"Check the Transcript"

On the record is forever

When Obama said, "Check the transcript," during last night’s presidential debate, it could have been the big line of the evening, but that will depend on whether Romney or his surrogates use it to advantage. The consensus is that Obama got the better of Romney last night, if only because he actually showed up this time, which was viewed as an infinite improvement over his previous performance. Nevertheless, Obama's imperative to "check the transcript" viz. the Libya 9/11 attack and subsequent cover-up is a potential opening that may make Obama's victory last night a Pyrrhic one.

When you check old transcripts, sometimes you come up with inconvenient quotes. For example, the Weekly Standard notes that Hillary Clinton once said, "The buck stops in the Oval Office" which conflicts with her statement yesterday that responsibility for the security lapses in Benghazi is hers alone. Another example, in the VP debate there was this exchange:

MS. RADDATZ: What were you first told about the attack? Why were people talking about protests? When people in the consulate first saw armed men attacking with guns, there were no protesters. Why did that go on for weeks?
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Because that's exactly what we were told —
MS. RADDATZ: By who?
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: — by the intelligence community. The intelligence community told us that. As they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment.

If Biden was being truthful, then Obama didn't know on September 12 that the Libya attack was an act of terrorism and yet Obama claimed last night that he did know and that in his Rose Garden remarks, he said as much. Well, Mr. President, let's follow your advice to check the transcript on that (emphasis added):

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

The only mention of terror was a banal generality in his closing statement. Worse still, the statement is false. In the very same speech he criticized an American citizen for exercising his freedom and the right to free speech which is one of the "values that we stand for." That citizen is now in jail on trumped-up charges of violating probation for an entirely unrelated matter. So in fact, an act of terror did alter the character of this great nation. We now put citizens in jail for purely political reasons. That's something they do in Venezuela or Cuba or Iran before an "election." Not in America.

Furthermore, the quote that was reported at the time was when the President said, "We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." That was the storyline that the Obama Administration was pushing with their liberal media allies, not the terror angle.

Ironically, Candy Crowley speaking to the CNN post-debate panel said that the moderator was incorrect when she supported the President's "check the transcript" line. Unfortunately the moderator happened to be herself. More puzzlingly still, Crowley also made statements on the record that directly rebut Obama's and her own assertion that the administration immediately recognized that Libya was a terror attack. At the time she said, “There's a back and forth now about why didn't this administration -- why did it take them until Friday after a [Tuesday] September 11th attack in Libya to come to the conclusion that it was premeditated and that there was terrorists involved."

Even then, Crowley was being very generous. Even on September 25th, terrorism in reference to Libya was still that-which-must-not-be-named for the President. The Prolix Patriot wrote in these pages several weeks ago about the President’s UN speech:

Just as with the Tucson massacre, the motives of the killers in Libya are very clear. This was not a "protest" against an amateur video. This was an act of pure slaughter in violation of every precept of international law and diplomacy. Despite this, and even though leaders in the intelligence community, the Secretary of State, and his own Press Secretary have all admitted that it was a premeditated and overt act of terror aimed directly at the United States, the President only mentioned the word "terrorism" once in his address—and not even in reference to the violence in Libya.

The most memorable line from that speech was, "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Even weeks after the attack, the President was still hanging--nay clinging--to the video protest story, even when it was thoroughly discredited by everyone around him.

There are also other clips out there, for example the President equivocating about the nature of the Libya attack while being interviewed on "The View." [N.B., it's a sad state of affairs in journalism today when the pack of liberal harpies on "The View" are tougher on the President than the moderator of a nationally-televised debate.]

Out of all of this, we have two potential explanations. Either the President knew it was a terrorist attack and deliberately mislead the American people for weeks until the lie started to unravel, or he genuinely did not know even when everyone around him had already admitted it. Both are disturbing prospects. Worse still, given Obama's aloofness from foreign affairs, both are entirely plausible.

Unfortunately, most people in this country are not following the Libya story--which is a shame, because it has very real consequences for the security of our country. Nevertheless, the economy is still the number one issue of this election, and in that area, Romney completely dominated the President last night.

Regardless of whether Romney made an unforced error or cleverly flushed Obama out into the open, it may not even matter. The real question is whether Romney sees this as a potential opening and decides to capitalize on it, or decides to just stay focused on the economy and jobs and let the Libya story fester inside the beltway until it starts to really stink.

That said, foreign policy really should be more of an issue in this election. As a friend observed during the debate, the President has many powers, but he is not able to repeal the laws of supply and demand. Even though the economy stinks, the President can only do so much about it, whereas on foreign policy, the President literally has a sworn obligation to protect the American people.

We live in an increasingly dangerous world. Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and others are up to no good. Al Qaeda is rebuilding across the Muslim world. Piracy is still a threat to our shipping off the Horn of Africa and in the Straits of Malacca. The Drug Wars in Mexico continue to spill over into border towns and even deep into the country to places as far north as Denver and Detroit.

The President's handling of the Libya attack can best be described as a fiasco. Instead of just admitting that we were unprepared, this whole cover-up demonstrates that politics no longer stops at the water’s edge, especially when foreign events are inconvenient to the President's political fortunes and aspirations. The last four years under this President have been dark and perilous times. We should recoil in sheer horror when we even begin to imagine what another four years would look like.

Share

From Tucson to Turtle Bay

Don't Shoot the Messenger

On January 12, 2011, President Obama delivered perhaps the finest speech of his presidency eulogizing the death of six innocent Americans at the hands of a deranged gunman in Tucson, Arizona just a few days earlier. Now, in the year of an election, four Americans--including an ambassador--were murdered in a barbaric and savage attack on our diplomatic mission in Benghazi. For all the differences between these two events, they both have one thing in common: neither had anything to do with the exercise of free speech.

In his moving oratory at the campus of the University of Arizona, the President silenced a raucous crowd of students and sternly rebuked the politicians and commentators on the left who in the preceding days had tried to lay the blame for the massacre on the vibrancy of political expression and debate in this country. Earlier this week at a meeting of the U.N. General Assembly, the President once again spoke about the death of innocent Americans, this time at the hands of terrorists, but the emphasis of his speech was very different.

After the rampage in Tucson in which Jared Loughner ended the life of a federal judge and a nine-year-old girl and severely wounded a congresswoman among his victims, liberal commentators pushed a narrative of violent rhetoric and incivility to explain the tragedy. However, as immediately became clear, the perpetrator had no political motives, but was and is very mentally ill. Moreover, despite the calls for more restrained and civil discourse, political debate and the coverage of it in the media quickly resumed the same incendiary and vitriolic tone as before the murders.

Just as with the Tucson massacre, the motives of the killers in Libya are very clear. This was not a "protest" against an amateur video. This was an act of pure slaughter in violation of every precept of international law and diplomacy. Despite this, and even though leaders in the intelligence community, the Secretary of State, and his own Press Secretary have all admitted that it was a premeditated and overt act of terror aimed directly at the United States, the President only mentioned the word "terrorism" once in his address—and not even in reference to the violence in Libya.

Some commentators on the right have observed that instead of unambiguously defending the sacred American right to free speech as he did in Tucson, the President's remarks were more calibrated for an international audience that is openly hostile to American values. Instead of speaking with determination and resolve, it seemed that the President was searching for common ground with people who wish to destroy us. Unsurprisingly, there was not much in common to be found. This is a valid criticism.

However, the focus on free speech misses the point. In Tucson, the murders were the work of a madman. In Benghazi, the amateur video that probably got more views after the attack than before was merely a pretext for a long-planned act of terror by religious fanatics who despise the United States. In both cases, we make the mistake of trying to explain and rationalize evil on our own terms, when in truth, the innocent and the virtuous are always the first casualty when we pretend that pure and incomprehensible evil does not exist in the world.

Share

Eleven

The World Trade Center

Today we remember that September 11th was an attack on America, but it is easy to forget that it was also a barbaric attack on all of human civilization. There were 372 citizens of more than 90 foreign countries among the casualties. A Christian church and a Muslim prayer room were obliterated in the carnage. America suffered the most, but everyone in the world lost something on that day.

In the years since then, much has changed in the world. After years of searching, Osama bin Laden is dead. The Arab Spring has transformed a long-troubled part of the world in ways that will not be fully known for decades--and continues to be felt in the Syrian Civil War. Iraq is now a sovereign nation free from the tyrannical rule of Saddam Hussein--who is also dead.

However, many threats to civilization remain. Somalian pirates continue to wreak havoc on the high seas off the Horn of Africa. Iran continues to pursue nuclear weapons and interfere with the internal politics of several Arab nations. The mission to prevent Afghanistan from reverting to Taliban rule continues. Meanwhile, halfway around the world, China is building up its military and aggressively pursuing a program of territorial expansion in the South China Sea and elsewhere.

As the most powerful nation in the history of the world, America has a responsibility to lead the community of nations and to preserve peace and international stability. If we fail to do so, September 11th will likely be surpassed as the darkest day in American history by something even more terrible. As we remember the attacks eleven years ago today, we must also remember that much work remains to ensure that the horror and destruction of that day is never repeated.

Share

Up In Arms

"The redcoats are coming!"

In the aftermath of the shooting spree in Aurora, Colorado, families and victims must somehow come to grips with the horror and senselessness of this tragedy. The process of healing will be long and difficult. Even as the motives and background of the killer are revealed, each bit of new information will not bring us closer to any answers. Evil is irrational. Nevertheless, liberal commentators in the media could hardly wait until the tear gas had cleared before pointing the blame squarely at the "gun lobby" and conservatives more generally.

Politicians and pundits on the left have had no shame in capitalizing on the massacre to press for stricter gun control laws and otherwise limiting freedom in the name of somehow preventing a similar crime in the future. The favorite liberal prescription is to renew the assault weapon ban that was in force from 1994-2004 even though that same ban did not prevent the two worst acts of terrorism in American history which claimed a combined 3,144 innocent lives. Indeed, neither atrocity involved any firearms at all.

Furthermore, the term "assault weapon" is not rigorously defined and often misused. Under the law in force from 1994-2004, the sale of various semi-automatic firearms was prohibited, but far more destructive fully-automatic firearms were still legal in many cases. At the same time, any law restricting gun ownership—even an outright repeal of the 2nd Amendment—would not stop the use of knives, blunt objects, strangulation, and poisons to commit murders just as gruesome as the terrible slaughter in Aurora, if not more so.

It makes no difference what type of weapon is used to commit murder. Regardless of the laws concerning gun ownership, murder itself remains as illegal as ever. Conversely, criminals are unlikely to care whether or not the weapon they use to commit a crime is illegal. Laws do not prevent crime. By definition, criminals do not abide by the law. Psychopaths will always apply the full energies of their depraved and diabolical minds to devise new and shocking ways to kill and destroy.

Rather, our system of laws is founded on the principle that a suspect is innocent until proven guilty. Even in such a heinous crime with hundreds of eyewitnesses, the government must introduce evidence to prove the guilt of the perpetrator. Once guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, no punishment can be too harsh or too severe for the one who committed this crime, but to ban ownership of firearms is to presume that simply possessing a weapon is enough to imply guilt. This stands our system of laws on its head.

As for the supposed influence of the "gun lobby," it is worth pointing out that the National Rifle Association currently has a mere 4.3 million members. There are millions upon millions more law-abiding Americans who own firearms and do not consider the 2nd Amendment as a political issue at all, but rather as an expression of the innate right to defend oneself, one’s family, one’s home, and one’s country. The drafters of the 2nd Amendment did not create this right, but merely recognized a right that had already existed from ancient times.

The Supreme Court affirmed this in the Heller case. The founders’ intent for the 2nd Amendment was to maintain a "well-regulated" (i.e., well-armed and well-trained) citizens’ militia for common defense. As Americans, we are blessed with the most professional, best-trained, and most technologically advanced military in the world. However, the right of every citizen to bear arms remains the last line of defense should the unthinkable happen, and as long as the liberal advocates of curtailing our freedoms do not have their way, America will always be a country worth defending.

Share

The Great Firewall of China and Internet Piracy

A weapon of war

Almost from the beginning, the Chinese Communist Party recognized the power—and the threat—of the Internet and has invested huge resources to limit access to its own people while simultaneously using the internet to undermine the intellectual and economic output of the United States. Whether we admit it or not, we are in a state of digital war with China. How we fight this war today will have lasting consequences not only for freedom on the Internet but also for freedom generally.

The Internet has matured to the point that actions in the digital world can now cause real changes in the physical world. Last year, we witnessed revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria, and elsewhere that were started online. We also witnessed a hacking attack which disrupted an Iranian nuclear research laboratory. The Iranians responded by hacking into an American stealth reconnaissance drone and hijacking it—digitally. The Internet is no longer a mere novelty. Digital actions affect real-world events.

One front of this digital war is the rampant and aggressive intellectual property theft which is likely sponsored directly by the Chinese government. State-sponsored and well-funded hackers are constantly attacking American companies to steal intellectual property and the piracy of movies, music, and software is only one element of this attack. Nevertheless, Congress has crafted misguided legislation in SOPA and PIPA to target this small fraction of the onslaught while mostly ignoring the larger conflict.

We must be wary about ever limiting access to the Internet. The amazing power of the Internet to bring freedom to the world is precisely because of its openness. China recognizes this and along with North Korea and Iran is one of the most restrictive countries in the world. There is a legitimate need to combat piracy, but the language of SOPA and PIPA is so broad that the Chinese and other bad actors could actually use it against us by causing self-inflicted restriction of the Internet. This will only benefit the Chinese government’s efforts to restrict access and limit the free exchange of ideas.

The Internet has the power to bring freedom to China, Iran, North Korea, and all the other tyrannical regimes on the face of the earth. As Napoleon once said, "I fear three newspapers more than a hundred thousand bayonets." Just as Gutenberg’s printing press brought about the Enlightenment in Europe, so too can the Internet bring about a global digital renaissance. America invented the Internet and is arguably the most creative nation in the world. We can use this power to be a force for good in the world—or not. The choice is ours to make.

Share

Due Process, John Wilkes Booth, and Anwar al-Awlaki

Judge, Jury, and Executioner?

Last week, a drone operated by the Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. military Special Forces dispatched Anwar al-Awlaki to meet his maker. Awlaki was a radical imam who recruited and encouraged terrorists to attack the United States, but he was also an American citizen. Leading Libertarian figures claim this incident represents a dangerous threat to the right of due process, but a look at history shows us that it is not without precedent. According to Wikipedia:

Before dawn on April 26[, 1865], the soldiers caught up with the fugitives, who were hiding in Garrett's tobacco barn. David Herold surrendered, but [John Wilkes] Booth refused [Colonel Everton] Conger's demand to surrender, saying "I prefer to come out and fight"; the soldiers then set the barn on fire. As Booth moved about inside the blazing barn, Sergeant Boston Corbett shot him.

Colonel Conger, a Union intelligence officer, immediately arrested Corbett for violating his orders to take Booth alive. During the investigation, Corbett claimed that he saw Booth moving toward his weapons, but the other witnesses disputed this account, stating only that Booth was moving around inside the barn, likely searching for some means of escape from his desperate and hopeless position.

Despite the evidence that Corbett shot Booth in cold blood, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton dismissed the charges against Corbett stating, "The rebel is dead. The patriot lives."  Corbett was later given an honorable discharge from the Army but later descended into madness, likely caused by the use of mercury which was then common in his civilian profession as a hatter.

Although the 14th Amendment did not exist at the time of Booth's death, due process rights were guaranteed to all American citizens at the federal level by the 5th Amendment. However, civil rights were sharply curtailed in the occupied confederate states following the end of the war. In particular, thousands of Virginians were arrested and their property seized without due process for providing support and aid to the Confederacy.

The fate of Anwar al-Awlaki is remarkably similar. Although an American citizen, like Booth, he joined forces with al Qaeda in order to commit acts of terror against the country of his birth. On the other hand Booth was given a chance to surrender, whereas Awlaki was blasted away by a robotic drone. In both cases, due process was likely violated.

After the death of John Wilkes Booth, the country did not descend into totalitarianism. Quite to the contrary, passage of landmark legislation with the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution greatly expanded the protection of civil liberties which was finally consummated in the civil rights struggles of the 1960's.

Despite the horrors of slavery, civil war, Jim Crow, and segregation, America has emerged from the struggle stronger and freer than before. However, Booth was killed after the war was over, whereas Awlaki was killed at a time when there is no clear end in sight.

Today, al Qaeda is trying to radicalize American citizens so they can use our laws against us. The longer the Global War on Terror drags on, the more our rights will slowly be eroded in the name of "security."  As the war goes on, terrorist masterminds like Osama bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and Anwar al-Awlaki will devise ever more insidious and diabolical means to attack at the very heart of what it means to be an American.

Rather than the legal implications, the greater concern should be that the use of targeted killings could encourage new recruits to follow in Awlaki's misguided path to "martyrdom."  Over the past several years, President Obama has relied heavily on Special Forces to carry out assassinations of Somalian pirates and al Qaeda kingpins instead of engaging our enemies with conventional military resources.

If the death of Awlaki hastens the end of this war, a return to peace, and a higher standard of justice in the future, it is not all bad--and perhaps the deaths of bin Laden and Awlaki will be the fatal blow to al Qaeda that will allow a return to domestic tranquility. But if not, we must reassess and rethink our strategy before the killing of Awlaki ceases to be the exception that proves the rule.

Share

Ordinary American Heroes

Photo Credit: Tracy A Woodward

In honor of Independence Day, the Prolix Patriot and the Missus watched two movies over the weekend listed under the “patriotic” section on the DVR: “Flags of Our Fathers” and “1776.” At first glance, the dark and ugly cynical realism of the former and the lighthearted Technicolor ebullience of the latter would seem to have little in common, but on a deeper level, the two films both explore the very essence of what it means to be an American.

A repeated theme in “Flags” is that the world-famous picture wasn’t actually the first flag-raising. The six men immortalized in bronze on a hill overlooking Washington, D.C. were actually the second group of U.S. Marines to raise a flag at the summit of Suribachi. Similarly, in “1776,” we learn that the vote for independence we celebrate on the fourth was actually achieved on the second. The fourth was simply the day that the Declaration of Independence was made public.

In addition to the temporal confusion surrounding both events that persists to this day, both movies are at pains to remind us that the men who took part in these famous events were ordinary people. A common motif in “Flags” is the facelessness of the Marines fighting at Iwo Jima. The photo of the second flag-raising was especially poignant--and popular--because those men could have been anybody’s son, anybody’s father, or anybody’s brother.

Similarly, men like Roger Sherman of Connecticut, Judge James Wilson of Pennsylvania, Dr. Lyman Hall of Georgia, and Governor Stephen Hopkins of Rhode Island are largely forgotten today despite their impressive accomplishments. Aside from the mostly erroneous dramatizations of these lesser-known figures in “1776,” even the more famous founding fathers were ordinary men with ordinary desires.  Thomas Jefferson had an obsession with macaroni and George Washington had a sweet tooth for ice cream--he probably even got brain-freeze from time to time.

Finally, we must remember that the events depicted in both films were only the beginning of the fighting. Just as the flag-raising on Suribachi took place on the fourth day of a battle that would continue for another full month before the island was finally secured on March 26, 1945, so too the Declaration of Independence would not be recognized by Britain until the victory at Yorktown in 1781 and the eventual Treaty of Paris in 1783 which in turn was not ratified until January 14, 1784.

In a larger sense, this is the story of America. The movie “1776” has Benjamin Franklin counseling John Adams at the climactic moment of the plot:

Besides, what would posterity think we were? Demi-gods? We're men, no more no less, trying to get a nation started against greater odds than a more generous God would have allowed. First things first, John. Independence; America. If we don't secure that, what difference will the rest make?

Even though Franklin probably never uttered those exact words, the movie correctly summarize the founders belief that the future of this new thing called the “United States of America” would depend on the care and judgment of future generations. The founders gave us independence and the Constitution, but they left the rest to us.

The sacrifices of those who fought and died on Iwo Jima and in every battle before and since make clear that the fight for freedom is one that never ends. All of us have a duty to never stop fighting for those self-evident rights of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom from persecution and tyranny which were endowed to us by our creator. It is easy to feel patriotic on the Fourth of July. What matters though is what we do on the other 364 days of the year.

Share

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

In regard to the oil spewing from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, an exasperated President Obama is reported to have said, "Plug the damn hole."  Clearly, when public opinion demands it of him, Obama can be decisive.  Nevertheless, Obama's approach to Iran has been painstakingly slow and will do nothing to stop the Islamic Republic's nuclear program.  While Obama plays diplomatic games, Iran is running thousands of centrifuges day and night and could have enough enriched uranium for a bomb within one or two years.

The New York Times reports today that President Obama has released his new National Security Strategy.  Of course, the Times also cannot resist adding a little editorializing about the Bush administration:

That line is just one of many subtle slaps at President George W. Bush.  Much of the National Security Strategy, which is required by Congress, reads as an argument for a restoration of an older order of reliance on international institutions, updated to confront modern threats.  While Mr. Bush’s 2002 document explicitly said the United States would never allow the rise of a rival superpower, Mr. Obama argues that America faces no real military competitor, but that global power is increasingly diffuse.

This analysis provides a stark contrast with the reality of the two presidents' foreign policy--particularly regarding the issue of nuclear weapons proliferation.

Despite the liberal trope that the United States acted alone when we invaded Iraq, the truth is that Bush navigated the same UN Security Council process that now bedevils his successor and obtained a unanimous vote that Saddam's defiance must come to an end.  Furthermore, he built a coalition which involved more than 30 other nations at one time or another.  Most importantly, Saddam Hussein is now dead and the Iraqi people no longer live in fear of his tyrannical regime.

Meanwhile, on the issue of Iran, Obama has sought to convince our "friends" in the UN to support tough sanctions, but only after making painful concessions such as the removal of the so-called "missile shield" from Eastern Europe.  Now, Russia has finally agreed to support sanctions against Iran, but only after getting a last-minute loophole to allow weapons sales between the two countries to continue.  Brazil and Turkey are in an uproar and it remains to be seen what other sacrifices the United States will have to make before the sanctions can actually go into effect.

Even then, what happens when Iran defies international pressure and sanctions and continues enriching enough uranium for a bomb?  Iraq's pursuit of nuclear weapons turned out to be illusory, but in the case of Iran, we face a growing and imminent threat which is very real.  At some point, Obama will have to take decisive and possibly unilateral action.  Let us hope that he is up to the task.

Share

A Victory for Whom?

When news reports first came out this past weekend that an attempted attack on Times Square failed because of the would-be bomber's incompetence, the nation breathed a collective sigh of relief.  The Washington Post however, sees things a little differently:

When Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. stepped up to the lectern at 1:30 a.m. on Tuesday, it was more than an unusual middle-of-the-night appearance trumpeting the swift arrest of an alleged terrorist. It also marked a rare moment of glory for the attorney general....

A good week doesn't necessarily make for a turnaround. But with the arrest of Faisal Shahzad in connection with Saturday's attempted bombing in Times Square, Holder and the law enforcement agencies he oversees were able to claim a victory for the administration.

Even though the government failed to prevent the attack and almost bungled the arrest of the prime suspect, only just catching him in nick-of-time before his flight took off for Pakistan, the Post describes the arrest of Faisal Shahzad as a "glorious victory."  This is reminiscent of the Chris Rock comedy sketch about the person who expects you to be proud of them because they didn't go to jail.  "What do you want, a cookie?  You're not supposed to go to jail," he retorts.

Similarly, the American people reasonably expect the Justice Department to swiftly arrest the suspects in major crimes.  This begs the question, does the Washington Post believe that our government is really so dysfunctional that when the government succeeds at something it is supposed to do, it is a "glorious victory?"  Moreover, the Post describes this not as a victory in the war on terror, but for the Obama Administration--that is to say, a political victory.  More to the point, does the Post believe that it is a "glorious victory" when the Obama Administration is only just barely less incompetent than would-be terrorists?

All joking aside, there is something more ominous in this episode.  In both this case and in the failed Christmas Day underpants bombing, the al-Qaeda network clearly did not deploy their A-team.  In both cases, horrific loss of life was only averted by the would-be bomber's own incompetence.  One has to wonder if these attacks were even meant to succeed, or if instead, the terrorist masterminds who still survive in some cave in Afghanistan are using these attempts to probe for weaknesses in our defenses.  If this is true, these failed attempts are victories not for us, but for al-Qaeda.

Share

Making the World Safe from Democracy

The BBC reports today that President Obama has secured a major agreement with diplomats from Iran and North Korea to halt all production of nuclear materials and surrender their existing stockpiles to the International Atomic Energy Agency.  Well, no.  Actually, Obama has secured agreements to save the world from the evil scourge of the Ukraine and Mexico.

Mexico will work with the US, Canada and the International Atomic Energy Agency to convert highly enriched uranium into lower-grade fuel, it said.  On Monday, the US welcomed a similar commitment by Ukraine.  President Barack Obama has warned world leaders of a growing risk of nuclear attack by terrorists.  He urged those attending the Washington summit not merely to talk, but to act to prevent nuclear material falling into the wrong hands.

Thus, Obama has succeeded not only in weakening the position of the United States against our enemies, but also in extracting painful concessions from our allies.  This ranks right up there with Obama's other top foreign policy achievements, although it is much more serious than the iPod which he sent to the Queen and certainly more damaging to our international standing than his fondness for bowing to kings and hugging dictators.

Despite Obama's preening, Iran and North Korea have been unmoved by this latest round of diplomatic theater and have only issued predictable statements condemning any effort by the United States to curtail their nuclear ambitions.  Only a fool would think we can intimidate the world's most opressive tyrants by demonstrating our own meekness, but Obama will stop at nothing to keep himself in the media spotlight.

Share

You Can't Hug With Nuclear Arms

The Associated Press reports that President Obama has announced a grand new strategy which would, "lessen the role nuclear weapons play in America's defense planning."  This should not be terribly surprising, because Obama campaigned on an anti-nuclear platform, but upon closer inspection, his new policy is truly shocking.

Under the new plan, the U.S. promises not to use nuclear weapons against countries that don't have them.  The policy would not apply to states like North Korea and Iran, however, because of their refusal to cooperate with the international community on nonproliferation standards.

President Obama's idealism is nothing less than breathtaking.  The world has enjoyed more than 50 years of relative peace because we have the deterrent power of nuclear weapons.  The article observes that Obama is departing from the policies of his predecessor, but America's nuclear policy has been unchanged going back to Truman.  We have always held out the option to use nukes.

Consequently, only a few despots have been crazy enough to invade their neighbors, and although the United States has always responded to such incidents with conventional force, the threat of nuclear annihilation makes most world leaders think twice.  Moreover, many of our allies rely on the protection of the American "nuclear umbrella."  If Japan and Germany can no longer rely on our nuclear arsenal for protection, how long will it be before they start to build their own weapons?

America already has a credibility problem on the world stage.  After the fiasco of backing the wrong side in Honduras, encouraging Argentina to re-invade the Falklands, and publicly snubbing Israel's Prime Minister, one could be forgiven for thinking that it couldn't possibly get any worse.  President Obama thrives on making headlines, but he does so at the expense of American influence in world affairs.  More and more, the headlines are becoming a terrible joke.

Share

Don't You Feel Safer Now?

The Washington Post reports that the Transportation Security Agency will be implementing new airport security measures, not to strengthen what is already in place, but apparently as a response to criticism of the blanket screening of all passengers originating from the 14 countries which have known or suspected government ties to terrorism.

After the attempted bombing of an Amsterdam-to-Detroit flight on Christmas Day, U.S. officials hastily decided that passengers from or traveling through 14 specified countries would be subjected to secondary searches.  Critics have since called the measures discriminatory and overly burdensome, and the administration has faced pressure to refine its approach.

Under the new system, screeners will stop passengers for additional security if they match certain pieces of known intelligence. The system will be "much more intel-based," a senior administration official said, "as opposed to blunt force."

This seems a little dubious.  Our intelligence services had been warned by no less than his own father that the Christmas Day underpants bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, had developed ties to a terrorist organization.  He had also recently traveled to Yemen.  Are we really supposed to believe that he would have been stopped if these new measures were in place in December?

The real problem here is not airport security.  If denied at airports, terrorists will attack elsewhere.  The battle against terrorism will be won or lost long before a terrorist reaches the security checkpoint.  Rather, everything depends on the quality of intelligence and our ability to act upon it.  In his rush to vilify the CIA for harsh interrogation tactics, President Obama has blunted our greatest weapon against terror.

Share

Guns and Butter

As the health care debate continues into its second year with all the alacrity of a senile tortoise on valium, I present a chart showing the relative government expenditures on defense and health care as something to contemplate.

In 2001, the federal government spent more on health care than on defense for the first time in our nation's history.  That year also saw the lowest spending on defense as a percentage of GDP since 1940.  September 11th changed everything, and we have seen a dramatic increase in defense spending which has kept it above health care, but only just barely.

Click the thumbnail below for a larger chart.

Share