Jan 15 2009
Obama’s Blunders
Obama is looking pretty weak and without convictions before even being sworn in. The biggest concern I think every one has (supporters and the opposition) is the fact he is an inexperienced unknown upon whom people projected a lot of hopes and wishes (and fantasies). His handling of the Blagojevich incident was a bad first start with his attempt to be have never talked to the Governor of his own state about transition. It was a laughable and misinforming position.
The next big news was how Obama would close GITMO, leaving terrorist killers to be freed or tried here in the US. I am fairly certain no one was voting with that issue burning the top of their wish lists. It is a empty gesture filled with real danger, since a good number of former GITMO detainees have gone on to kill again once released. It is clearly meant to appease his far left supporters – which is not leading. It is ungainly pandering.
Now we see even more stumbles. One of the actual driving issues in the past election was the economy. People were losing money, wealth and jobs at an astonishing pace. The economy is driven by consumers. Consumers can only consume if they have money. Money comes from good jobs. I believe we have shed over a million jobs in the last year and our unemployment is rising. And what does Obama jettison from his stimulus plan? The job creating tax breaks:
Bowing to widespread Democratic skepticism, President-electBarack Obama will drop his bid to include a business tax break he once touted in the economic stimulus bill now taking shape onCapitol Hill, aides said last night.
Obama suggested the $3,000-per-job credit last week as one of five individual and business tax incentives aimed at winning Republican support. He proposed $300 billion in tax relief in a bill that could reach $775 billion, and he resurrected the jobs-credit proposal from the campaign trail as one of his main provisions.
No job credits equals a lot fewer new job openings. Of all the things to dump the one where business are credited with hiring someone should be the last thing to go. But Obama doesn’t know how to use his political capitol. He doesn’t know how to control the debate and use his will to push his ideas. This is a no brainer to counter. No one on the left would go head to head publicly with Democrat President Obama on incentives to create jobs in the economy. Obama was rolled by the Hill.
But much, much worse than that, Obama is talking about losing Afghanistan to the Taliban and al Qaeda and claims he is sending our military into harms way in a useless cause:
President-elect Barack Obama intends to sign off on Pentagon plans to send up to 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, but the incoming administration does not anticipate that the Iraq-like “surge” of forces will significantly change the direction of a conflict that has steadily deteriorated over the past seven years.
First off, he is probably as wrong on that as he was on Iraq. Obama has no vision on how to succeed with victory. He will settle for smart looking retreat because that he knows he can do. But if we assume it is a lost cause, why send in thousands of our finest to die uselessly?Â
This is callously blind to the American people who take pride in their military and cherish them with all their hearts. Only a minority look down on the military from their perches of insecurity and self-doubt. Too many families are military families in one form or another. And we still face a determined and dangerous enemy.
And one of my biggest fears is coming true – we are more concerned with the terrorists’ well being than the unimaginable violence they have plotted or executed. Some whacked out judge as determined sleep deprivation and cold temperatures are torture and that a killer cannot be tried if he had to endure these things:
The top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial has concluded that the U.S. military tortured a Saudi national who allegedly planned to participate in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, interrogating him with techniques that included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold, leaving him in a “life-threatening condition.”
Oh pulleease. I will note again that members of our military go through much harsher physically trying conditions. The man was trying to help kill 3,000 Americans:
Qahtani was denied entry into the United States a month before the Sept. 11 attacks and was allegedly planning to be the plot’s 20th hijacker. He was later captured in Afghanistan and transported to Guantanamo in January 2002. His interrogation took place over 50 days from November 2002 to January 2003, though he was held in isolation until April 2003.
He was a link back to those who did kill 3,000 people. Clearly they have the evidence, and clearly this nut job judge refuses to consider the man’s intentions, only to make sure he is comfortable. As I noted in my 2006 Democrat Contract With al Qaeda another stupid liberal promise to our enemies is tragically coming true:
EIGHTH, we will submit and pass legislation that will mandate any questioning by US agents of Al Qaeda members to (a) be done in the presence of an ACLU lawyer, (b) never last more than 30 minutes, (c) be done indoors, in climate controlled conditions, (d) include an offering of proper food and beverage and (e) require every question to use the word ‘please’.
Right now Obama should come out and state he is taking a firm position against our enemies. He should remind the judiciary that these people want to destroy our way of life – and that includes our laws and society. But he won’t. He want to create the facade he can take on terrorists, but now openly admits he has no idea how to. He admits he is throwing our military into a cause he doesn’t believe in.Â
And in the midst of one of the worst economic conditions in living memory he has junked a job creating plan.
And he has yet to take the oath of office (more like the Oaf of Office). It really is no wonder why some professional political watchers on the left are predicting Obama will not see a second term:
White House reporters for The New York Times predict that the market collapse will force President-elect Barack Obama to abandon for now many of his campaign promises.
If his stimulus plan “doesn’t work out, he may very well be a one-term president,†said Jeff Zeleny, who covered Obama’s campaign. “It’s hard to imagine that he could be reelected if the economy’s in the exact same position four years from now.â€
Well, if he has failed after 4 years then he has failed. What we have here is a realization that liberal ideas cannot solve our most pressing problems. Increasing taxes, increasing the governmental drain on the economy, making energy expensive, flailing away at the CO2 windmill, dealing with the long coming Boomer retirement wave, and facing a deadly enemy with panic and concern for the enemy’s well being (not his victims) is a recipe for disaster. If Obama continues on this path he will go down in history as one of our worst President.
He needs to stop trying to please his radical base and get serious. BTW, if you want to see a scary site check out this video of London police running away from Islamo Fascist protesters. It is embarrassing, and all too close to what we might see under Obama if he keeps going the way he is going. (H/T Gateway Pundit).
Redteam,
I really appreciate you answering my questions directly and honestly. While I’m highly doubtful that either one of us will be able to convince the other of their position on this issue, it at least narrows the reasons for our differences. Rather than just calling each other anti-american or stupid, I really do believe it is helpful to at least attempt to understand the thinking on the other side. Based on your responses, I think there are at least two reasons why you and I see this issue differently:
1. You believe that the current approved enhanced interrogation methods have been previously authorized by the US and I don’t. I understand that we have always had “enhanced interrogation methods,” but I disagree that all of the current ones employed have not been previously used. Waterboarding is the clearest example. We have never authorized the use of waterboarding prior to Bush – I challenge you to prove me otherwise. We prosecuted Japanese officers who waterboarded our soldiers for War Crimes, so we clearly used to think it was torture. My understanding that our country has never previously authorized some of the enhanced interrogation methods Bush authorized plays a big part in my reasoning – I can’t buy the argument that we will be putting our country at grave risk without them if we’ve survived this long without them.
2. You think that Al Qaeda is more dangerous than other enemies our country has faced and I don’t. I understand that 9-11 was a horrific tragedy for this country, but I still don’t think they are nearly as dangerous as the Nazis, etc. We lost almost 300,000 lives in WWII, almost 35,000 in Korea and almost 50,000 in Vietnam. It may not have been on US soil, but I’m just as concerned about American soldiers lives as I am American citizens. Nazi Germany and Japan could have taken over the entire free world. The Soviet Union could have destroyed the entire world with its nuclear arsenal. Al Qaeda is dangerous, but I have a really hard time understanding how people can believe that they are the most dangerous threat we have ever faced. That plays another part in my reasoning – if we have survived greater threats in our history without these techniques, I don’t think that the threat from Al Qaeda justifies us abandoning the rationale for not employing these techniques in the past.
Lastly, let me just say that I respect you for answering the torture question honestly. Most people won’t. They may believe that it is okay to torture terorist, but they won’t admit it because it sounds bad. But I think it is one of the central questions at issue in this debate. Most of the debate is over whether or not the enhanced interrogation techniques qualify as torture, but the real issue in my mind is whether or not torture should be allowed on terrorist.
Terrye,
Cite me one example of a former President that authorized waterboarding or other forms of torture? Not instances were some soldier or CIA operative did it of there own accord, but an example of an executive order authorizing these methods. I guarantee you won’t be able to find it.
We did bomb civilians in WWII in order to bring the war to an earlier end, but we never authorized the torture of German soldiers.
We did drop the bomb on Japan in order to bring an earlier end to the war, but but we never authorized the torture of Japanese soldiers even though they tortured ours.
Same thing in Vietnam – we did a lot of bad things but would never dream of making them official US policy. We also had instances of soldiers shooting innocent civilians at gun point and raping Vietnamese girls, but I assume you aren’t saying it is now okay for us to do those things because we did them before.
There are compelling reasons why our country has not authorized the use of torture which we haven’t even gotten into in these discussions. You may disagree with these reasons, but don’t kid yourself into thinking that we have always sanctioned torture. The opposite is true. We have never officially sanctioned torture. That is why I posed my questions. I truly and honestly cannot understand why conservatives believe we should abandon these principles over Al Qaeda when we have defeated more dangerous enemies in the past without doing so.
Crosspatch:
“Everyone is holding on to their cash and waiting to see. Obama has issued no specifics. I don’t think he knows yet.”
You want details? You got ’em. That’s the draft summary of the stimulus plan that’s being proposed by the House, in partnership with President-Elect Obama. It’s an $825 billion package, with $550 billion in new spending and $275 billion in tax cuts.
conguy
Cite me one example of a former President that authorized waterboarding or other forms of torture? Not instances were some soldier or CIA operative did it of there own accord, but an example of an executive order authorizing these methods. I guarantee you won’t be able to find it.
This is a very silly statement. First it has ALWAYS been accepted that the military and OSS(CIA) used enhanced interrogation to get information. Presidents didn’t ‘sign’ an order because it wasn’t necessary. Only with our new found ‘morality’ do libs now require it of Presidents with an R after their name. they still won’t require it if the pres has a D after his name. Waterboarding is a term only created very recently. Many techniques of interrogation seemed to use water, but the most frequent one was the one used by the Japanese in WWII which was forcing water into their stomachs and intestines until it killed them. Americans don’t seem to have used this technique and I would call that technique ‘torture’. Dripping water on the forehead seems to be the most used by Chinese. It would not be torture. dripping water on peoples noses seem to be the most used by Americans. It would not be torture.
Islamic fascists seems to favor techniques that don’t involve water (not severe enough) they like to drag people through the streets until dead, chop off their heads, chop off penis and insert in mouth and suture, rape women, chop off hands. For some reason you don’t seem to have a problem with these events. Better hope the Islamic’s don’t discover dripping water on American’s noses or you’ll start to condemn them also.
but we never authorized the torture of German soldiers.
Authorize? but did we ‘torture’ German soldiers? better not check with General Patton.
Are you saying someone ‘authorized’ the torture of Americans during WWII? maybe the local prison commanders did it ‘without’ “authorization” so I guess that means it was Okay?
Oh, now I get it. the Islamic fascists aren’t “torturing” Americans because Osama ‘didn’t authorize’ it.
So the problem isn’t ‘enhanced interrogation’, it’s the fact that a US president with an R after his name ‘authorized’ it, in accordance with newfound morality of Libs.
why are terrorists a greater threat than the Nazi’s were, or korea, or vietnam? Because they can strike ‘anywhere, anytime and with all kinds of unknown weapons’. that’s not true of enemies in the past. We knew where the battlefields were in Europe, we usually set the time and place of engagements, and we knew what kinds of weapons they had. Not true of terrorists. They may strike with a nuke in Washington tomorrow, anthrax in Dallas, airliners into skyscrapers in LA, poison NY’s water supply….all in the same day. Tell me when we’ve faced that kind of threat from anyone, ever?
and even knowing that, if we were to capture a top leader, your primary concern would be to make sure he had a shower and shave, airconditioned place to sleep, good food, a chaplain, a koran and conjugal visits, clean clothes and no alarm clock.
You wouldn’t dare to ask him if perhaps he had any knowledge of any planned terrorists attacks.
Please go live in Gaza or Iran for awhile and you might develop a different perspective.
GuyF
$16 billion to repair public housing and make key energy efficiency retrofits.
Get real, for God’s sake.
details. I read thru that. There’s no plan there, it’s an ‘outline’.
which the Repubs say is DOA because they never saw it or had any input.
let’s take that one quote from above. Why should we make ‘key energy efficiency retrofits’ to public housing?
Have you ever looked a t making ‘key energy efficiency retrofits’ to your house? They don’t pay off or they would’ve been done already. Why not require the repair’s be done by ‘unemployed’ people? We’ll be paying them unemployment anyhow, why not let them earn it?
That whole spending thing is all a pie in the sky wish list to buy democrats votes by the promotion of socialism.
If you think that is detail, tell me specifically which public housing units are scheduled to be repaired, what repairs made to each, the address of the unit, the cost of the repairs, who will do the repairs. What energy retrofits will be done to what units, what will they cost, what will they save, what will be the payback? when we know these answers, we will have a plan.
I suggest all they are saying is, if we can confiscate more of the money that people have worked for all their lives that have not already been stolen from them by the Dems in charge of all thes corrupt banks and give it to the people that refuse to work to improve their own lot in life, then surely those people will vote for us forever.
Crosspatch’s statement was there are no specifics. Your response confirmed that there are no specifics.
Redteam:
“This is a very silly statement. First it has ALWAYS been accepted that the military and OSS(CIA) used enhanced interrogation to get information. Presidents didn’t ’sign’ an order because it wasn’t necessary.”
Please tell me that this is some sort of rabble-rousing on your part, and that you aren’t actually dumb enough to not know the difference between some rogue CIA agent performing torture on a suspect, and torture being explicitly approved by a sitting Presidential administration.
I mean – really? You can’t make a distinction that simple in your mind?
Redteam:
“If you think that is detail, tell me specifically which public housing units are scheduled to be repaired, what repairs made to each, the address of the unit, the cost of the repairs, who will do the repairs.”
Amazing. You know less about how the American political process works than an 8 year who has watched an episode of “Schoolhouse Rock”.
Go take a class in civics and then get back to me.
Redteam,
“This is a very silly statement. First it has ALWAYS been accepted that the military and OSS(CIA) used enhanced interrogation to get information. Presidents didn’t ’sign’ an order because it wasn’t necessary. Only with our new found ‘morality’ do libs now require it of Presidents with an R after their name.”
Then why did Bush and Rumsfeld sign orders authorizing the specific enhanced interrogation techniques in question? To bad Bush’s advisors didn’t check in with you first – apparently they didn’t realize that it was already authorized. And no, liberals didn’t require Bush and Co. to sign the orders – Bush signed the secret orders and the fall out didn’t even start until the public became aware of their existance after-the-fact.
As for your assumption that anyone who is opposed to torturing terrorist suspects must care more about the terrorist than Americans, that is such a lame argument. Bush has publically said that America doesn’t condone or commit torture – does that mean Bush loves terrorist because he is not willing to really put the screws to some scum-bag terrorist? Roosevelt didn’t authorize the torture of German and Japanese soldiers, despite the fact they tortured our soldiers – does that mean he was a German and Japan sympathizer? We don’t allow torture of murder suspects – does that mean we care too much for murders? The vast majority of Americans are opposed to torture – does that make everyone a traitor?
Opposition to torture has nothing to do with the enemy and everything to do with this country. I don’t support torture for a number of reasons – none of which have to do with a love or sympathy for ideological, cold-blooded killers.
1. I don’t support torture because it is contrary to our democratic principles. Adhereing to those principles has served our country well for over 200 years. We would be a lot safer from terrorist if we simply became a dictatorship that allowed the government to spy on everyone for any reason, randomly search houses or people for any reason, have armed militia out en force, etc.. But none of us would be willing to give up our democratic way of life just to be a little safer. Torture is contrary to every democratic principle this country has adhered to. I’m not willing to forgo that principle simply because some in this country think it will make us safer.
2. I don’t support torture because I don’t think it is the most effective means of interrogation. We have been successfully using other forms of interrogation for hundreds of years. Many experts, in particualr FBI interrogation experts, say that torture is not effective in getting accurate information. What has led people to presume that suddenly the only really effective means of interrogation are the new ones that Bush officially approved for the first time in our history?
3. I don’t support torture because it plays right into the terrorist’s hands. The GWOT is just as much a battle of ideology as it is a battle of arms – Bush himself has said that. The terrorist are trying to convince the Muslim world that the U.S. is an evil regime. Torturing the detainees gives credence to their allegations and is an incredible recruiting mechanism for the terrorists. That is not a smart way of winning the ideological battle. We can kill as many terrorist as we want, they will simply replace them with new ones if we don’t win the battle of ideology.
4. I don’t support torture because I think it undermines our standing in the world, in particular the Middle East, in a way that jeopardizes our security. We have several important moderate Arab governments in the Middle East that are allies whom have much more radical populous (Eygpt, Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan). When we detain suspected terrorist indefintiely and/or torture them, it makes it very difficult for these moderate governments to continue supporting us without completely pissing off their populous. They have to take harder lines with us once a large enough portion of their populous concludes that America is the enemy. Our European and Asian allies haven’t supported our GWOT efforts in part because all of them almost universally are opposed to Bush’s GWOT policies. You can blame our allies all you want for being wrong in taking these positiosn, but the bottomline is that they have so therefore American troops have been carrying the brunt of the effort.
You may disagree with my reasons, that’s fair enough. But you really need to move beyond the juvenile, knee-jerk reaction that anyone that doesn’t agree with you on GWOT issues must be a terrorist sympathizer.
conguy, you need to start with a reading comp course.
Then why did Bush and Rumsfeld sign orders authorizing the specific enhanced interrogation techniques in question?
I told you that. It is because of all the new found morality of the fruitcake’s(libs) since we have a Repub president. It won’t be required now with the Democrat in office.
you make this, or similar statements, several times:As for your assumption that anyone who is opposed to torturing terrorist suspects must care more about the terrorist than Americans,
Please post a link to where I said anything remotely resembling that.
Just because I consider innocent American lives to be more valuable than the life of a terrorist doesn’t make me the bad guy.
But you really need to move beyond the juvenile, knee-jerk reaction that people that want to protect Americans are the bad guys. one day that honest American civilian might just be you.
Redteam:
“you make this, or similar statements, several times:
As for your assumption that anyone who is opposed to torturing terrorist suspects must care more about the terrorist than Americans,
Please post a link to where I said anything remotely resembling that.”
Okay, let’s just go up a couple of comments:
“if we were to capture a top leader, your primary concern would be to make sure he had a shower and shave, airconditioned place to sleep, good food, a chaplain, a koran and conjugal visits, clean clothes and no alarm clock.”
You do know that, on the Internet, your words don’t just disappear after you type them, right?
[…] Obama has not won a thing yet, because he has not done anything of value yet. If his first act is to free the terrorists in GITMO, then that is a sign his administration will be a failure. It will be a failure because the man has […]
It saddens me also that Bush is leaving. I really don’t understand why he has been so vilified–the hate is unreal. I understand most americans are ill-informed and don’t know whats going on in their own backyard muchless the world. But the liberal elite–these people have no excuse. There is truely a great divide between liberal and conservative and between urban and rural areas. I fear in the end this could lead to a new American civil war.
[…] in Pakistan they can bleed us out in Afghanistan. And from what President Obama has said, he doesn’t even believe we can win – which means he shouldn’t pretend to win by throwing American lives away: […]