True. Genuine. Politics.
We’ve examined the Boumediene decision and the Obama administration’s prosecution of enemy combatants quite a bit here, with references to insightful analysis.
Scott Johnson at Power Line has offered a nice explanation of the Obama administration’s reaction to Boumediene, and in it he examines the Nuremberg trials that Obama referenced on the campaign. It’s important to understand at least the basics of this issue and the historical significance of how we are handling unlawful enemy combatants.
Facing strong pressure from the public and both political parties, the Obama administration is considering moving the KSM trial from Manhattan to somewhere else.
This is a good thing, but it still doesn’t appear that KSM will be tried in a military tribunal. The real problem, of course, is the law enforcement approach to terrorism that results in federal court trials for unlawful enemy combatants.
UPDATE: It is now being reported that the KSM trial could be held in a military tribunal. Sarah Palin is correct that the location is not the real problem, as I stated above.
UPDATE 2: Andy McCarthy issues his statement on the news:
Reality has yet again dragged the Obama administration, kicking and screaming, toward a more sensible policy. Like the decision to close Gitmo, which was announced without regard for the imperative of detaining committed jihadists, the decision to hold civilian trials for alien enemy combatants was made without regard for security, costs, the prospect of surrendering national defense information to the enemy during wartime, or the betrayal of humanitarian law caused by rewarding the worst war criminals with gold-plated due process. Not holding the civilian trial in New York City is a good thing. Not holding a civilian trial at all would be a far better thing. Since we have not made provisions for a national-secuirty court to deal with the novel challenge of international terrorism, wartime alien enemy combatants should be tried by military commission in the safety of Guantanamo Bay — which is what it was built for, at great expense to the American taxpayer.
Cato has a breakdown of the State of the Union speech with commentary and responses.
I want to point out, however, that I disagree with the comments about Iraq and how we haven’t won anything there.
A year later, it’s clear that the president we elected is in over his head. Anyone hoping to see a change from President Obama last night was probably disappointed, as little he said was new. In fact, Obama’s speech only further suggested his disconnect from public sentiment and reality.
Finger pointing, arrogance, and hypocrisy are not good leadership qualities, yet these unflattering characteristics have been displayed consistently by President Obama. Here are the latest examples.
In response to the election in Massachusetts, he said:
The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry and they’re frustrated, not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened in the last eight years.
I agree that the frustration we saw in Massachusetts also existed during the Bush years, but this is another lame attempt by the President to blame his problems on his predecessor. Obama wasn’t the only one playing the blame game. Here’s David Axelrod on ABC’s This Week:
I said to him a year ago, ‘Mr. President, your numbers are going to be considerably worse a year from now than they are today, because you can’t govern in an economy like this without great disaffection,’ and that’s — and that’s what’s happened.
In other words, the economy inherited from the Bush administration set up Obama to fail. Look, no reasonable person expected near full employment and 5% economic growth in 2009. Reasonable people did, however, expect the President to not make the economy worse, which is exactly what his policies have done. No amount of blame on George W. Bush is going to trick the voters, who see an exacerbated continuation of what motivated them to throw out Republicans in the first place.
As for arrogance, you have to read Obama’s comments comparing today to 1994. When Rep. Marion Berry (D-Ark) announced, like several Democrats have lately, that he would not seek re-election, he explained how he and other Blue Dog Democrats tried to warn the White House about how destructive a liberal push would be for them:
“They just don’t seem to give it any credibility at all,” Berry said. “They just kept telling us how good it was going to be. The president himself, when that was brought up in one group, said, ‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’ We’re going to see how much difference that makes now.”
According to Barack Obama, the Democrat party will not be hurt by pushing an unpopular agenda because he is somehow special. It sounds like he is saying he’s more politically talented than Bill Clinton. We shall see. One thing seems for sure though, and that is the arrogance of this President. His healthcare push is starting to go beyond principle, suggesting he is delusional.
As for hypocrisy, remember when the Bush administration was lambasted for giving out no-bid defense contracts to “cronies?” And remember when President Obama said that he would do away with those no bid contracts (H/T Michelle Malkin)? Apparently, hope and change just means doing for your friends the same thing you criticized, except doing so when there actually is competition (H/T Ed Morrissey). The contract is worth about $25 million.
Blame, arrogance, and hypocrisy. No wonder people are starting to realize this President isn’t who they thought he was.
“And I hope they’re paying close attention, because tonight the independent voice of Massachusetts has spoken.“
- Scott Brown, January 19, 2010
Indeed, the independent voice of the Bay State has spoken and has delivered a message to D.C. and to the rest of the country. Ignore that message at your own political peril. But what was this message, since both sides are doing their best to spin it in their favor?
Was this a rejection of the Democrat party and an endorsement of the GOP? I’m not ready to go that far. It was clear that the voters of Massachusetts are rejecting the liberal agenda that has been pushed, with healthcare being at the center of that agenda. Scott Brown made it very clear that a vote for him was a vote against ObamaCare, and a majority of voters said that healthcare was the main issue for them. As I posted below, Andy McCarthy suggested that national security was also a major factor.
That said, voters are not adopting the Republican party anymore than they were adopting the Democrat party in 2006 and 2008. The election in Massachusetts was about killing ObamaCare and sending a message to stop the reckless spending, backroom deals, and destructive ideas that killed the Republicans during the Bush years and have only been ramped up by Democrats since they’ve taken over.
Right now, neither party is in favor with the electorate, and party leaders need to understand that. Voters said in Massachusetts that they will vote out anyone who pushes the agenda in the direction the country has been going. Not to take away from Scott Brown, but he was the least bad candidate to many voters last week, and his election suggests that voters will responsibly remove the worst of the political offenders on the ballot. Now, polls are showing Republicans can unseat Democrats all over the country.
That a Republican can win in blue states like Massachusetts is a signal that people want to stop the bleeding. While Republicans have an opportunity to pitch conservatism, the first move they need to make is to show a clear contrast with liberalism. In other words, people don’t have to adopt conservatism right now, they just need to continue to reject liberalism. That means Republicans must expose the Democrat leaders, including President Obama.
The country is starting to wake up to the reality of who President Obama is. Many still think that healthcare reform has been a failure because it was outsourced to Reid and Pelosi. The secret is that Obama is on the same page as them, and is happy to let them run the show. The idea that Congressional leaders can run circles around the President is naive. President Obama has wanted this reform from the beginning (see the video montage below). That he is not backing down suggests that he is truly a progressive ideologue, and not the pragmatic leader who supposedly understood the electorate.
Charles Krauthammer and Peggy Noonan have accurate assessments of the Massachusetts election. Democrats can spin the results any way they want, but continuing to back the agenda pushed by principled liberals like Obama and Pelosi is only going to awaken more of the public and create a nasty 2010.
In line with my DED in 2010 theme (“Don’t Elect Democrats) is this video about American disappointment with the elected leadership of 2008. It’s called America Rising, and it’s true: Voters are tired of being ignored. They’re tired of these policies and the corruption. America is coming for the liberals this November.
The video was re-posted at Power Line.
What a shock, that Obama’s DoJ would recommend the same strategy as George W. Bush (H/T Ed Morrissey, who reports that Obama sent two Gitmo detainees to Algeria this past week, where al Qaeda is growing).
While Obama and his administration seem to be learning, Andy McCarthy writes:
The big decision is the one made at the beginning of the Obama administration, by the president and nobody else: It is the default position of the administration that law enforcement is the preferred approach for dealing with international terrorism.
For more on this subject, terror trials, and interrogation methods, see Peter Robinson’s interesting interview with John Yoo about Yoo’s new book Crisis and Command.
UPDATE: Andy McCarthy comments on the transfer of the two detainees to Algeria.
When Congress was buying votes for a bill that no one wanted, I stated the obvious: The healthcare push was no longer about healthcare; it was about the liberals running the country. The bill wasn’t going to accomplish what either side wants, but that wasn’t and isn’t the point anymore. The point is that they pass something, anything, no matter what it actually does to healthcare in America.
Neither the left nor the right liked the bill, and they still don’t. Massachusetts sent as strong signal to the country this week, but the Democrat leaders aren’t listening. All they’re going to do is re-brand the same ideas. Maybe they’ll change the focus to another issue for a while. Don’t buy any of it. The liberals, including Obama, aren’t giving up on this.
Congressman Paul Ryan is saying that the Democrats are considering a reconciliation process now. Massachusetts sent a message, now Obama and the liberals are sending one back: “We’re doing it anyway.”
The good thing is that reconciliation is unlikely to produce a bill, at least not without significantly stripping down what they already have. Even pro-nationalization Paul Krugman is calling for the House to pass the Senate bill, because he knows that’s the best they can get right now.
Why should any Democrats other than the principled liberals vote for ObamaCare now? New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts have all happened in the past year with healthcare on the table. Now Connecticut is showing that the Bay State isn’t the only one in the Northeast who doesn’t care for ObamaCare, and it doesn’t stop there. Even Barbara Boxer’s numbers are down in California, headed into this year’s election. Liberalism is killing the Democrats.
Keith Hennessey now thinks the bills are all but dead. Don’t break out the champagne just yet, but have it ready. In the meantime, enjoy this hilarious parody video, “The Day That ObamaCare Died.”
UPDATE: Here’s a great reminder that Obama won’t give up on healthcare:
UPDATE 2: Politico is reporting that Democrat leaders are trying to figure out how to use reconciliation to force the bill through, as expected.
While healthcare was front and center this week, the long war continues. Cliff May suggests that we should be concerned that “[I]n a growing number of Muslim-majority countries, a war is being waged against non-Muslim minorities.”
May cited today several Christian churches under attack in Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey, and Malaysia, and he asks why this isn’t a big media story. The reason is that a lot of the media doesn’t want to accept this war for what it is. Meanwhile, as McCarthy suggests, understanding these issues is important to voters.
