Obama’s Safe and Cozy Pretend World
Most of those who claim torture is never justified, and most of those who believe closing Guantanamo will not endanger America’s national security — but will in fact make America safer — are pretending.
They delude themselves. The others? They are either disingenuous or lying through their teeth.
Pelosi has been the standard bearer for the latter, constantly refining her story about what she knew and when she knew it, as facts emerge to contradict each new version. But Pelosi’s lies are fooling no one outside of the hard left, America-hating mob. Obama, by contrast, makes his pitch to the reasonable man, to those who want to be good and prefer not to think too long or hard about the consequences.
Obama has for the most part been careful to stop short of lying when talking about torture and Guantanamo — he relies on straw men, non sequiturs, selective omission, and other rhetorical tricks. And his disingenuous talk is more of a threat than Pelosi’s blatant dishonesty, as it’s more persuasive to those who can’t be bothered by opposing views — or to research the facts for themselves.
With the help of an obsequious media, Obama has managed to create the impression that he’s dismantling the most controversial Bush administration policies while substantively keeping them in place. In the process, he’s repeatedly denigrated his predecessor and those who served under him.
Obama tied the various threads of his pretend national security policy together in his May 21 speech at the National Archives. He pretended that waterboarding was “torture,” using the term interchangeably with “enhanced interrogation.” Experts disagree as to whether waterboarding constitutes the legal definition of torture, and you can call it torture if you wish, but if waterboarding is torture then it’s the first form of torture that journalists and radio personalities have willingly subjected themselves to in the name of “research.”
When those same people agree to have their fingernails pulled out, perhaps we can take their claims that waterboarding is torture seriously.
Having pretended that waterboarding is torture, Obama went on to pretend that it doesn’t work. There is, of course, plenty of evidence that it does work, but Obama and his allies must pretend it doesn’t so that their criticism sounds pragmatic rather than partisan.
Obama similarly sought to mislead on Guantanamo Bay, pretending that it has become a rallying cry for America’s enemies — when the very existence of the U.S., democracy, women’s rights, and freedom of religion is what has always riled the Islamists.
He also pretended that the mere fact of Guantanamo’s existence has damaged America’s standing in the eyes of the world, rather than the relentless and mendacious campaign waged against it by Democrats, activist lawyers, assorted celebrities, and the media. Closing the detention center will not appease those people, because their opposition is based not on concerns about Guantanamo, but at best on naked political opportunism and at worst on sympathy with the motives of the Islamic extremists held there. And while Obama may have bought himself some good press by bribing the government of Palau to take some of the 17 Chinese Uighurs from Guantanamo (thus not only giving a hostage to fortune, but setting the stage for Survivor: Last Terrorist Standing), if detainees are moved to the U.S. then Supermax or Fort Leavenworth will quickly replace Gitmo in the lexicon of anti-Americanism.
Most disgraceful of all were Obama’s claims that President Bush’s policies have made America less safe, and that the use of “torture” might cause terrorists to mistreat American troops seized on the battlefield. As if — should Guantanamo close tomorrow — the jihadists would limit their attacks to U.S. military targets overseas rather than trying to think up new ways of killing as many civilians as possible on American soil. As if — in the absence of waterboarding — al-Qaeda would send captured Americans to Red Cross-approved camps, rather than behead them live on the internet.
Britain doesn’t run Guantanamo and doesn’t waterboard, but that didn’t stop al-Qaeda from murdering a British hostage in Africa on Wednesday.
The leader Obambi most resembles in his ‘all things to all men but do what I say’ mentality is Hitler. Very soon ‘neolibs’ are going to have to come out of the closet or pull their heads out of the sand and admit this. Either that or they are going to have to accept that just like Hitler a foreign born charismatic speaker (or in Obambi’s case Teleprompter Reader) can take over a rabid socialist left wing organisation, in Hitlers case the The National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party (NAZIS) or in Obambi’s case the Democratic Party (NEOLIBS) and suborn them to HIS will and worship of him as supreme leader. We already have the Obambi personality cult and the LIAR Messiah is worshiped by gullible,hysterical ,emotional fools. 96% of Black Americans in a disgusting display of blatant barefaced RACISM voted for him. Just imagine the MSM’s outcry, outrage and disgust if 96% of Whites voted for McCain.
“He also pretended that the mere fact of Guantanamo’s existence has damaged America’s standing in the eyes of the world, rather than the relentless and mendacious campaign waged against it by Democrats, activist lawyers, assorted celebrities, and the media.
Closing the detention center will not appease those people … if detainees are moved to the U.S. then Supermax or Fort Leavenworth will quickly replace Gitmo in the lexicon of anti-Americanism.”
Yes, of course. When appeasement is made to aggressive power grabbers, it’s important to assess what their inevitable next demand will be — as most assuredly there will always be a “next.”
Wasn’t one of the Obama-endorsed books by terrorist Ayres written on the topic of the evils of our current prison system?
“Human nature makes us want to feel good about ourselves and to believe the best about others. In the case of terrorism, it’s easier and more comforting to believe that someone wants to do bad things to you because you’ve done bad things to them, rather than because of the good which you stand for. Because it follows that if you stop, they’ll stop.
Which is much more palatable than the alternative, which is that this won’t end unless we kill the terrorists and defeat their ideology, or they kill us and destroy our way of life.
In an imperfect and dangerous world, the left likes to pretend that we can always do exactly what we’d like to do in a perfect one.”
—
Yes. Except that it isn’t “human” nature. Of course, we treat our friends, allies and those who share values with us to this “benefit of the doubt,” and “do unto others as you would have them to unto you.” But it’s Liberal Left American and perhaps certain European nature to project this way of thought on everyone, including those who see it as laughable. It’s a way of thought that endows belief in the control of other people’s behavior by our own behavior. Very “empowering,” but purely fantastical.
Richard Landes has written at length on the topic and similar thought behaviors. This one, “Cognitive Egocentricism” — is “the projection of one’s own mentality or “way of seeing the world” onto others… [even on those whose own belief system is rather] “rule or be ruled…”
http://www.theaugeanstables.com/reflections-from-second-draft/cognitive-egocentrism/
Wha–? No cosmic cotton candy clouds? No non-stinging bumble bees buzzing? I want a refund.
Is waterboarding torture? Try this. If your kid is kidnapped, are you down with waterboarding one of the kidnappers to get your kid back safely? Where do you draw the line? Pulling out fingernails? Electroshocking genitals? The protests doth fall apart.
Movies and media have exposed us to fictional representations of people making difficult decisions about when and how to use torture. Dramas often force individuals to debate with themselves the morals of a particular situation.
One problem with Obama’s rhetoric to date is that he assumes that there are no gray lines when it comes to what he calls torture. He has reserved the definition of torture to himself, with the expectation that everyone will agree with his definition. He explains that there are no circumstances that justify its use, but an intellectual argument would consider both sides, no matter what the legal or moral conclusion.
If Obama’s argument is not intellectual, then his position on tortue would appear to be based on faith or religion. Applying a religious argument to a divisive matter is a symptom of a grave conflict in Obama’s character. He wants us to believe that people can reconcile different opinions by talking, but in this case he denies the merits of an opposing viewpoint, hence there can be no discussion.
Looking at Obama through the lens of his own logic, it would appear that the rift between his idealogy and the application of that idealogy is growing.
TO THE WEB MASTER —
I DIDN’T, REPEAT — DIDN’T — CHECK THE “REMEMBER PERSONAL INFO” BOX. NEVERTHELESS, MY “NAME” AND EMAIL ADDRESS KEEP SHOWING UP NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES I DELETE THEM OR REPLACE THEM WITH XXX. CAN YOU HELP ME GET THIS DELETED? I KNOW IT THE EMAIL ADDRESS DOESN’T APPEAR ON YOUR BLOG, BUT I’D FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE FOR SEVERAL REASONS IF THIS EMAIL ADDRESS AND NOM DE PLUME DIDN’T REMAIN. OTHERWISE, WHY THE “CHOICE?” HONESTLY, I WOULDN’T HAVE SENT A COMMENT IF I THOUGHT THIS WOULD GET STUCK ON MY COMPUTER.
THANKS FOR HELPING OUT.
Aqua, clear the cookies in your browser.
Bravo Aqua-
Thanks for the reference to the Landes book. Many commentators refer to cognitive egocentrism as “mirror imaging” but never flesh out how it works and the consequences.
I have to thank you for this post – it is a really useful summary of where the torture issue has gone so far.
Someone could say this: “Torture is distasteful, it’s important the American people think it isn’t happening when it actually is happening.” Now this is a very cynical position, but what it would do is protect President Obama’s having the issue both ways while slandering President Bush. Even though the position is cynical, one can see how it protects the government from ever more frequent populist backlashes in an increasingly open society.
In order to counter that argument most effectively, we really have to ask whether or not President Obama constantly attacking President Bush is a good thing. It’s actually a terrible thing when there can’t be anything like unity over the most basic security issues, when we can’t agree that Americans being safe is a good thing. The lie being perpetrated against President Bush/VP Cheney is incredibly dangerous: people are believing, as you rightly argue, that a gov’t can exist which protects people by doing nothing to protect them. In order to test that proposition, which is literally wishful thinking, one has to give terrorists and their ilk the initiative while attacking one’s own security establishment.
I know. It seems like I’m ranting. But those of you aware of how much high moral ground torture opponents are claiming is theirs know exactly where I’m coming from: we can’t afford for reality to give us all a wake up call in this case, and therefore we need the debate to engage the realities of power quickly, for the sake of all Americans and their allies.
“When American forces “torture” terror suspects, they do so as a last resort in order to save innocent lives. When the jihadists torture their victims, it’s recreational — they inflict pain for their own gratification and to intimidate those who would resist them.”
..and how do you know the above statement is true? You wish! You are engaging in what is called the ‘Fundamental Attribution Error’; their gang does bad things because they are evil, my gang does bad things because circumstances force us to do so. Further, the more committed you are to your gang, the more blatant the error. I’d hazard you are pretty committed to your gang, given the complete lack of even an attempt to provide a reference for your claim.
Uhh, thanks “Aquabat” (or is that me?) — how embarrassing.
Go to Atlasshrugs.com and watch the torture videos. That will open your eyes.