIC have to communicate directly to captains of ships in harbors of nations that our government (state dept) acknowledges as a haven for terrorists? Does the CIC have a responsibility to provide enough troops to secure VAST weapon stockpiles in a country we invaded?
Oh, are you again blaming the 9/11 attacks on Iraq?
Am I “again” blaming 911 on Iraq?? Why don’t you go back and show me where I *ever* blamed 911 on Iraq, blast.
I’m not sure what you don’t get about the differences of being on full alert and engaging the enemy (today) and not engaging the enemy (then). Whether the theatre of operation is Afghanistan or Iraq, our status of war today is completely different than the status of police enforcement back then. And that status was changed by Bush after 911.
blast, I have to assume the chain of command has some say in the status of our Naval vessels and their rules of self defense when not at war. Are you saying that the USS Cole was free to disregard standard rules of engagement in times of peace and fire on the vessels, despite their low alert status? And do you think that our Naval vessels have different rules of engagement today than Oct 2001?
And yes… I think we all agree that there were mistakes made in the Iraq conflict in the wake of Saddam’s removal. But do I think that we would have gotten all the stockpiles of weaponry, chem and bio supplies quickly enough? Nope. Even with more troops and the best of intentions, they are looking for stockpiles in unknown locations, and the denizens already know where they are. They could get their mitts on them first.
blast, I’m the one that blames the 911 attacks on Iraq, and I base that on the 911 Commission’s report (as well as the Clinton indictment of UBL in 1998 among others). Happy to discuss it anytime. Sorry if I brought it up out of place in this thread.
Best,
Scott
@Scott:
Judge Harold Baer blames Iraq for 9/11 too.
Just sayin’
Mata,
We are getting to the going around and around phase of the argument. I’ll just respond to two of your points, and then I’ll let you have the last word, if you wish.
Pakistan is still nuke-armed and the percentage of the Pakistani populace which absolutely hates the guts of the USA has increased markedly. And it is getting worse, as there is now a growing network of fundamentalist Islamic madrassas, to indoctrinate the next generation. By shelling out huge amounts of money, the government of Pakistan was bought off, temporarily, but the USA never had anything to fear from the Pakistani government. It is individuals, many within the military and within Pakistan’s nuclear program. You may recall the “father of the Pakistani bomb” transferring secrets and technology (this occurred during the Bush Presidency). Here’s another example:
http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/afx/2006/03/28/afx2629000.html
This is why it’s a bad thing to piss off individuals, while buying off their government. You may recall that we had the support of the Iranian government (the Shah) but not of the Iranian people, who threw off their US-supported government and installed the present nettlesome regime.
North Korea is not exactly in the bag. And whatever progress we’ve made with N Korea has nothing at all to do with Iraq, which is what the present discussion was about. I’m not a global Bush hater, who maintains that the administration never did anything right. The one great fiasco, however, was Iraq, for which it gets the full responsibility and for which it will be entitled to the full credit, in the very unlikely event that any credit should ever be due.
Libya may perhaps be claimed as an Iraq dividend, although experts have maintained that Libya’s improved behavior was owing to (pre-existing) sanctions, rather than to some fear that they’d be next on the Bush invasion list.
Afghanistan is an interesting case. No one criticized Bush for invading Afghanistan — not even I. In retrospect, however, I think it was a very bad idea (again, no criticism, simply retrospective analysis). Two different Westerners infiltrated Al Qaeda; the American actually met Bin Laden. Arguably, we could have infiltrated Al Qaeda in Afghanistan without getting involved in an Asia land war without end. Fallout has been the re-emergence of a huge opium crop (tightly controlled under the Taliban), which is allegedly paying for, among other things, Jihadist activities, such as weapons procurement. The Afghan invasion also destabilized Pakistan. We traded an accessible Afghan “sanctuary” for an inaccessible Pakistan “sanctuary” and radicalized Western Pakistan in the process.
I don’t accept the premise that getting rid of Saddam solved more problems than it created.
If I understand your current argument correctly, you are claiming that Iraq was a success because it allowed the Islamic world to see that Jihadists were equally willing to kill Muslims as to kill Infidels? The net benefit of this is highly questionable.
I stand by my previous statements and opinions.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
As opposed to the past Clinton era when they so loved us??
Larry… ouch on your history, guy. Shall we talk of A.Q. Khan first, who you not so subtly suggest became a bad guy under Bush’s nose?? Here’s more indepth history for you instead.
That kills a couple birds with one stone. Khan was actively involved in his nefarious deeds prior to the Bush admin, and when Pakistan was still not a US ally. Secondly, it was suspected that the Pak retirees were assisting NK and it’s nuke program… that they were not supposed to have. Again, all prior to Bush’s election win in Nov 2000.
Are this situations perfect today, and is Pakistan the ideal ally? Hang no. But they are a better ally today than as an enemy in the past. And NK is now monitored and not carrying on with illegal WMD activities under the administration’s nose.
And of course the US had nothing to fear from the prior Pakistani regimes. However Pakistan is not a nation guided by their Parliament, but by the power of their Pak Army. The trick is to get as many of the leadership of the Parliament and military working on the counterintelligence cooperation. Thus the reason Musharraf had ten times the value of the neutered negotiators, Zardari/Bhutto and Nawaz (who have a history of failed truces with terrorists). I was sorry Musharraf decided to relinquish his command of the military and carry on only with the Presidency in his final days… lesser choice between the two, IMHO.
But since it’s not perfect, you think we’ve made no progress? That’s nothing but a partisan opinion bent on refusing to give any credit to President Bush for his accomplishments. And if you’re expecting perfection out of any Muslim ally? My suggestion is, don’t hold your breath. We will never be cultural friends with similiar goals. But we can be allies against jihad.
Incorrect. You’re moving the goal posts again. This has never been just about Iraq. This is about progress in “hearts and minds”… as we started with your comment #5. Then go to your comment #12:
You then ignored the accomplishments list and widened the criticism to include Iran.
Iran has always been somewhat emboldened thru history, and became more so with the election of Ahmadinejad. To assume they only became that way under a Bush administration is to naively dodge history. All of which then led to your comment that To those who say: “Bush kept us safe after 9/11,” I reply “Clinton kept us safe after 2/26.”
Then, of course, that “safe” bit had limits… they could only be attacks on US soil, and not US interests. Shifting goal posts….
Again, all of this is nothing more than a dodge by you… stubbornly refusing to admit that anything good came from the Bush Presidency. When I point out the Muslim nations that are now Arab democracies in their infancy, and those that were formerly enemies and now allies… you say it’s not good enough. Even Libya… who coincidently yielded their WMD program in the wake of Saddam’s desposition, you want to credit “sanctions”.
Desperate, Larry. That you can be that partisan to shun such historical events and obvious improvements over what was happening a decade ago is truly frightening.
Is reading a lost art anymore??? Nowhere did I claim Iraq was a success *BECAUSE* it allowed the jihad movements to show their true colors. Iraq is an evolving success because they are becoming an Arab democracy, and a western ally, located smack dab in the heart of the jihad Caliphate.
A side benefit of that conflict – and by no doing on the part of the Iraqis or the US coalition – is that the jihad movements… in tandem with the disgruntled Ba’athist and Saddam loyalists losers … became so desperate as to cause a bloodbath amongs fellow Muslims in order to stimulate a civil war.
Instead, it backfired, and they shot themselves in the foot for public relations in the Muslim world. This was not part of US/Pentagon military strategy. However, had the Muslim on Muslim bloodbath in Iraq not happened, the Muslim world’s support for jihad would likely still be what it was after Afghanistan, if not higher. It is a benefit that we owe solely to the ineptitude and desperation of the jihad movements.
Scott;
Thanks for the link to the ABC transcript. I simply refused to view any of the immaculate inaug proceedings (as a matter of principle).
But from the transcript, have to agree. Totally long-winded, bland, boring, unenlightening, and even insincere. Reading it brought to mind the Alice In Wonderland Carpenter and Walrus story, where the Walrus’ monologue on “Cabbages and Kings” served only to distract the attention of the poor little oysters as they were consumed until none were left to be outraged. As disingenuous a piece as that could only have been penned by Axelrod. Certainly not likely to be gracing any monuments as the lib-dems might have hoped, or to even have a hope of being pointed to and quoted at some future date. Not a single stirring inspirational line anywhere within.
Got a laugh from the mention of how America did not merely sit by when the world was faced with fascism and communism, considering liberal America has done just that in the face of his socialist propagandizing. I doubt anything he actually said resonated or even made sense to a single groupie in attendance listening to his speech.
[DELETED BY CURT FOR OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE CONSPIRACY CONTENT]
Like the “Na-na-na-na, hey hey good-bye” insult to Bush? I suppose the end to “false promises” means now that you have taken office, making them is no longer necessary?
Sorry, have trouble swallowing this in relation to your taxation plans. You may want to tax freely, but certainly not equally, and I suppose “a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness”, means via entitlement programs and redistribution of wealth?
Yet you would take the money from the “risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things” and hand it over to those who have not “earned”, who seek “short-cuts”, and “who prefer leisure over work”.
Please tell us how you would “move forward” with the fundamentalist Islamic terrorist elements and supporters whose “mutual interest” is only in jihad and whom “respect” no laws of man?
Had to love that one, only decent line of the whole speech. As it seemed to so aptly describe our own liberal/socialist underground movement, their protesters, DNC, MSM, etceteras. My oh my… I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen a liberal extend their hand to shake the hand of a conservative (and yes the sarcasm light is “O-N” position).
Yeah, increased ethanol production will go a long way towards feeding the world’s hungry.
I sincerely doubt Obama would want to hear what they would be whispering.
As the saying goes; “Out with the old and in with the new” right Barry?
Gosh darn it, there you go again Joe, I mean Barry; trying to playing that race card again, may we remind you Barry? That particular “father” wouldn’t have been served in a local restaurant 60 years ago not because of segregation or racism, but because he didn’t live here. He was a product of your Arab grandfather’s harem of 3 wives living in North-East Africa at the time.
I am sorry, blame is not the operative word here. I guess it would be conflate. Link the two together and make it seem 9/11 made the Iraq invasion inevitable “post 9/11 world” speak.
Yes, the chain of command does have something to say about the rules of self defense. I doubt the President sits around with the CNO and decides what is the best course of action for force protection. Career military make those decisions and present them to the president where needed (as it should be). Those who sent the Cole to Aden should have known about the substantial risk and either changed the ROI or manifestly changed the security around the ship.
Oh, so the answer is just not protect any of the weapons stockpiles?… no, but I can assure you hundreds of American lives were lost due to not protecting the KNOWN stockpiles. We merely passed them by because we had insufficient troop strength.
Which chain of command issue should accrue more to the CIC? Not sufficient force protection for the Cole or not sufficient troop strength for a planned invasion?
In any case, President Bush did not keep Americans safer since 9/11 since many more died than before 9/11. Oh, and we never got Bin Laden or Zawahiri and they continue to plan to attacks in the USA. All it will take is the lowest common denominator (border guard) to miss a trunk full of explosives. Or much like the pimply punk who killed all those people in Van Maur, a group of armed terrorists walking into any large public place and mowing down our citizens. Nothing has changed since 9/11 in reality, except we are weaker military and economically.
Having fun Mata?
I’ve been pretty slammed under, and will remain that way for awhile. But let me address some of your post, blast.
If you are suggesting that I consider Iraq a legitimate theatre in the battle against the global Islamic jihad movement, yes. I believed that when the debate was on about removing Saddam. And I believe it more firmly today when the Harmony/ISG documents confirmed Saddam’s relationship with terrorist cells for use as an unofficial state weapon. If I remember rightly, I believe you said you also supporter in the beginning, but… using hindsight… now oppose it.
For me, it was the cockroach theory. They scatter in Afghanistan, but have to go somewhere. Pakistan’s mountainous regions make for a lousy homebase. Just as Zarqawi returned to Iraq for medical care in Saddam’s hospitals, the jihad movements knew that Saddam turned a deliberate blind eye to their presence in exchange for quid pro quo. Iraq would have been an appealing region, with it’s geographical advantage, it’s history in the Caliphate, and it’s natural resources and wealth, for the jihad movement to move a large portion of their operations.
If you want to persist in blaming the naval commanders for the Cole, that’s up to you. It’s a free country. However this is a nation that was not in war status (in our point of view anyway… the World Islamic Front had declared war on us three years prior). Under Bush, that “police enforcement” attitude towards terrorism changed to the offensive and a war status. And now, under Obama, who is steadily severing all Bush’s military stance of being on the offense, we will return to the Clinton era of being sitting ducks yet again.
You sure demonstrate a lot of venom for errors and deficiencies, blast. Interesting with your own background as a veteran. You should know, better than most, that there is no perfect plan for war and that strategy morphs as you encounter reality.
However your assumption that is was all just ignoring the ammo stockpiles because of lack of troops is not entirely correct. They anticipated finding these, and had sequence of events to destroy and control. What they did not anticipate was the scope and volume of these ammo dumps.
If you read this assessment by George Zahaczewsky, the program manager for USA Environmental’s operations in Iraq in 2003–2004, you may get a handle on the ammo stockpile realities. He oversaw the establishment of two CEA depots and managed the operations of numerous mobile teams that collected or destroyed CEA and UXO.
This is better than you just widely spreading blame on those that plan military strategy. They encountered a more vast stash of ammo than planned, and what they did to accommodate. But they were not blind to their presence. Then again, you plan for what you anticipate in war…. which is almost always not the reality when you get there. As thru all historic wars, it is how well you adapt to the ground situations that is important.
I have no problem with that, provided we killed the cockroaches that attacked us on 9/11 and had an effective plan on dealing with others.
If they were in a harbor in Sidney, London, or somewhere safe, sure, I probably could excuse the lax security for want of enemies. But we knew Aden was an unsafe place, that does change things in my mind.
I read that was they had not enough manpower. Yes, I know that plans must change was we engage the enemy, of course. But the plan used was flawed. We know some leading military officials (Chief of Staff of the Army) said we needed much higher levels of troops. When you go in with “just enough” to deal with your plan, and you find something else, your ability to react is diminished, options limited, stores of weapons left unguarded… we feed the monster of asymmetrical war with tons of supplies which in turn fed the high level of casualties.
@blast:
The administration’s goal in the GWoT wasn’t retaliation and revenge; their aim was in preventing the next terror attack.
Zawahiri and bin Laden are important symbolic figureheads. But the failure to find and capture/kill them shouldn’t be seen as failure in prosecution of the war against Islamic Jihadism nor failure in keeping America safe. Much of the al-Qaeda leadership and original players have been killed/captured.
Interestingly, in Richard Clark’s book, he mentions how military officials sometimes let it filter down the ranks that civilian planners and politicians are to blame for certain war decisions, taking the heat off of themselves for actually making the decisions.
The whole “not enough troops” line is a convoluted mess, as far as I can tell, when you try to cross-reference differing accounts.
Here’s how I understand it from Feith’s account: Rumsfeld was willing to give General Franks and Abizaid all the troops they needed. Generals unhappy with troop numbers (especially those in 20/20 hindsight, and those who were did not take part in war planning and are therefore not privy to the back-and-forth discussions) didn’t fail to convince Rumsfeld; they failed to convince Abizaid or Franks for requesting more troops. The issue and possibility of more troops might have been mentioned, but no one at the time seems to have pressed for it.
Here’s what Shinseki, the Army Chief of Staff you brought up and who is cited by the “gotcha” critics, said last month on CNN’s Situation Room with Blitzer:
So many things that war critics anticipated happening didn’t come to pass; and that’s in part, due to the planning that we did right. Unfortunately, much of the successes get overshadowed by the failures and things that went wrong.
In the end, looking at it with hindsight clarity, you’re probably right. But consider this as well:
The original idea was indeed “liberation not occupation”, and to model Iraq’s aftermath after Afghanistan and put an Iraqi face to the interim government as soon as possible.
Being the armchair general that I am, I think Rumsfeld’s streamlining of the military was brilliant; one of the hardest things to do is to move a bureaucracy to implement innovative changes and think outside the box. The decision to go in with a streamlined military force and make a sprint to Baghdad probably saved more American lives during major combat operations, with the Regime collapsing after a 3 week war. Recall that Saddam had begun rigging bridges, oil fields, and infrastructure as he had done during the first Gulf War. He was under the impression that he had more time to prepare, not anticipating the start-date of the war. Since the U.S. 4th Infantry Division wasn’t able to launch from Turkey, Saddam didn’t think the U.S. would start the invasion; not until the 4th ID was in place. Franks adapted to the setback, in a manner that Saddam failed to anticipate.
The other criticism often leveled at the Administration in regards to not enough boots on the ground, is in regards to “disbanding the Iraqi Army and police force”.
Bremer (yes, Bush’s man) seems to have unilaterally made that decision, himself. I’m aware of his letter to the NYTimes defending himself, but the accounts are all a convoluted mess to make sense of in regards to who is responsible for that decision.
Originally, for the purposes of liberation and not occupation, the White House and Pentagon did want to keep the Iraqi Army intact for post-war security.
Initial reports from Franks, too, indicates that leaflets were dropped telling personnel to stay in uniform, as the intent was to utilize them; but many didn’t. The Iraq army simply dissolved. Military personnel did come back looking for work and sheikhs also offering security work. Bremer screwed that one up. Of course, there was also the problem of corruption and lack of a real officer’s corp in the Iraq army to build from. There were elements of State and CIA that were never fully on board with the White House and Pentagon planning.
CENTCOM planners and Bill Luti had anticipated and averted almost every possible contingency except for the ones that did occur. I believe it was CIA that felt the police force and army would remain intact to provide security after the fall of the Regime. Didn’t happen. In his book, Franks said on April 10th, they ordered Iraqi troops “to remain in uniform at all times. Maintain unit integrity and good order and discipline in your units.”
“I wanted to see those defeated enemy troops kept in coherent units, commanded by their own officers, and paid in a combination of humanitarian assistance food and cash….[and] put to work for the Coalition on reconstruction.” As for the police, according to Luti, “the CIA told us that all we had to do was lop off the top layer of leadership, but when we did we found that the corruption went so deep that we had to start from scratch. Was that a mistake? You bet. But it was a mistake based on faulty intelligence.”
According to Luti, even though Bremer came to put out an order to disband the Iraqi Army, the Army had all but disbanded itself initially. Millions of leaflets were even dropped and warnings broadcast in Arabic by the Commando Solo aircraft for Iraqi soldiers to lay down their arms but remain in uniform. Instead of entire army units, U.S. troops often found empty uniforms neatly piled, even with rifles. Apparently Iraqi officers ordered their soldiers to simply go home.
Hah! Now that Bush is out of office, maybe he, too, can get his 60 Minutes interview, plugging his tell-all memoir, outing himself?
Do you think Saddam was more a risk for a direct attack on CONUS vs. Osama Bin Laden? The purpose of killing or capturing Bin Laden & Company would not only eliminate him (the man behind the terror attacks on the US and our interests), but would serve as a warning to others. By leaving him behind we let him to continue to show the Arab world how impotent we are and allow him to continue to rebuild his organization, which people say is back to pre 9/11 strength.
No doubt about it, but as you point out Gen Shinseki spoke about it before the invasion. Your quick to praise Rumsfeld:
I just flat out disagree that Rumsfeld is to be lauded. I believe he contributed directly to the failure and nearly single handedly destroyed President Bush’s legacy on this matter. Since we are in armchair mode, what if a follow on force had taken up positions to secure the populations and weapon cache’s etc. The main force could have made their fast march into Baghdad and the THOUSANDS of lives lost after the invasion could have been either avoided or mitigated.
Even Abizaid agreed they made a mistake:
So much for thinking outside of the box. Maybe if Rumsfeld left some issues in the box, since they worked, we might not have been put into the quagmire created by a lack of troop strength.
Shinseki was not some low underling. He was the Chief of Staff of the Army, and while we are playing arm chair general, he was playing a real one.
@blast:
I don’t think the U.S. was at risk from a direct attack from Saddam. What I believe is that Saddam was openly hostile to the U.S., made no secrets about his love of wmd, was an open sponsor of exported terrorism, and that the status quo of leaving him in power was unacceptable. To not enforce violations of the original cease-fire agreement, to make one meaningless UN resolution after another, made zero sense. Why should Saddam take any threat from the UN or the U.S. seriously? Non-proliferation would be a lost cause. In fact, that apparently is how Saddam thought- that nothing would happen to him; he figured he could weather a few missile attacks as he had from Clinton; he thought he could drag out the endless cat-and-mouse game with UN inspectors, and continue with business as usual: enriching his coffers from oil-for-food program, bribing corrupt UN officials to lift sanctions (at which time he could reconstitute his weapons programs right away), growing ever more dangerous.
The administration made the decision that we could not afford the risk of a leaving a state sponsor of terror in power, who could use terrorists as proxies to deliver a wmd attack on the U.S., or U.S. interests.
To focus narrowly on just al-Qaeda, rather than looking at the Islamic jihad movement as a whole, would not have ended the threat from Islamic terror. If we captured or killed Osama bin Laden, would that end the threat? Would we end up martyring him? If we did the same to al-Qaeda, would it end there? Should we have treated the 9/11 attacks as a law enforcement criminal act rather than an act of war by those who have long felt they were at war with the U.S.?
I agree; same thing though, with Saddam: Had we successfully eliminated him without the problems that bogged us down in the aftermath, it would have sent a clear message to others (note that even though Libya indeed was under negotiations with us and Britain to rejoin the free world of nations, it didn’t happen until I believe, December of 2003, and there was reason for that- diplomatic talks in early March; a setback they experienced in October in which a shipment of gas centrifuges used to enrich uranium was seized; then there was the 2007 NIE which indicated that Iran halted a nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003- set aside for a moment, a belief that this might be based on disinformation from Revolutionary Guard laundering fake info….things that make you go, “Hmmm…”).
I’ve also heard it argued that he is impotent now; and that had we made it appear that we sent the entire U.S. military on the hunt for him, that would have looked even more embarrassing- that the world’s strongest military can’t find the needle in the haystack. We’ve never given up looking for him, and it’s better a job left up to special forces, intell, and cooperation with foreign allies. A lot goes on behind the scenes. How many operations have been conducted in Pakistan without public awareness? There were 36 recorded cross-border attacks and attempts in Pakistan during 2008. Do you think there might be a reason for that? Or are we just bombing “aspirin factories” for a meaningless show of teeth? I don’t think we ever gave up the hunt for bin Laden, even if the original bin Laden unit was closed down in 2006; even if on the surface it looked like resources had been diverted and the media no longer covered the search as well as the media not being informed of secret operations.
I will concede that after Afghanistan, 2/3rds of the al-Qaeda leadership had been killed or captured and that they were seriously weakened. According to Lawrence Wright, anyway. They gained new life, at first, thanks to the initial mistakes in 2003 when we became an occupying force. Mostly propaganda and perception, with abu Ghraib almost single-handedly sabatoging our ability to win over hearts and minds.
But that all changed and al-Qaeda was exposed for the murderous cult that they are, THANKS to the war in Iraq (reference Mata’s post).
I don’t see how that “unusual admission” from 2006 “trumps” the interview transcript I put up from last month where Shinseki admits he never stood up to Rumsfeld on the troop issue, that he never pressed for it (“Probably that’s fair. Not my style.”).
My understanding is that generals who might have been concerned about troop levels at the time didn’t fail to convince Rumsfeld; they failed to convince General Franks. Rumsfeld would have given Franks whatever he asked for.
Interestingly, in Richard Clarke’s book, he mentions how military officials sometimes let it filter down the ranks that civilian planners and politicians are to blame for certain war decisions, taking the heat off of themselves for actually making the decisions
I emboldened from your quote, the mention of other force contributions. The original planning did include the use of Iraqi ex-pats. This included the INC and Free Iraqi Forces to provide a security force (10s of thousands of volunteers reportedly pounding on the door to be a part of this) and the Iraqi Leadership Council to help move Iraq from dicatorship to democracy. But for better or for worse (if you’re a critic of Chalabi) that idea was scrapped by CIA and State, mid-stream. General Garner did initially take in a number of senior Baathists to run key government ministries (for better or worse- most likely the latter), until Bremer arrived. Bremer almost single-handedly insured the birth of the insurgency by disenfranchising Iraqis from participating in the direct shaping of their own future. The final nail in the coffin was UNSCR 1483 declaring the U.S. the occupying power on May 22nd. After that, the insurgency only grew.
We assembled a Coalition Force as best we could; we hardly acted unilaterally; but America’s seeming “unilateralism”, as Jean Francois-Revel puts it in his book, Anti-Americanism, is due to the fact that it’s the rest of the world that has failed us, in securing our collective global security.
I get it, that you’re not too fond of Rummy. But how does that make me “quick to praise him”? Makes about as much sense as me accusing you of being “quick to condemn him”.
Here’s something interesting: The “Parade of Horribles” memo:
If Rumsfeld had been a war critic, or if Shinseki was the one who jotted down the “Parade of Horribles”, is it right to point and say, “There it is! This man predicted that “US could fail to find WMD on the ground in Iraq”, but no one listened!”
In hindsight, you have the luxury of making that call.
I’ll highlight the relevant passage for you, (a passage I’ve seen cited numerous times by the Rum critics):
Again, Franks didn’t ask for more troops, because no one convinced him of it.
Think of all the predictions of things that could go wrong that didn’t come to pass. Do we get to say, “HAHA, told ya so”?
Is it really a matter of poor planning? Or is it hindsight partisan extraction of the one caveat out of the consensus view?
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Unfortunately, we don’t have the benefit of knowing what would have happened had Saddam remained in power. al-Qaeda fighters fled the battlefield of Afghanistan into Iraq, sanctions- which we, not Saddam, were being blamed for as causing the deaths of Iraqi children, were eroding, not working; the oil for food scam set in place to alleviate the suffering was a sham….Saddam retained intent and capabilities to restart wmd programs at a moment’s notice once sanctions were lifted….
When you say, “had today’s outcome been understood in advance”….how about saying it again 30 years from now, when maybe the “outcome” paints a very different picture than the one you have today, Larry?
The price for “inaction” (for that’s what “more diplomacy” would have amounted to being)…what if that avenue ultimately would have led to a several million deaths? How would the war-cost in lives/treasure look then, balanced against the lives lost because of the decision to finally remove Saddam?
Since when is the business of intell, by its very nature, ever “solid”? As for planning, it’s endlessly debatable. President Bush did not say Iraq was an “imminent crisis”. His suggestion was that we had to act before the situation became imminent.
I think it’s absurd that after 12 years and 16+1 UNSCRs later, diplomacy and the burden of proof remained squarely on our shoulders and not on Saddam. To think that peace at any cost meant doing the same thing we’ve been doing, expecting different and desirable results to occur.
But at what price, Larry? Had we withdrawn from Iraq in 2005, what would the cost in innocent lives and strategic interests have been? What would the humanitarian suffering have been like? If you think America’s standing in the world was harmed by the decision to invade Iraq, what of our standing had we abandoned Iraq to the wolves, irresponsibly and callously?
I disagree that “this is precisely what happened”. That narrative isn’t accurate. I think Linda Robinson offers the most apolitical/nonpartisan account:
The Awakening broke out with some tribes in Anbar who came over to the American side; but where the war was most intense was in the middle of the country; and the conversion of Sunnis there did not come until the Surge.
I listened to Linda Robinson on the radio and her book’s on my wish list.
Um….how? That’s the approach CIA/State most desired.
What part of diplomacy hadn’t been tried yet? Don’t tell me you’d fall for the “let inspectors in, cat-and-mouse, then kick ‘em out” charade again, followed by more meaningless resolutions?
Scott;
I know he put a stop to the tribunals, but my understanding was it may have only been the equivalent of a “temporary restraining order” until the matter is examined more fully. I haven’t had access to anything other than the limited media coverage our MSM devoted to it for the last few weeks between their praise for “the one”, so forgive me if there is something I’ve missed in the interim.
Wordsmith;
The only thing I would take issue with is what seemed an opening concession to blast that Saddam was no direct threat to the US vis-avis;
One of the things that has troubled me with the standard; “Saddam’s possession of WMDs posed no threat to America, her national interests, or NATO in general.” argument, was the recent revelation that he was seeking unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) technology at the time. Pundits have mocked and mostly set this aside by claiming that such UAVs certainly couldn’t have reached American soil, so therefore, they should have been disregarded as any real threat and just another reason why going in was unnecessary/an over-reaction.
I may concede UAVs wouldn’t have had that kind of reach, yet, they wouldn’t have to hit our homeland to do serious damage. During the years Saddam was thumbing his nose at the UN, the only constant and continually successful campaign that was being waged was the NATO enforcement of the no-fly zone over Iraq. From a strategic point of view, having a constant adversarial presence controlling his country’s airspace made life difficult for him. He had to constantly concern himself with recon aircraft revealing the aces he was trying to hide up his sleeves; such as cross boarder movements of items via Syria and other nearby rogue elements, such as his underground dealings to terrorist agencies.
So while I agree UAVs might have been useless in a direct attack on say; America’s Bible Belt, nevertheless, they certainly could have been used against NATO forces housed in “tent cities” engaged in OPERATIONS: NORTHERN & SOUTHERN WATCH. I would consider such direct attacks against our young men & women in our armed forces as a direct attack on America itself. Just as assuredly as the attack on Pearl Harbor was considered a direct attack on America. Perhaps our readers might recall; at the time, Hawaii was certainly not part of what is now termed “CONUS”. It was only a protectorate. Our forces there were not at war. America had no desire at the time in involving themselves in what we viewed as solely a “European thing”. Truthfully, Hitler’s Germans preferred it that way and was quite happy that America was so hands-off up to then in their Axis’ plans for socialist world domination.
Granted some minor mistakes in judgment may have been made looking back on everything in 20/20 hindsight. Yet, historically America is one of the few countries known to learn from it’s past mistakes. We study the situation, innovate, re-strategize, and come up with better plans on how to do things better. Read the Koran. The goal of Islamic Fundamentalism is little different than the goals of the Nazi Party; A single socialized one world government, only this one would be under an oppressive Muslim Theocracy. If the peace-niks had their way and GWB handled it in a Mahatma Ghandi style; there certainly would have been more 9/11 type events. As Mata aptly points out; under the Bush administration; that did not happen. And there were several instances where similar plans were discovered and foiled. So did Dubya do his job? Yes. What blast might have done in those shoes is irrelevant and just more BDS BS. The more he posts here on the issue the more clearly his BDS syndrome shows through. There is nothing that can be said to deter blast from that opinion.
Iraq went the way it went, and it’s a done deal. That is that. It’s over. History. IMO the Bush Admin did the best they could with the tools they had to work with. And that under an adversarial Congress and Media. Every argument one can come up with is moot. He and his admin would not and should not be indicted on trumped up war crimes. If the world thinks differently, then that is a matter for the UN to make allegations and pursue Geneva Convention charges. Certainly not for partisans of our own government and it’s citizenry. Yet I fail to see anything he did that warrants such an action. What’s more there is no legal precedent for trying our CoC, merely because those of the other party would have second-guessed him in 20/20 hindsight and managed things differently knowing now what nobody knew then. It also butts up against executive privilege and the SC is not likely to allow it.
IMO that appetizer was long ago served and consumed. There are other more important dishes boiling away that need tending to and I’m more concerned what Obama will do now that the master chef hat has been handed over to him. In Hamas, Iran, the Gaza Strip, and other places, we have the equivalent of terrorist would-be Ghengis Kahns with their hordes of Mongols armed with shoulder launched missiles, suicide bombers, and other modern-age technologies waging Old Testament age battles against world civilization. How will our bleeding-heart Dems answer these challenges NOW? Obama has stated he would rather play the diplomat and meet with these idiots unconditionally. Well, history proved when leaders would send messengers of peace to negotiate with such outrageous entities, those messengers often returned dead being dragged by their steeds. So pray tell what would he do next? Institute a draft to get more forces? As blast, BHO seem to think more troops are the answer. Would he also go back to the 1600′s way of warfare and send several battalions of troops wearing brightly colored uniforms, marching into battle in strictly regimented rank and file as easier targets for urban guerrillas?
BTW, UAVs also could have been used to preemptively attack cross-border staging areas in any future actions. And that too we well knew was surely just a matter of time. And had he been able to develop such an industry, he certainly would have had the ability to export supplies of such equipment to the international terrorist agencies he was courting, with potentially devastating scenarios surely to follow. All the more reason to nip Iraq in the bud and act when and how we did.
Another quick “drive by” comment…. believe me, I’d rather be indulging in blogging than continued ed… LOL Hopefully I’ll be returning by the end of the week as less than a shadow of my blogging self.
You are correct, Rocky. The EO that BHO signed was a 120 day stay of execution for tribunals for 120 days. Mostly it was a put-it-on-hold-until-my-legal-team-can-figure-out-what-to-do type scenario for public relations. They may revert back to tribunals similar to what Bush had planned (but meeting the “stamp of affirmative action” approval for Obama by the public), or…creating a completely new shadow court system, or… creating an Article III legislative court system.
Everything is TBD, of course… to be determined.
Mostly this was a symbolic photo op to allow places like PolitiFact to play the “promises kept/reneged game. Allowing a “close Gitmo in a year” order, that can… of course… be altered by another EO. This was sheer public relations for the fawning media. The lesser informed American citizens will chalk this up as a “promise kept”. That it actually happens, and how, remains to be seen.
INRE Politifact, to give them some credit for not being complete fools, you will note that that they are keeping Gitmo in the “in the works” column because of the timeline to sort out the TBD details. There’s more than a few of us majorly concerned as to how Obama and his bank of lawyers think they are going to accomplish closing Gitmo, and maintain both control over our national security, plus not allowing terrorists who have never been on US soil the ability to abuse the US judicial system to their financial advantage with legal recourse in the event of being released as “innocent”. ala al-Shihri plus one other Club Gitmo released prisoner back in action in Yemen.
BTW, you’ll be happy to know that Yemen is anxiously awaiting 94 of their own to repatriate…. just like Shihri and his bud who appeared in the same AQ video last week. Both, of course, were likely to be found “innocent” in the US judicial system. At least, in this instance, they couldn’t sue for damages for unnecessary incarceration, and refunnel that cash back into their jihad cause. You will also note, of course, that Shihri fully admitted he was a part of jihad prior to his Gitmo vacation. But the amount of evidence has everything to do with the US judicial system. I would hope that most would be dispersed instead of being allowed access to our system, and it’s perks.
Hopefully, next time we encounter them in the field of battle, we’ll just shoot ‘em.
To get back to Politifact before I digressed, you’ll also note that Politifact called “ending the war in Iraq” an Obama “promise kept”, when in actuality, it was the Iraq/Bush admin SOFA agreement that dictated the withdrawal of troops over time now that the security has improved since 2006. Chalked up as an Obama “accomplishment”, tho it was all determined prior to his reign of power.
@MataHarley:
I get so giddy when I’m on the same page as my hero, Mata. (Last comment on the page).
Careful now, Word… many will think we are the same person… and a vain one at that! LOL
Thanks for clearing that up for me Mata.
When Scott mentioned the tribunals were stopped, It suggested some perminance, so I thought perhaps it might have been just another of the mirade of things the media doesn’t tell us about (as they sing out their praise for anything Lib-Dems do while vilifying anything that has Repub or Conservative support).
I had heard via the media the freeze on tribunals was 120 days. But I see in the EO… which I had posted on a couple of days later with the Saudis arrest of yet more Gitmo grads… that is says 180. So it’s more likely 180 days (or less…).
Mata, I think it’s 120, but it is temporary. That’s the point I should have made more clear.
Apologies all
Well… there’s the media figure, Scott… and then there’s what’s in the 2nd EO INRE Gitmo, the Review of Detention Policy, where he sets up a special task force to “identify lawful options for the disposition of individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.” They are to report back in 180 days.
This 2nd EO expands on Section 4 of his first EO, the Closure of Guantanamo Detention Facilities, where he mentions that there is to be an “Immediate Review of All Guantánamo Detentions.”
Call me wacky, call me zany, but I would assume if they are “reviewing” the detentions, and identifying the processes to go foward in 180 days, that they would not be conducting any tribunals during that time. No?
So yes, all is temporary, but I believe that temporary period revolves around the time the Special Task Force takes to “identify lawful options of disposition”… per the EO, 180 days.
So other than the media (barf..) where are you getting the 120 days from?
Totally by media rpt
Mata, all of the tribunal processes are halted by the Executive Order
180 days
Uh… isn’t that what I said, blast? Per EO, halted until the Task Force weighs in. If they decide that tribunals are the “lawful” process in which to proceed, that “halt” will “unhalt”….
I don’t think Scott and I were dickering on whether this was a forever halt… just the length of time for this temporary freeze.
Sorry Mata, I was just siting directly the info on the discussion, 180 days, you know for the dickering part.
Thank heavens… I thought my keyboard got tongue-tied, blast! LOL
Welp… back to continued ed. Enuf dickering for fun.