more revealing moment…

Posted on Friday 23 January 2009


President Obama yesterday eliminated the most controversial tools employed by his predecessor against terrorism suspects. With the stroke of his pen, he effectively declared an end to the "war on terror," as former president George W. Bush defined it, signaling to the world that the reach of the U.S. government in battling its enemies will not be limitless. While Obama says he has no plans to diminish counterterrorism operations abroad, the notion that a president can circumvent long-standing U.S. laws simply by declaring war was halted by executive order in the Oval Office.

Key components of the secret structure developed under Bush are being swept away: The military’s Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, facility, where the rights of habeas corpus and due process had been denied detainees, will close, and the CIA is now prohibited from maintaining its own overseas prisons. And in a broad swipe at the Bush administration’s lawyers, Obama nullified every legal order and opinion on interrogations issued by any lawyer in the executive branch after Sept. 11, 2001.

It was a swift and sudden end to an era that was slowly drawing to a close anyway, as public sentiment grew against perceived abuses of government power. The feisty debate over the tactics employed against al-Qaeda began more than six years ago as whispers among confidants with access to the nation’s most tightly held secrets…
I hate to admit it, but I’ve been embarassed by the "War on Terror" label from the start because it was such an absurd name. How do you declare war on an emotion? Even the grammatically more correct "War on Terrorists" would’ve been no better. It’s redundant. What’s the alternative? I would’ve preferred something like "War on Al Qaeda" or "Operation Terrorist Alert." Maybe no name at all, just effective planning and execution. Actually, I haven’t been fond of any of the names Bush used – "No child left behind," "Operation Iraqi Freedom," "Homeland Security." They all sound childish to me. Kind of like "The Surge" or "Shock and Awe."

I think one of the best phrased parts of Obama’s inaugural speech was "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake." I understand that they were scared after 9/11, and this stuff they did was their thought about how to protect us, but they didn’t ask anybody else to look at it with them, and they stuck to these decisions for years after it became apparent how far off the mark they were. I’d like to remind us all of what Karl Rove said to the New York Conservatives in June 2005.

But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to… submit a petition. I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what Moveon.org did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be to “use moderation and restraint in responding to the… terrorist attacks against the United States.”

I don’t know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt as I watched the Twin Towers crumble to the earth; a side of the Pentagon destroyed; and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble. Moderation and restraint is not what I felt – and moderation and restraint is not what was called for. It was a moment to summon our national will – and to brandish steel.

MoveOn.Org, Michael Moore and Howard Dean may not have agreed with this, but the American people did. Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said: we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said: we must understand our enemies. Conservatives see the United States as a great nation engaged in a noble cause; liberals see the United States and they see … Nazi concentration camps, Soviet gulags, and the killing fields of Cambodia.

Has there been a more revealing moment this year than when Democratic Senator Richard Durbin, speaking on the Senate floor, compared what Americans had done to prisoners in our control at Guantanamo Bay with what was done by Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot – three of the most brutal and malevolent figures in the 20th century?

Let me put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America’s men and women in uniform in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.

Any fool reading that petition would have known exactly what MoveOn.org was getting at by saying, "…use moderation and restraint in responding to the… terrorist attacks against the United States." And any fool reading it now would know that it was excellent advice. Rove added, "It was a moment to summon our national will – and to brandish steel." Beside the ludicrous image of Karl Rove "brandishing steel," it’s apparent that Gitmo, torture, secret prisons, invading Iraq, and N.S.A. domestic surveillance got us less than nowhere, and that the primary mission was lost in the process. The War on Terror didn’t end today. It never got started. Read the whole Rove speech if you need to recall what we were up against in 2005, shortly after Bush’s second term began. It’s an arrogant and contemptuous speech. And it’s nauseating in its "childishness."

Which brings me to another bit of eloquence from Obama. "We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness." He is aiming at the center of the problem  to use the label "childish things" – government by cowboy movie or thriller beach novels.

Rove asks, "Has there been a more revealing moment this year than when Democratic Senator Richard Durbin, speaking on the Senate floor, compared what Americans had done to prisoners in our control at Guantanamo Bay with what was done by Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot – three of the most brutal and malevolent figures in the 20th century?" No, there has not been a more revealing moment, since what Senator Durbin revealed was the truth…
  1.  
    January 23, 2009 | 12:38 PM
     

    Even before we went into Iraq, I remember saying about our bombing raids on Afghanistan: wonder what would happen if, instead of dropping bombs on them, we dropped tons and tons of food, medical supplies, and books? And then went in and helped them rebuild thier country?

    Steel brandishers always have an easier sell when people are scared. I just wish I had said it louder and that we had actually done it. We’d be much further along in defusing the anger toward us in the Islamic world.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.