Defending America and Our History

A few recent articles in National Review highlight the importance of American history.

Rich Lowry writes about how Obama seems disconnected from history, as if his Presidency wipes our slate clean and starts us at time zero.

Mark Steyn asks about American resolve in a “post-American era” in which our exceptionalism is downplayed to create a sense of relative equality in the world.

Jonah Goldberg is concerned that by not standing up for American exceptionalism, the President may be giving up significant gains the country has made over the years.

Each of these articles makes some good points. President Obama’s lack of interest and apparent lack of demonstrated understanding of history is concerning, if anything because it suggests he may be missing lessons from the past.

Even more troubling is that by not defending America’s past, the President perpetuates myths that suggest that the American way is no better than any other. It also suggests weakness.

With some leaders denouncing American capitalism and blaming the world’s problems on it, a response from the President is warranted. Will Obama stand up for America, effectively denouncing such criticism, including the same type of criticism he heard from the pews of Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s church, or will he again write off history in an effort to separate himself from America and our past?

Andrew McCarthy on the Interrogation Memos

Andrew McCarthy’s column on the detention memos was featured on National Review Online and is a must-read.

Hugh Hewitt interviewed McCarthy on the radio. The transcript of the interview is here.

The challenges for President Obama and his administration pertaining to intelligence gathering, and the detention and interrogation of enemy combatants, are some of the most intriguing to watch and analyze. Those of you who read this blog are aware of the important decisions the President must make on these issues. We’ll continue to discuss such topics.

UPDATE: More from McCarthy on the mess the President has created.

The President Was Wrong to Release OLC Memos

The President’s decision yesterday to release Office of Legal Counsel documents about CIA interrogation techniques is one of the clearest examples yet of his naivete or dangerously ideological motivations. Yes, the ACLU had sued for release of the documents, but such documents have been kept classified for the safety of national security, and he didn’t have to make them public. This was “willful blindness” at its best.

Former CIA Director Michael Hayden and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey have written a fantastic explanation for why this was a poor decision. The op-ed should be read, understood, and passed on. They write:

Although evidence shows that the Army Field Manual, which is available online, is already used by al Qaeda for training purposes, it was certainly the president’s right to suspend use of any technique. However, public disclosure of the OLC opinions, and thus of the techniques themselves, assures that terrorists are now aware of the absolute limit of what the U.S. government could do to extract information from them, and can supplement their training accordingly and thus diminish the effectiveness of these techniques as they have the ones in the Army Field Manual.

Moreover, disclosure of the details of the program pre-empts the study of the president’s task force and assures that the suspension imposed by the president’s executive order is effectively permanent. There would be little point in the president authorizing measures whose nature and precise limits have already been disclosed in detail to those whose resolve we hope to overcome. This conflicts with the sworn promise of the current director of the CIA, Leon Panetta, who testified in aid of securing Senate confirmation that if he thought he needed additional authority to conduct interrogation to get necessary information, he would seek it from the president. By allowing this disclosure, President Obama has tied not only his own hands but also the hands of any future administration faced with the prospect of attack.

Hayden and Mukasey also take to task the argument against the effectiveness of these methods. For more on these issues, see our recommended reading section.

Also read Bill Kristol, who wonders if we still consider ourselves at war. With DHS warning of right-wing extremists and the EPA declaring CO2 a threat to humanity, one must wonder if we truly have lost sight of the real threats we face.

UPDATE: Hayden was on Fox News Sunday this weekend. The transcript is worth reading. Some key exhanges:

The Tea Parties Do Matter

Today was tax collection day, and as President Obama touted his meaningless and minimal tax cuts, tea party protests occurred in all 50 states. But the MSM has once again misunderstood the point, or they have ignored it in favor of resorting to ad hominem attacks on the participants. While journalists claim that the tea parties were just a plot stirred up by Fox News or a small rightwing fringe, Michelle Malkin notes the history of these demonstrations. Hint: Fox News is hardly behind them.

Watch this CNN reporter completely mischaracterize the tea parties, mock these people, and help prove the demonstrator’s point (H/T Hot Air):

Listen to the exchange:

Demonstrator: Lincoln believed that people had the right to share in the fruits of their own labor, and that government should not take it. And we have clearly gotten to that point.

CNN Reporter: Did you know that the state of Lincoln gets $50 billion out of the stimulus?

Homeland Security Warns of Rightwing Extremism

With dangerous people developing weapons and jihadists threatening the West, Homeland Security issued a warning to law enforcement officials on “rightwing extremist activity.” DHS is claiming that they did a report on leftwing activity in the past, but Michelle Malkin notes that this is not the same.

April 15 is tax day, and tea parties are taking place all over the nation. The media and the left are portraying the tea parties as extremist activity, but they are missing the growing frustration of Americans that is occurring because of the Democrats’ spending. If supporting constitutionally protected states’ rights and opposing massive government spending are  “extreme,” then there are a lot of extremists out there.

There are also many who have begun or will begin to ask themselves if this is what they signed up for in November, especially considering President Obama is carrying the most polarizing early approval numbers in the modern era. There will be plenty of opportunities to change course at the polls.

DHS should be ashamed. Ed Morrissey even suggests that Congress should ask for Napolitano’s resignation. I won’t respond to some of the specifics in the report because I don’t believe they’re worth that much attention, but John Hinderaker analyzes some of them at Power Line. He concludes that the report must be politically motivated.

Obama’s Annoying Distractions

In case you missed it this weekend, Mark Steyn commented on the “distractions” Obama has had to deal with: North Korea, Iran, Pirates, Iraq, etc. As usual, Steyn makes good points in a humorous manner.

I don’t seem to recall the media feeling bad for President Bush having to deal with 9/11, as if it were some distraction from implementing his agenda.

California the Model for Defining Marriage?

After the Iowa court overturned the state law defining marriage traditionally, Vermont became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage through the legislature.

We’ve seen multiple ways for defining marriage. Same-sex marriage advocates now applaud using the legislature. When legislative and democratic votes have defined marriage traditionally, however, same-sex marriage advocates have challenged those laws by taking them to the courts.

In California, the people passed a constitutional amendment to define marriage traditionally. Same-sex marriage advocates have challenged that process in a state Supreme Court case, though they will likely lose. If laws cannot define marriage traditionally because traditional marriage is unconstitutional, then why would an amendment to the constitution not satisfy those who oppose the definition of traditional marriage?

One cannot reason with someone who has already drawn a conclusion and ignores any premise that does not support that conclusion. One cannot say that people have the right to determine a law, but only if they determine it a particular way. That’s not a right, because the decision has already been made. Ignoring the process by which a law is decided is no more correct for those who wish to protect traditional marriage than for those who wish to change it. The process matters.

States who wish to protect the traditional definition of marriage should learn from the battle in California, and start passing constitutional amendments. Iowa has already drafted legislation to get the ball rolling. Even if President Obama repeals the DOMA this year, states maintain the right to define marriage, and the federal government cannot preempt that.

Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto

If you haven’t yet read Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto, do yourself a favor and pick up a copy. The book has quickly jumped to number 1 at Amazon.com, and is a reminder of the conservative principles that apply to our society and government.

Levin’s book is a short read, but it covers a lot of ground. He takes us through the words of our founding fathers and the Constitution, landmark legislation and court cases, and the importance of economic and religious freedom. As he does on his show, Levin uses humor to mock liberal positions, showing how they can be dangerous and absurd. The entire book contrasts conservatives and statists, and he discusses the views of each on every issue.

Liberty and Tyranny is a must-read for conservatives, especially during this time of Democrat power. I’ve therefore added it to our recommended reading list.

The Gamble: General Petraeus and Iraq

I’ve read and added Thomas E. Ricks’ new book The Gamble: General David Petraeus and the American Military Adventure in Iraq, 2006-2008, to our recommended reading section. The book describes the surge that changed the course of the war in Iraq, a topic that will surely be discussed for years to come.

Ricks is critical of the Bush administration and much of the conduct of the war, but he gives credit where it is due in describing the progress made in Iraq due to the counterinsurgency effort led by General Petraeus, and the changes made by President Bush.

The Gamble details many factors that played into the switch, talks much about Petraeus’ military background and leadership, and describes the media coverage and political reactions during various stages of the war. Ricks’ predictions of a long term military presence in Iraq with the most difficult challenges there yet to come could prove to be true, and they’re a reminder of the significance of this long war.

John Bolton on Obama’s Reaction to North Korea’s Missile Launch

“Beyond whatever happens in the Security Council, Mr. Obama seems to have no plan whatever.” Bolton is not impressed by President Obama’s response to North Korea.

Key quotes:

Iran has carefully scrutinized the Obama administration’s every action, and Tehran’s only conclusion can be: It is past time to torque up the pressure on this new crowd in Washington. Not only is Iran’s back now covered by its friends Russia, China and others on the U.N. Security Council, but it sees an American president so ready to bend his knee for public favor in Europe that the mullahs’ wish list for U.S. concessions will grow by the minute.

[...]

Russia and China must also be relishing this outcome. They will have faced down Mr. Obama in his first real crisis, having provided Security Council cover for a criminal regime, and emerged unscathed. They will conclude that achieving their large agendas with the new administration can’t be too hard. That conclusion may be unfair to the new American president; but it will surely color how Moscow and Beijing structure their policies and their diplomacy until proven otherwise. That alone is bad news for Washington and its allies.

UPDATE: The Pentagon is pushing for weapons cuts. Looks like we’re moving in the wrong direction.

UPDATE 2: Rich Lowry adds more on Obama’s naivete.