Options
Obama Impresses 'Educated Class' but Not Terrorists
· Monday, February 1, 2010
Just whom are we trying to impress?
That's a question that occurred to me when, on his second full day in the presidency, Barack Obama announced we would close the Guantanamo detainee facility within one year.
It's a question that has kept occurring to me over the last year and nine days, even though Obama and his administration have proven unable to keep that promise.
Whom are we trying to impress by ruling out enhanced interrogation techniques on unlawful combatants, techniques that produced valuable intelligence that saved American lives? Whom are we trying to impress by limiting questioning to the Army Field Manual?
That's a good guide for handling prisoners of war and other lawful combatants covered by international law. But whom are we trying to impress by extending those protections to those who are not covered by the Geneva Conventions or other treaties we have signed?
Whom are we trying to impress by trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed in civilian courts after he already pled guilty to a military tribunal? And trying him in New York City, where the trial will cost something like $1 billion and tie up Lower Manhattan for years?
Would these people we are trying to impress be that much less impressed if the administration belatedly follows the advice of Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kirsten Gillibrand and stages that trial on a military base or elsewhere outside of New York City?
And whom are we trying to impress by treating the failed Christmas bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab not as a military combatant but as a common civilian criminal, even though he launched an attack on the United States from outside the country? Whom are we trying to impress by administering Miranda warnings and telling him that he has a right to a lawyer and the right to remain silent?
If the answer to these questions is that we are trying to impress Islamist terrorists, we have clearly failed.
It is a matter of simple fact that the announcement that we would close Guantanamo and other policy changes did not prevent Abdulhakim Muhammad from killing U.S. soldiers at the Little Rock recruiting station last June. It did not prevent Nidal Hasan from killing U.S. soldiers at Fort Hood in November. It did not prevent Abdulmutallab from attempting to blow up Northwest flight 253 over U.S. or Canadian airspace on Christmas Day.
Public opinion polls in the Arab and Muslim world have shown only slight upticks in opinion about America in the months after Barack Obama's speeches in Cairo and Turkey and after these administration policy changes. Terrorists did not say, "Gosh, now that Obama is closing Guantanamo and terrorists are being given Miranda rights, I've got to change my mind and decide that the United States is a really nifty country and that freedom and democracy are good things after all."
But perhaps our goal was to convince not terrorists but "world opinion." Are the government and the billion people of India going to think better of the United States if we treat terrorists more gently? Not likely -- they're the targets of terrorists themselves.
How about the government and the billion people of China? My guess is that they see this as weakness, which they would never indulge.
The governments and peoples of Europe? Well, certainly some governments would be pleased, as would the readers of left-wing newspapers and those who attend international conferences. But polling shows that Europeans tend to take a tougher stand on these matters than the elites who dominate the international dialogue.
So whom are we trying to impress? The answer seems to be left-wing intellectuals, academics, voters -- "the educated class," in David Brooks' term -- who decried George W. Bush's policies as reeking of fascism and dictatorship. We are making policies to please those who hang out in law school faculty lounges.
Their numbers turn out to be less formidable than the amount of coverage they have received in sympathetic media suggests. For that we have evidence from the commonwealth of Massachusetts, where Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown called for handing over KSM and the Christmas bomber to military tribunals. His Democratic opponent disagreed. She carried "the educated class," blacks and Hispanics. Brown carried just about everyone else and, even in Massachusetts, won.
Which leads me to ask, again: Just whom are we trying to impress?
COPYRIGHT 2010 THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.
Options
Subscribe
Harvard Political Review notes: "The Patriot Post is leading a surprisingly well-organized charge into the world of Internet politics." It's Right. It's Free. Subscribe now!
The Right Opinion
- Peggy Noonan: Mitt Romney's Moment
- Argus Hamilton: From The Comedy Store
- Burt Prelutsky: Time to Start Playing Offense
- Rich Galen: Obama & Romney Tout Good News
- Edwin J. Feulner: 'Law of the Sea' Treaty: Sink It
- Arnold Ahlert: With Democrats, You're Either All In - or All Out
- Oliver North: Memorial Day 2012
- Ken Blackwell: Remarks on Religious Liberty
- L. Brent Bozell: Canada's 'Scientific' Museum of Smut
- Michelle Malkin: Obama's Land of the LOST
- Rebecca Hagelin: The 'Gay Marriage' Spin
- David Limbaugh: Obama and Leahy vs. Sir William Blackstone
Grassroots Commentary
Policy and Analysis
- Heritage Foundation Insider
- Heritage Foundation Research
- American Enterprise Institute
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- The Cato Institute
- Hoover Institution
- National Rifle Association
- Ludwig von Mises Institute
- Citizens Against Government Waste
- National Center for Policy Analysis
- The Heartland Institute
Our Mission
"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher
The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!
























Alex Torello
That's right Michael. The "public" dissemination of information and opinion in recent memory has been overwhelmingly controlled by these "thinkers."
We all know that "thinkers" must be constantly thinking of new solutions, much as a shark must be constantly swimming to survive.
Thus, what would seem whacky, just a few years before--through the evolution of envelope pushing--becomes the accepted "truth".
Posted February 1, 2010 at 9:57:00 AM
Ken C
Michael -
I would have to respectfully disagree. I think we have thoroughly impressed our foe. I believe that they are quite impressed indeed with how innately stupid these decisions are when one is, in effect, fighting what amounts to guerrilla warfare. I recall scenese from the movie "The Patriot" where the British forces marched directly into the line of fire and "expected" their foe to do likewise. It was the "gentlemanly" way to fight a war and Cornwallis was appalled when the militia would not fight that way, but instead fought to WIN!!!
Posted February 1, 2010 at 12:24:19 PM
Howard Last
What would George Patton and John Pershing thought of trying to impress the enemy this way? The way to impress the Muslims is by dropping pig entrails on them or making Meca glow in the dark. Teddy Roosevelt expressed it best, "Speak softly and carry a big stick".
Posted February 1, 2010 at 1:51:26 PM
MichaelSSEC
You're darn tootin'! Well, it's time for Obama and his radical administration to discover who he really needed to impress. On Election Day this coming November -- and again in 2012 -- Americans need to get out in droves to send the clearest possible signal to Washington that this is the worst leadership we have EVER seen.
Actually, a sane leader would have gotten the message already, after the triple-play in NJ, VA and MA. But instead of learning his lessons, Obama stubbornly clings to the ultra-Leftist ideology that drove away his independent voters in the first place. Americans wanted change, well they got it! And they don't like what they're seeing.
The good news is, Liberals are their own worst enemies. When they get the floor, they can't shut up. And sooner or later they say insane things that leave Americans appalled. So the best way to fight these radicals is to urge them on -- KEEP TALKING, LIBERALS! Keep talking. Turn up the volume!
Posted February 1, 2010 at 5:53:29 PM
kev
So this is what it takes to rescue jimmy carter's presidency! Up until now I thought jimmy was the worst. What amazes me is the number of people who say they approve of obama's work. What?!!
Posted February 1, 2010 at 9:51:46 PM
MichaelSSEC
Kev, you're right. It IS amazing. If this is success, what on Earth would failure look like?? Good lord.
Posted February 2, 2010 at 2:16:28 PM
Anton D Rehling
The educated class is an oxymoron. They are generally a class of fools, educated in imbecile theories and too dumb to know it
Posted February 2, 2010 at 9:54:16 PM
DeeBee
Well, Howard Last, to answer part of your question, let's read what George S. Patton, Jr. wrote in his 1927 treatise, "Why Men Fight":
As has already been pointed out, our present bulk makes active National Patriotism largely impalpable. Stress of war, particularly if one of invasion, or one in which we were initially unsuccessful will, to a degree, crystallize this feeling, but in the meantime the situation would be improved if pacifist moves were treated with less tolerance. The prompt shooting of some scores of conscientious objectors would go far towards removing bellicose inhibitions.
Another move which might be easily instituted at the beginning of the next war would be to explain to editors, most of whom are patriotic, that the printing of sob stories amounts to a traitorous act. Men in combat are too weary or excited to entertain the thoughts and emotions attributed to soldiers by the sick brains of unwarlike writers while the pre-battle reading of such stuff by new soldiers simply subjects them to useless and brutal mental torture, as they anticipate feeling these fictitious emotions and, in prospect, suffer many pangs which their actual experience will subsequently prove nonexistent."
Most certainly these left-wing intellectuals would find great offense in these words but as for me and my house, I find them quite sensible.
Posted February 3, 2010 at 2:52:50 PM
Brian
While I understand the concept that "the Constitution and the Declaration of Independance must apply to everyone, or it means nothing" (to paraphrase Captain Kirk), as they say, therein lies the rub: What the Muslim world fears most is that we will try to make our founding documents apply to them, and the concept of "all men (and women) are created equal" is completely foreign to their mindset. The only way to impress them is to eliminate the most radical elements with extreme prejudice. Our founding documents and the ideas they represent must be defended at all costs, or they mean nothing. We are in NO way obligated to treat these terrorist scum-bags as either lawful combatants or citizens of our great nation. We cannot change their minds, therefore we must eliminate them for our own protection.
Posted February 9, 2010 at 4:47:44 PM