The President’s Big Speech: Obama Attempts to Quell Critics on Both the Left and the Right

Guantanomo Prison

In the Highs and Lows of Obama’s Big Speech, the Washington Post’s Dan Froomkin offers a comprehensive analysis of the president’s attempt to quell critics on both the left and the right in response to several of his recent policy moves.

In hitting the lows, Froomkin contends:

But in some parts of his speech, Obama appeared to be defending actions and even taking positions that didn't live up to his own professed standards.

When it came to what to do with the detainees at Guantanamo, he declared that he would work to create a system that would enable the indefinite detention without trial for a limited number of people whom the government is unable to prosecute for past crimes, but whom are nevertheless considered to be threats to the country. Even though he spoke of establishing lawful standards and periodic reviews, that's a dangerously extreme policy proposal. He once again expressed his intention to use a reformed military commission process for some detainees -- but gave no reason to think it won't run into many of the same legal challenges that Bush's process did. He spoke of sending many detainees to face trial in federal courts -- but then promised that no one would be released who endangers our national security. The whole point of a fair judicial system is that the executive can't guarantee the results.

Obama spoke passionately about his commitment to transparency, but offered up the same lousy and unpersuasive excuses he did last week for his decision to fight the court-ordered release of more photos of prison abuse. In particular, the weight he put on his responsibility not to release information that would inflame our enemies was deeply disturbing.

He offered no additional clarity regarding his position on the state secrets doctrine, where his lofty promises still stand in dramatic conflict with what his administration is actually doing.

And in continuing to oppose the creation of an independent commission that would fully investigate the abuses of the Bush administration, he marginalized those of us who want to find out what happened as polarizers, much like those who continue to doggedly defend Bush policies. He said the recent debate has obscured the truth -- when all we want is to let it free.

Froomkin has more to say on Obama’s disrespect for those who support at least an investigation of possible war crimes by the Bush Administration.

On how those nutty people who want to find out what really happened are really only interested in finger-pointing, and are just as bad as the Bush dead-enders:

"It's no secret that there is a tendency in Washington to spend our time pointing fingers at one another. And it's no secret that our media culture feeds the impulse that lead to a good fight and good copy. But nothing will contribute more than that than an extended relitigation of the last eight years. Already we've seen how that kind of effort only leads those in Washington to different sides to laying blame. It can distract us from focusing our time, our efforts and our politics on the challenges of the future.

"We see that above all in the recent debate -- how the recent debate has obscured the truth and sent people into opposite and absolutist ends. On one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism and would almost never put national security over transparency. And on the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: 'Anything goes.' Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the president should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants, provided it is a president with whom they agree.

"And both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. The American people are not absolutist, and they don't elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems."

Read Froomkin’s column in its entirety here.

Obama-ites in the MSM and Blogosphere: “What hast thou wrought?”

UPDATE: Obama to Make Major Anti-terrorism Speech Thursday

It couldn’t have been in response to Maureen Dowd’s column linked to below that provoked President Obama into making a major anti-terrorism policy speech tomorrow, Thursday, May 21, could it? Politico’s Allen and Vanderhei announced minutes ago:

President Barack Obama will attempt to regain control of a boiling debate over anti-terrorism policy with a major speech on Thursday — an address that comes on the same day that former Vice President Dick Cheney will be weighing in with his own speech on the same theme.

The dueling speeches amount to the most direct engagement so far between Obama and his conservative critics in the volatile argument over what tactics are justified in detaining and interrogating suspected enemy combatants.

Read more:


Reuters

Still taking no responsibility for their not insignificant role in electing Barack Obama president, liberal pundits in the MSM and pajama clad Obama-ites in the blogosphere continue shaking off the last shreds of denial while stepping forward to publicly ask themselves, “What hast thou wrought?”

Maureen Dowd has had it with the “Boy Wonder” as she presents a scenario featuring Rummy and Cheney in today’s column titled Cheney Grabs a Third Term.

Modo begins:

“Dick and Rummy are at Cafe Milano in Georgetown, holding court. The maître d’ fawns. Waiters hover. Tourists snap pics on their digital cameras. Cable chatterers stop by to ingratiate themselves.”

Modo’s cannily crafted drama unfolds:

“I can’t believe how easy it was to bring Obama into line,” Rummy says, gnawing on Gorgonzola. “We wouldn’t have needed waterboarding if everybody cracked like a peanut. It was even easier than getting the bit into Junior’s mouth. Way simpler than if we’d had to contend with McCain. In the end, the right guy won.”

Dick is surprised, too, but who can tell?

“You’re running national security now and everyone knows it,” Rummy says. “You got Obama to do an about-face on the torture photos. He’s using our old line about how it would endanger the troops. He’s keeping our military tribunals. His Justice Department invoked our state secrets privilege to try to get that lawsuit on torture and rendition dismissed. He’s trying to stop any sort of truth commission, thank goodness. He’s got his own surge going in Afghanistan. He’s withdrawing from Iraq more slowly. He’s extended our secret incursions over the Afghan border into Pakistan.”

Dick smiles on one side of his face.

“Transparency bites,” he snarls.

“By golly, yes,” Rummy says. “We controlled Junior by playing on his fear of looking like a wimp just as his dad did. And now we’re controlling Boy Wonder by playing on his eagerness to show that the Democrats are tough on national security. He’s a sucker for four-star generals, can’t resist anyone in uniform. Petraeus and Odierno speak and he jumps. If we want to roll him, we just send in the military brass flashing their medals.”

Rummy knocks back some more brunello, and shoos away some Japanese tourists after confiscating their cameras.

Modo’s one-act tragic-comedy would be good theatre if it were not such a realistic portrayal of how the Obama Administration continues to blindly follow the destructive path of its predecessor.

Sad to say, the nation and the world will now have to pay the price for the unholy alliance in 2008 between Democratic party leaders and their media allies, including Maureen Dowd, that delivered the nomination to Barack Obama and saw to it that he won the general election.

Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and the Likability Factor

In yesterday’s post at Katalusis, I mentioned how Barack Obama is steadily morphing into George W. Bush. Neither Bush, nor Obama was qualified for the presidency and both men attempted to compensate for their deficiencies by picking high profile advisors. Lacking the experience and gravitas necessary to overrule the likes of Rove, Rumsfeld, and Cheney, the likable Bush made one serious mistake after another during his eight-year tenure.


As the Obama spin machine has it, their even more likable guy’s supreme confidence enabled him to appoint strong advisors when it was apparent he was trying to shore up his areas of weakness. Anyone who watched the debates in the Democratic primary knew that Hillary Clinton ran circles around Obama on foreign policy issues, but it’s not Secretary of State Clinton who is now leading our new president astray.


His advisors on the economic front aren't helping much in this worldwide financial crisis. But in foreign policy, it looks like the generals are intimidating Obama on security matters such as prolonging the Iraq War and releasing the torture photos. And don’t expect Obama to stand tall in dealing with the tough be-medalled guys anytime soon.


Tom Ricks at ForeignPolicy.com writes:

I am told that General Odierno's objections to the timing of the release of a new round of photos of detainees being abused in Iraq were decisive to President Obama's decision Wednesday to reverse himself and decide against the release of those photos.

I am surprised by Obama's reversal. I wasn't so taken aback in February when he went along with his generals and abandoned his campaign promise to withdraw a brigade a month from Iraq this year, and instead endorsed a plan that kept troop levels there pretty steady this year. But to get rolled twice -- well, he must think he is running up some pretty big chits with them. I know he is trying to do the right thing but at some point he is going to have to say, My way or the highway.

Has anyone else noticed that Obama has begun to emulate Dubya’s – “In Texas we call that walking” – swagger?

Obama and the Failed Policies of the Bush Administration

Update:

President Barack Obama has nominated a lawyer for the nation’s largest toxic polluters to run the enforcement of the nation’s environmental laws. On Tuesday, Obama “announced his intent to nominate” Ignacia S. Moreno to be Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division in the Department of Justice. Moreno, general counsel for that department during the Clinton administration, is now the corporate environmental counsel for General Electric, “America’s #1 Superfund Polluter“:

Read more.

TGIF. This has been a demanding week in my world with little time for blogging about the agitation among President Obama’s left-wing base for his continued backtracking on campaign promises as he gradually morphs into his predecessor, George W. Bush.

I’ve discussed the similarities between Obama and Bush several times since the days of the Democratic primary, pointing out that they each had thin resumes with absolutely no relevant experience for the presidency. But then they were both likeable, popular guys who scored big as fundraisers. And each in turn promised to clean up the corruption in Washington and unite the country: “We are not red states or blue states; we are the United States…”

Once elected, Bush’s lack of experience and gravitas made him vulnerable to the influence of his advisors, including Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld. Even though his better instincts might have caused him to resist some of the most unfortunate decisions of his administration, he lacked the inner strength and confidence to overrule those who too often led him astray.

The same thing is happening to Obama as he reverses himself time after time on both economic and foreign policy issues. Presiding over the Harvard Law Review, working as community organizer in Chicago, making a speech at an anti-war rally, and drawing big crowds as a presidential candidate does not prepare one to lead a nation out of a financial meltdown or serve as commander in chief in war time.

Like Bush, the ill-prepared Obama has no choice but to rely on his advisors, and most advisors at that level tend to protect the status quo rather than push for change you can believe in. Should we be surprised that Obama has begun to reinstate the “failed policies of the Bush Administration?”