Obama’s Wiggle-Room on Counterterrorist Policy
In his inaugural address, Obama laid out his policy for dealing with terrorism. He said, “We intend to win this fight. We are going to win it on our own terms.” And on his first day in office, he issued Executive Orders rescinding Bush Administration policy on countering terrorism. This was, as a New York Times story noted, a declaration that “struck a powerful new tone and represented an important first step toward rewriting American rules for dealing with terrorism suspects.”
The executive orders he just signed both closed the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay within one year, and ended the CIA’s secret prisons and use of so-called “harsh interrogation methods;” i.e., torture. According to the President’s order, all interrogations will have to follow the noncoercive methods outlined in the official U.S. Army Field Manual. Obama also issued an order for cessation of military trials already under way at Guantanamo.
But will these measures prove to be just symbolic? Those who are complaining about Obama’s reversal of Bush Administration security policy have not paid attention to the wiggle-room he has left himself. Certainly Obama does not want our nation hit again by a terrorist attack during his watch. What would the public say if one did occur, and it became clear that the United States had captured al-Qaeda or other terrorists who might have known about the operation before it took place, but that all efforts to get them to talk via Army Field Manual methods had produced only silence?
Should such a scenario occur, Americans would be up in arms about the Administration’s failure to do what was necessary to protect us. That is why, I think, Obama issued an Executive Order that can easily be replaced with another if he deems it necessary. Two tasks forces have already been set up by the President. The first, led by the Attorney General and Secretary of Defense, will report to the President about detainee policy at Guantanamo.
I remain cautiously optimistic about Barack Obama’s willingness to fight the Islamic terrorists. The killing of the roughly twenty thugs in Pakistan is admittedly very encouraging. Is it possible that the Dali Lama is influencing him? Many of the West’s naive left-wingers must be taken aback by the normally perceived pacifist’s blunt warning concerning the existentially committed Muslim true believers.
website thankW.com has a Thank You note to
George W and Laura Bush. You may add your
own thoughts if you wish. All non-trolls are invited. Trolls will be deleted.
CYA in an exec order. Now there’s change we can believe in. I mean, who does that? I hereby order… except maybe not.”
There is no ‘wiggle’ room dealing with any tyrant/terroist EVER. The more you willingly give the more they take until that line you drew in the sand is behind your heels!
OMG, do I have to revert to children’s books to make sense? Ever read, “Give a mouse a cookie.”?
We need an EO releasing those retainees from the U.S. Capital facility suspected of finacial terrorism (Barney F. Chris D. Chuck S. etc.)
Waffles any one??
The battle rages as to whether Obama is a pragmatist or an ideologue. If he turns out to be an ideologue we will be doomed on the terrorist front. But if he wants to be effective he needs to deal with the left in a way that angers them least since they are ideologues. Obama is after all the master of the non-specific.
Will be interesting to see if he can derail Finestein. Of course, in a sort of sane country she’d get no support, in a very sane country she would be impeached for treason and in an ultra sane country she never would have been elected to the senate.
These two little words, “..effectively obtain”…just what do they signify? Substitute the word ‘get’ for ‘obtain’. One either ‘gets’,or does not ‘get’ something. The phrase is, “I get it”, not, “I get it…effectively…” The “One” plasters on this blurry language in sentence after sentence and paragraph after paragraph. He depends only on a mellifluous voice and that falling intonation at the ends of sentences to carry meaning, where there is none. He is NOT a great orator; he is a hypnotist. He wants two things, adulation and power. He will abjure conflict, and will yield to the Dems ideological wishes. (He has surrounded himself with the paving stones to Hell of abortion absolutists.) He will only deal with the irrevocably difficult when the shite reaches knee level. The press, abandoning the hunt for facts, and substituting for them ‘opposing narratives’, might as well be astrologers. I am not sanguine. But I have a joke to end with. If Obama is “The One”, then Joe Biden is the zero. Heh. “IHS”
While the majority who elected Obama may be giving themselves high-fives (or fist bumps) over this decision, in reality this executive order does nothing but move these bad men to a prison in the US and create a future problem on how to deal with non-combatants who should have been shoot in the field or released to the local governments where they would have been shot up against a wall.
No point in waiting to see what will happen with this guy. He is clearly not a man of action (except where he sees others to have effectively done that he can co-op for selfish reasons). It seems that as we watch him wiggle, we are supposed to be hopeful that he doesn’t wiggle to far or in the wrong direction. This is just wishful thinking. Prep the impeachment papers now and when bad happens in America (as it eventually always does with Jodys like Obama), we can move quickly and be done with him.
I can see the future NYT headlines now:
CIA FIELD OFFICERS TAUNTED BY NEWLY EMBOLDENED DETAINEES.
“WE KNOW WHAT’S COMING. BUT YOU CANT’ TOUCH US! THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN PIGS WILL DIE!”
But hey! our ideals will remain intact!
I am aware that every liberal/progressive in the world wants Gitmo closed, but aside from their ‘follow the leader’ type mantra, can anyone tell me FACTUALLY what is wrong with Gitmo? The prisioners there are treated better and live better than they ever have been in their entire lives.
Ethnic clothing, ethnic food, a new Koran, a new prayer rug, ability to observe religious practices, better medical treatment than they would ever have elsewhere, etc. etc.
As far as the Army manual on interrigation is concerned – that was written for dealing with prisioners of war (i.e. those wearing a uniform and representing a foreign country) and those deserving the treatment required by the Geneva Convention.
It was not written for terriorists TO WHOM THE GENEVA CONVENTION DOES NOT APPLY!
I would also appreciate someone wiser than I explaining to me what I was screaming into the TV (during the POTUS speach): “how does closing Gitmo make the American people safer?”.
Best of both worlds. President Obama makes sweeping pronouncements and nothing substantative changes. The United States gets good P.R. Similar to when President Clinton signed Kyoto even though the Senate rejected it 95-0. Nothing happens but he made it look like he cared.
I wish someone would press Obama for a definitive answer. Is he going to ban all torture and all coercive interrogation, waterboarding included, under ALL circumstances or is he not?
Yes or no??
Nothing happens but he made it look like he cared.
This is it.
Democrats are satisfied by words and not actions. They really don’t care what happens. They need only hear the nice words and they’re happy.
And irrevocably gullible.
Dude, that’s some kikbutt kool-aid…
Something I think which must be done is to insure that the detainees who are transferred to American soil go to those states who are willing to keep them. Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania come to mind. Perhaps Point Barrow in Alaska could house the Federal detainees.
The conditions under which these killers luxuriate at present is a disgrace. There is no need to coodle murders because the left insists on it. These men are not legal combatants and are not entitled to any privileges .
The Democrats and the Obama Administration now own the war on terror. Anything which goes wrong will be blamed on them. This applies in particular when we suffer further terrorist attacks at home. Regardless of how that happens, the public will believe it did because the Democrats and Obama administration didn’t try hard enough to protect us. IMO they will probably be right, but that doesn’t matter.
What does matter is that the Democrats and Obama administration have to be perfectly successful in protecting us at home, and that is doubtful. If there are a lot of casualties, the Democrats will lose their Congressional majorities and the White House, and probably not regain either for a very long time.
The Democrats and Obama have well deserved reputations for weakness on national defense. Republicans and the Bush administration had no such reputation, so the public gave them some slack. The Democrats and Obama administration get no slack and will have to be perfect in protecting us at home. The opposite is true for the economy – there the Democrats get slack and the GOP little or none.
It is very true that “All politics is local.” What that means here is whether we are hit at home again. If we are, the war on terror will be local and the Democrats will lose right there. That is what happened in 2002 and 2004. If we get lucky, the war on terror will remain foreign, not local.
What the Obama administration does only matters if it produces results, i.e., protects us at home. If it fails, nothing else matters.
There is no wiggle room in the War on Terror (this is NOT a law enforcement issue ie drunk driving) if there is one slipup and an attack on the US occurs the Democraps will be toast.
“The opposite is true for the economy – there the Democrats get slack and the GOP little or none.”
The number one reason why the GOP is placed in such an unfair situation is that Arthur M. Schlesinger’s shabby historical work on FDR and the New Deal is perceived by most Americans as the gospel truth. Even I shared this belief until just a few years ago. Can the damaged be reversed anytime in the near future? Our nation’s economic future depends on it.
#21 David – Um, no, I don’t think it can be reversed. The Libs control our media and schools. They control the info stream. Only through great diligence did you learn that FDR was a Socialist nad that his policies were failures. If we could get the info out there to people, things would change. The fact is, however, that people have to actually seek the info. It now won’t just fall into their laps.
Obama does not seem to understand that his public denounciation and dismantling of Bush’s carefully thought out interrogation and imprisonment policies(of enemy combatants) will have serious effects on our enemies and our intelligience people.
Our enemies will now be energized to resist yielding any useful information.
Our intelligience people will ask for no more than the name, rank and serial number of their prisoners.
This will likely be true regardless of what any commission should decide in the future.
Only a clear, unambiguous public statement by President Obama that he is in full agreement with, and intends to continue with the Bush policies, and that he will oppose any attempt by Congress or his own Justice Department to investigate or prosecute any Bush administration or CIA personnel for past execution of those policies, will work to ensure adequate intelligience collection in the future.
If the President and his advisors do not understand this, they understand nothing.
If he does not follow through with his position of posture, he can always say that he mis-signed and this was an honest mistake.
we will have to take some forceful action at some point.
But at least he did not lie to us.
#2 Dave, thank you for that link.
My advice to all of you, GET INVOLVED (“community service” LOL) in your community to get rid of BHO and Pelosi and the rest of these bad seeds in our US Government.
I think I agree with the theory that this is a bit of political showmanship. We can fuss about the administration going soft, but the fact is we need allies. Whatever its practical value in warehousing terrorists and extracting their secrets, Camp X-Ray has always been a massive political liability for the President and the US cause. Closing the camp may help regain the trust and support of those at home and abroad who have opposed our conduct of the GWOT on “moral” and “humanitarian” grounds. Whether this turns out to be a shrewd political move or a complete sell-out depends on how Obama’s team decides to deal with the inmates. On that point, I think we’ll have to wait and see.
As for torture: Aren’t there other methods for extracting information that don’t involve physical coercion? No, I’m not talking about “truth serum” and I certainly don’t mean being nice to terrorists in the hope that they’ll have a change of heart and cooperate with us. I personally don’t care whether terrorists are treated with respect, dignity, and humanity or not. I’m talking about fucking with their minds – painlessly – until they willingly tell us what we need to know. It just seems that some combination of technology, deception, and – yes – persuasion could get us the information we desire without the need brutality.
Maybe that’s naive – but I think it’s better than saying “Well, if we can’t torture people then the GWOT is lost.” Obstacles and restrictions can always be overcome. Question is, do we have the brains and the will to do so?
Re: Harsh Interrogations
The act of torturing someone is immoral. But so is bombing a building and killing 7 civilians with the intention to kill three terrorists. Prosecuting a war is also immoral where thousands if not millions of people are killed. The United States is routinely committing acts of violence which many consider immoral. Yet, Americans believe if we do not commit these actions our safety will be compromised.
My point is that torturing is immoral but in extreme circumstances it may be necessary.
It would be helpful if we can at least dispense with the straw man arguments that torturing does not work.
The claim that the person being tortured will give disinformation. Yes. But this is also true of every other method of interrogation. Having a nice long conversation will also yield reams of disinformation depending on the motivation of prisoner.
Also in this debate is that claim that we are endangering our own troops by torturing terror suspects. An enemy that aims to kill civilians will not be concerned with abiding by the Geneva Conventions.
The act of torturing a person must be extraordinarily rare. With the explicit consent of the President of the United States, and with the Intelligence Committees of both houses of Congress notified. The President will ultimately be responsible for this action. If resorted to it must be as a last resort to prevent the deaths of scores of people. The ticking time bomb scenario.
But let’s not fool ourselves; allowing someone that has information that will prevent the deaths of many people, but because of our lack of fortitude; we do nothing to prevent the tragedy. That is a greater moral outrage.
Well said, Brian, viz the Ticking B scenario. I would add another criterion: whoever is performing the torture, should have undergone the same technique/torture during regular fixed intervals so that they don’t forget just what they’re doing (lest they get addicted to the satisfaction of other people’s sufferings)
But, Personally I think the terrorists should be put in solitary with nothing but Barry Manilow’s music (blasting real real loud) to keep them company, while video recordings of Kathy Lee Gifford’s appearances should be playing on a huge screen nonstop. If this doesn’t break them down, waterboarding wouldn’t do the trick.
“Whatever its practical value in warehousing terrorists and extracting their secrets, Camp X-Ray has always been a massive political liability for the President and the US cause.”
Do you realize what you are saying? Any current political liability is due to the lies of leftist ideologues. It has zilch to do with anything rational. When will we cease capitulating to these slanderers? Also, won’t we be encouraging them to keep on lying in the future?
I’m all for torture of terrorists. They’re not protected by the Geneva Conventions. They are spies and saboteurs. Beat them, extract information, then shoot them out of hand, as we are entitled to do to spies and saboteurs found on the battlefield.
I am against exotic forms of torture and beatings for fun. That warps the mind of those doing the torture. It should be done for solid reasons; a sober decision. What to do with the obviously dangerous detainees; the terrorists captured in battle? Shoot them down like the rabid dogs they are! They are not P.O.W.’s. They are spies and saboteurs.
“The act of torturing someone is immoral. But so is bombing a building and killing 7 civilians with the intention to kill three terrorists. Prosecuting a war is also immoral where thousands if not millions of people are killed.” (Nonsense)
From the same guy.
“But let’s not fool ourselves; allowing someone that has information that will prevent the deaths of many people, but because of our lack of fortitude; we do nothing to prevent the tragedy. That is a greater moral outrage.” (True)
Let’s not fool ourselves? See your first comment above.
Why can’t us conservatives channel our energy and money into Nevada and San Fransicko and get rid of those two pieces of feces Pelosi and Reed?
#30 David Thomson:
Yes, I know it goes against the grain to think we’re capitulating to leftist ideologues. The election of Barack Obama has already given them a huge infusion of political capital. That’s one reason I didn’t vote for the guy: his supporters are scarier than he is.
But the facts about leftist ideologues are: a) there’s a lot of them, b) they’re not going away, and c) they’ll paralyze any administration they take a dislike to. Look what they did to Bush and McCain. Hell, even Obama will have to watch his back around them. Nobody – not even our supposedly arch-leftist President – is safe if they piss off the fanatics.
And I think that may be one reason for closing Gitmo – maybe the very reason Obama has in mind. The ideologues turned it into a symbol of everything that’s wrong with the GWOT, America, and George W. Bush. It was extremely useful to them as a propaganda weapon both at home and internationally. With it, they encouraged our enemies and obstructed the Bush administration’s efforts to conduct the GWOT. Obama can avoid that whole mess and gain some allies by getting rid of that symbol – by closing the camp and doing something else with the prisoners.
The only catch is, “something else” needs to be something that will keep the prisoners out of the war, bring the guilty ones to justice, and still provide us with useful intelligence. I’m not sure I believe Obama will push for those conditions.
I expect that Gitmo will remain open throughout the Obama Administration and that the “Drive By Media” will soon drop their interest in the story. While it is possible that the prisoners may be moved to the U.S. mainland (I frankly doubt it), that will be no more than a change in address. “Gitmo” will still be with us.
Part of the fallout will be a greater reluctance to take terrorists alive, which would expose soldiers to endless paperwork, possible legal action by Leftists, risk to their own lives from taking and handling terrorist prisoners while gathering evidence on the battlefield.
The common sense thing is to then preferentially kill them instead of seeking to take them prisoner.
Would you rather be interrogated or blown to bits, if you were a terrorist?
We seem to forget that in many cases the dangerous actors who have been captured could have been killed in battle instead, an option far more expeditious and dispositive, and also considerably less risky, but one which foregoes the potential acquisition of valuable intelligence through interrogation by professionals who know what they are doing.
I cannot see how the decision to take the additionl operational risks necessary to capture a bad actor alive instead of killing him would be taken lightly. Once captured, their possession has intelligence value and their captivity has safety value. Keeping them is costly, money-wise and to some degree political capital-wise, but it is by far the most rational course of action after so much has been invested in their capture.
They should remain in captivity unless there is ample evidence that there is no more information to be obtained from them and their release does not incur new risks and danger to our troops and the rest of us.
Let’s remember that many of those who have been released went right back to what their capture had merely interrupted for a while.
We have been at this long enough to know that jihadists are not interested in carrier changes such as becoming grocery storekeepers, truck drivers or sheep herders.
What we need to do is not just unconvenience them, but defeat them conclusively.
Anyone who argues that trying to look nice to the rest of the world is a higher priority is indulging in the cultivation of fairy tales. This may be a wonderful occupation, but not one that produces useful policies.
Anyway, have a good week-end!
Gitmo is a symbol of all that’s wrong with this global war on a tactic.
It’s true. Terrorists don’t play by the rules. Terrorists are not bound by the Geneva Conventions. Terrorists don’t wear uniforms. And that’s where the problem lies.
Terrorism should be treated as what it is. A tactic. A symptom of of a disease. What we need to do is concentrate on the root causes. The best most prudent way is through international cooperation to battle the radical criminal anarchistic elements that thrive on it.
These elements see Gitmo and Abu Ghraib as a rallying point and a recruiting tool for new terrorists. The same can be said about the war in Iraq.
And that’s probably why Obama is doing what he’s doing. He first is going to deny terrorists some rallying points. Next, try
cooperating with other countries, both friend and foe, to root out the worst of the bunch. In other words, remind the rest of the world that 911 was everyone’s problem.
That also means using intelligence effectively. We find out where they are and kill them. Surgically, and hopefully without unneccesary innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire.
I have always thought after 911 we missed an opportunity in Afghanistan. Not only did we have an opportunity to erase Al Qaida and the Taliban, but we could have instigated a Marshall Plan to help rebuild Afghanistan. It could have come down to something as simple as giving the Afghan millions of tons of topsoil to grow wheat, corn and beans instead of poppies. Help them build mosques, schools and hospitals. Imagine what this gesture would have meant to the Muslim world and imagine how many minds we might could have turned away from terrorism.
Hope springs eternal.
namaste
You know, these comment threads are amazingly upbeat. All we need is someone promising eternal damnation for us all and we’ll be set. I’ve heard it all – BHO is the black Lenin, the Illinois Fidel, we’re all sheep doomed to die, get your guns because America is going to turn into Mad Max, BHO is a secret agent of Al Qaeda, we will surrender and let Islam rape america, we will be forced to become european metrosexuals, WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!
Let’s be realistic. Obama is a Chicago political princeling who can enthrall people. He’s not going to become a dictator or a stooge of Osama – people won’t buy into hope and change when it makes them suffer. Even white liberals just want to do token acts of contrition. Obama is doing his best to switch to actual tested policies, like Ron talks about it the article. He’s not interested in having people run him out on a rail – and the media can only do so much to cover for him.
All well and good, but how do you track those who the terrorists communicated with, and what are their plans. Gitmo is a spa, compared to where the detainees are likely to end up, the Mahabeth prison of the Saudi or Egyptian Generla Intelligence. Abu Ghraib was over the top, because of some people’s undisciplined behavior but it was a sadistic hellhole before. Pat, didn’t you get the memo, they kill agricultural workers,
translators, teachers, et al, that was probably a long term success in Iraq sadly, they drove out a great deal of the
professional class with the bombings, the kidnappings et al, who may not comeback.
We are rightly concerned about his first steps, signing that executive order, on the 6th anniversary of Daniel Pearl’s beheading. Letting more AQ out so they can go one what you could call jihadi parole in their own countries, and return to the battlefield
is a bad idea. We can just hope that General Petraeus and McKiernan, are able to go about
their business unimpeded, but I fear not. We may be back to the time of when they failed
to take out Bin Laden, because he was hunting
with a prince from the UAE; out in the open.
The fact that he would waste a moment taking on Rush, when they’re bigger issues at stake is a sign of his unseriousness.
What remains are the worst of the worst Most of them are Yemenis. If returned to Yemen they will “escape” from prison.
This is a Clinton redo. Curry favor with the insane left and the terrorists by releasing terrorists or in Bubba’s case not killing bin Laden despite his declaration of war. How did that work out?
The difference between the 17 suspected terrorists murdered by Obama in Pakistan and the 245 terrorists soon to be released by Obama is that the former did not get the opportunity to explain themselves to American authorities. If they had, they might have been among the 520 to 560 (I’ve seen both figures) former Gitmo detainees who were fattened up and released.
But don’t worry, we won’t hear what any of the 245 are up to until they attack America – during Bobby Jindal’s first term.
“I have always thought after 911 we missed an opportunity in Afghanistan. Not only did we have an opportunity to erase Al Qaida and the Taliban, but we could have instigated a Marshall Plan to help rebuild Afghanistan.”
“Hope springs eternal.”
“namaste”
Pat J
I apologize if “namaste” menas sarcasm off. Yours is one of the most juvenile comments I have ever read. Hope spring eternal from a deep well of ignorance. “erase al Qaeda”. They have cells in 100 countries, you fool.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/al-qaida.htm
A Marshall plan for Afstan? Go the the CIA Factbook and inform yourself about how many Afstans have been willing to sign up to support democracy and fight Islamic extremism as compared with how many Iraqis have done the same. This might help you as to which of these two necessary wars is more deserving of support.
Al Qaeda is prepared to fight for 100 years, if necessary. The American public gave Bush it’s wholehearted support in Iraq for less than one year- the media: 3 weeks.
*its* – pulling a Clarice.
First things first. For those who listens to the International Red Cross, the human rights nuts, and especially Amnesty International, it’s time to use ear plugs. President Obama is already listening to the critics of Bush to a point where he’s going to start tripping over his own reversals. Not everything Bush did was wrong. In the eyes of those who blamed this country for 9/11, those detainees in Gitmo are totally innocent because of an illegal war. Reversing Bush policies just to make peace with the critics and replace it with policies that changes nothing, is only meant to please the critics. Who’s in charge? President Obama or the critics.
Obama thinks releasing these terrorists will make us more secure. Who’s in charge? A child in a man’s body.
First off, to call water boarding ‘torture’ is grossly missing what torture really is. It should be left in the arsenal of interogators, let them, on review of higher authorities in the Pentagon or even the Oval Office, be able to make the case and use it if it is deemed warranted. Certainly the ‘victim’ of water boarding gets the ‘feeling’ of imminent harm or death but really, how many were actually harmed beyond a damn good scare? Isn’t that the goal of terrorists, a damn good scare at the least? Seems they are just getting a dose of their own medicine.
Leaving it to the likes of idiots such as Feinstein to make policy on terrorist treatment and we will all suffer the consequences.
I think Obama is smart enough to know his campaign platform of opposing rough treatment to terrorists must be left on the campaign trail. Reality has set in on him, its his responsibility to protect the USA from these thugs. Lets hope this reality sets a proper tone of action in the months and years to come.
As for the idiot Feinstein wanting to pass laws handcuffing the administration, it will need to be veto proof and I don’t think she can muster that in the senate or the house.
“how many were actually harmed beyond a damn good scare?”
Precisely, none. It was never about waterboarding. It was always about bashing Bush for protecting a country that wants to commit suicide. By all means close Gitmo. Some of those 245 may not actually again take up Jihad.
“I think Obama is smart enough to know his campaign platform of opposing rough treatment to terrorists must be left on the campaign trail.”
You think? Did you miss this week’s announcement?
“…it will need to be veto proof and I don’t think she can muster that in the senate or the house.”
I just had a strange vision of Obama teaming up with Congressional Republicans and the more conservative Democrats to defeat Feinstein’s agenda. Probably wishful thinking, but I can always hope that at least some of that Chicago-style wheeling-dealing might be used to our advantage.
I don’t know – I can’t deal with all these doom-or-utopia predictions. I need to watch the guy for a while, see how he really deals with things. If he’s a raging socialist, I’ll oppose him in every way I can. But I’m not prepared to announce the fall of democracy before I’ve seen him in action.
INTERROGATION IS NOT TORTURE
Torture typically involves physical pain and long term if not pernament injury. Using psychological interrogation techniques sometimes resembles what goes on within families!
http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2009/01/interrogating-enemy-combatants.html
Looks to me like Barack is off to a great start, on track to keep his word and restore some international credibility for the US
Historian: You can shout the truth to people until your blue in the face – but it don’t matter if they choose not to believe. That’s the political reality the President has to deal with. Again, I hope this Gitmo-closing business is his way of clearing a major political obstacle by convincing the non-believers that “America does not torture.” It’s a trade-off. Whether it’s worth it remains to be seen…
42. Terry Gain:
————-
Just so you know. Namaste is a buddist term that translates as “I bow before the divinity in you.”
Also, since you repeated some of my words, I feel it’s important to emphasize a main point from my previous posting..
“Imagine what this gesture would have meant to the Muslim world and imagine how many minds we might could have turned away from terrorism.”
I don’t need to look at the CIA Factbook to know Afghanistan has been in a near continuous state of strife since roughly 1979. Bush had a chance to change things for the better in Afghanistan and show the world what America is all about. He failed, Bin Laden got away, we then invaded a country that was not a threat to us, and a lot of people have died.
Oh and I did check the CIA Factbook since I have it bookmarked on my computer. Couldn’t find anything about the number of “Afstans” or Iraqis that signed up to support democracy and fight Islamic extremism. I did notice about 2 million Iraqis have fled since we invaded their country to help promote democracy.
So if you want to call me a fool, fine. All I can say to that is…
namaste
dumbass
Of course, speaking softly and engaging in “symbolic action” were both big parts of Jimmy Carter’s diplomacy. With a “success” like that in the past, one would HOPE that Obama would have the sense to be more pragmatic and realistic, but evidently that is not the case.
Damn, ya gotta admire Pat J’s outlook: “Bush had a chance to change things for the better in Afghanistan and show the world what America is all about. He failed, Bin Laden got away, we then invaded a country that was not a threat to us, and a lot of people have died.”
Let’s see here: By means of the incredible effort of American troops, and some very hard decisions by GWB, Iraq and Afghanistan were given the first free elections either had seen in modern memory. Millions defied death threats to vote, which presumably showed that they really wanted to do so. Ah, but Pat J. tells us that’s really “failure.”
Well it sure is nice to know that those icky problems with Muslim fanatics trying to kill Americans are in the past now that The One is prez. ‘Cause that’s *really* the point of your post, innit Pat? Bush “failed”, Obie will succeed, right.
Lord, I feel *so* much better now!