Obama's harsh retribution

When the word retribution is talked about amongst friends, family, or co-workers, it does not have a positive connotation. According to Webster, retribution means something given or exacted in recompense. With all its harshness, this is the only word I can think of that does justice to what the Obama administration is doing by releasing very sensitive information from the CIA about interrogation techniques used on terrorists. I still have not heard a compelling reason as to why the Obama administration felt compelled to divulge this information.

To actually have the gumption to consider prosecuting former Bush administration officials is unprecedented. If this is such a forward looking administration why must they continue to look back on the “mistakes” of the past administration?

I wonder how Americans would feel if they knew these interrogation methods saved their lives from further attacks. Furthermore, what message does this send and what type of example does this set for future administrations?

But perhaps the most critical argument: how are people that are supposed to be working on keeping our country safe -- CIA agents, lawyers, etc. -- going to do their job effectively if they feel the constant threat of future retribution upon themselves?

Too cute by half

George W. Bush had his share of flaws as president, but one of his abiding strengths was his clarity on the most important issues of the day. He was never a good communicator, but you always knew where he stood. He was resolute on protecting America and was willing to put his popularity in the cross hairs of his opponents to do so. He opposed stem-cell research because he is pro-life, and was adamant against the use of tax-payer monies to fund abortions. The Bush clarity was maddening to the left, but was a source of comfort for many in the country who knew that they didn't have to guess on a daily basis where the president stood. Contrast that with Barack Obama, and you are struck by the difference. As during the campaign, Obama still seeks to be all things to all people, trying to split the middle in lawyer-like fashion in order to make everyone happy. His statements on many issues have been muddled and confused, because he is apparently interested in being able to argue both sides with equal conviction. It makes for a fine lawyer. But does it make for a good president?

Daniel Henninger has an interesting take on it today in an opinion piece entitled "Harry, I have a gift". Here's an excerpt:

Early in the campaign, in January 2007, a New York Times reporter wrote a story about Mr. Obama's time as president of the Harvard Law Review. It was there, the reporter noted, "he first became a political sensation."

Here's why: "Mr. Obama cast himself as an eager listener, sometimes giving warring classmates the impression that he agreed with all of them at once." Also: "People had a way of hearing what they wanted in Mr. Obama's words."

Harvard Law Prof. Charles Ogletree told how Mr. Obama spoke on one contentious issue at the law school, and each side thought he was endorsing their view. Mr. Ogletree said: "Everyone was nodding, Oh, he agrees with me."

The reason I have never forgotten this article is its last sentence, in which Al Gore's former chief of staff Ron Klain, also of Harvard Law, reflects on the Obama sensation: "The interesting caveat is that is a style of leadership more effective running a law review than running a country."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in a book out next week, tells of congratulating freshman Sen. Obama on a phenomenal speech. Without a hint of conceit, Mr. Obama replied, "Harry, I have a gift."

He does. We know from tradition, though, that when the gods bestow magic on mortals, the gift can also imperil its possessor. The first hint of potential peril in Mr. Obama's gift arrived last week with the confusion over where the president stood on the terrorist interrogation memos and prosecution of former Bush officials. Here, as 19 years ago, many on both sides of a contentious issue who heard him speak thought Mr. Obama agreed with them.

Henninger goes on to discuss the confusion over the interrogation memos and the potential prosecutions of the memo-writers, when Rahm Emanuel said decisively "no" to prosecutions and the President said "well, maybe". The President was, as is his want, trying to give grist to the left in his public statement, while his staff later took great pains to clarify that he "wants to move on" from this chapter and isn't really interested in a prolonged "witch hunt", etc. It was splitting the difference in a way that Obama likes -- saying enough to appease his base but not so much that he can be pinned down to any clear position. It's Obama's way to use his "gift" to obfuscate and confuse, to distract people from his real intentions. He did it brilliantly during his campaign, where he appeared to be a moderate post-partisan politician who wanted to "change" Washington. The reality as we now know is quite different: a highly partisan pol who doesn't seem strong enough to stand up to the most partisan groups in the Democratic Party.

There is a very real danger when the gift for gab become a substitute for clear thought and concise communication. Perhaps the president's teleprompter has too much sway in this administration, taking the president on verbal forays that are too cute by half. It is bad enough when it confuses the American public. It is worse when it confuses our enemies into believing that we are weak and willing to compromise on even the most vital of national security issues.

I'd take clarity over the gift, any day.

Spare us your morality, Barack

On April 21, President Obama opened the way for possible prosecution of American government advisers who approved of waterboarding terrorists. Forget that such interrogation methods may have saved untold lives by extracting necessary information from those killers. The President may allow prosecution anyway, because, he said, such methods "reflected us [sic] losing our moral bearings." And certainly Mr. Obama has every right to speak of "our moral bearings," since:

**As an Illinois State Senator, he personally stopped legislation to protect babies born alive after failed abortion attempts.

**As a U.S. Senator, he supported legislation to allow doctors to stab to death babies that were 80 percent outside their mothers' wombs.

**As a Presidential candidate, he vowed to sign legislation that would wipe out scores of laws in several state that might protect some preborn babies from being killed.

**As President, he signed orders to use American taxpayers' money to promote the killing of preborn babies around the globe and to kill thousands of human embryos around the country, and also appointed over three dozen abortion advocates to positions in his government.

**Also as President, he has begun proceedings to rescind conscience clause protection for doctors and medical facilities, thereby requiring them either to perform immoral procedures or to quit the medical field altogether.

Yes, sir, this is the man we want to protect "our moral bearings."

Add Napolitano to lunatics list

Janet Napolitano, Homeland Security secretary for Obama, was responsible for that silly report about the potential of veterans and single-issue voters to be recruited into right-wing extremism. She issued this hastily written document over objections by some of her advisors, and just before the Tea Parties, in an apparent attempt to intimidate conservative and other protesters. Then she made her infamous remarks about border security. She claimed falsely that the 9/11 terrorists got into the USA by crossing the Canadian border. She also implied falsely that there is no border security there. “The pattern at the Canadian border has been informality,” she went on to say. “The borders are going to be enabled with greater technology, but it’s not going to be going back and forth as if there’s no border anymore.” She knew nothing about the subject, but pretended that she did.

She even said that whatever is being done on our southern border should also be done on our northern border. So either we stop building a border security fence along the Mexican border, or else we build one along the Canadian border. (All 5000 kilometers of it? Another Great Wall of China?) Canadians are seeing and hearing these things and are wondering just how bonkers she really is.

Then she went on CNN and said, falsely, "And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil."

Last year, as governor of Arizona, she tried to cut off Sheriff Joe Arpaio's funding for cracking down on illegal immigration in Maricopa County. Apparently Obama thought that this made her the perfect candidate for heading up Homeland Security.

I hereby add Janet Napolitano to my list as Democrat Lunatic #8.

Note: Earlier entries on my Dem Lunatics List were Nancy Pelosi, RFK Jr., Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Harry Reid, Bill Clinton, and of course Barack Obama.

Shooting blanks

It is April 2010. Islamic terrorists have been caught attempting to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge in New York with sophisticated high-explosives. The plot was recently uncovered by the CIA, and the FBI and New York law enforcement officials foiled the attempt to destroy the bridge in progress. Two of the terrorists committed suicide when caught, but two others were captured before they could explode their suicide vests. In the ensuing hours, the NSA picked up chatter indicating that one or more additional attacks were underway somewhere on the Eastern seaboard of the United States -- though when and where could not be ascertained. The two terrorists caught are immediately transported to an FBI holding cell. Using the tight rules for interrogation that the Obama administration has decreed, the FBI attempts to get them to tell authorities the operational details of the impending attacks. Neither will talk.  Interrogators are stymied by the fact that these terrorists know that the Obama administration has banned any enhanced interrogation techniques and they only need to stay silent. They do so, refusing to talk. As the clock ticks, Federal authorities raise the Homeland Security threat level and hope for the best -- knowing that they can do little to gain the information needed to prevent the additional attacks from happening.

Sound far fetched? Hardly. This is very real possibility that America could face in the future. The Obama administration has now created a situation where it has not only publicly banned the use of enhanced interrogation, but has made it abundantly clear that those officials who might -- in a moment of crisis -- issue an order to obtain information through the use of such techniques will be subject to future prosecution once the emergency has passed. In this environment, no one will be willing to cross any lines to ensure that we obtain the intelligence necessary to save American lives. The Justice Department will have issued directives making it clear that there is no gray area in questioning terrorist suspects, and that not even the "smoking gun" scenario that administration critics have warned about is justification for the use of harsh interrogation techniques. We have chosen our democratic values over our security, and it has been made clear that this is not a choice that is subject to interpretation. Terrorists get some hot coffee, a warm bed to sleep in and a government provided attorney. And the rest of us suffer the consequences.

This is a scenario that Barack Obama should think long and hard about. He needs to understand that the threat from Islamic terrorism remains grave, and that we need all the tools at our disposal to ensure our safety. Former CIA Director George Tenet and current National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair have made it clear that the now-banned interrogation techniques were extremely effective in gathering actionable intelligence that has saved American lives. We have now unilaterally disarmed ourselves in the fight against an existential terrorist threat -- like going into battle against AK-47 assault rifles with a single-shot pellet gun. Hardly a fair fight.

The real issue here is that the decision not to provide immunity to those who approve the use of enhanced interrogation when the nation is under threat will have a chilling effect in the future. It will now be impossible to find anyone to recommend, approve or execute any technique that will create personal legal jeopardy. Even with a smoking gun or impending attack, Obama has tied the nation's hands. We are now shooting blanks.

Barack Obama, you may think you are the most moral man in America, above reproach and without any doubt of your wisdom. But someday it may be you who personally has to issue an order you have deemed illegal, because there is no one in the chain of command who is willing to do it for you. And it might be you who has to get face-to-face with a terrorist in order to glean the information you know will save American lives, because no interrogator will do more than ask for name, rank and serial number.

And if you cross the line, Mr. President, you might find a president in the future instructing the Justice Department to investigate you for breaking the law.

You should be careful what you wish for, Mr. President.