Time for Thorns

Now that the Obama  administration has announced it doesn’t need new legislation to govern indefinite detention of some Gitmo inmates,  the  WaPo has twisted its knickers into such a wad that it has climbed upon its editorial highchair and shrieked  “intellectual dishonesty!”  at their dear leader.

48% of the country sussed that out last year and didn’t vote for His Oneness.     How is it that nearly half the country actually listened to what Obama said and managed to ascertain what a radical he was,  despite the Washington Post and most of the rest of the media assuring us he was just the most moderate,   post-racial fellow ever?

Apparently,  a considerable portion of the electorate has the ability to reason,  to think logically — talents which have long escaped liberals,  who must think emotionally in order to support their world views.

For any of you either still harboring fantasies about the transparency and openness of the Obama administration,  or with friends who do, have them read Michael Isikoff’s  account of how His Oneness tried to spirit some of the Chinese Uighurs from Gitmo into northern Virginia.    If Rep. Frank Wolf hadn’t been tipped off and written a public letter to Obama,  they’d already be there.

The White House claimed Wolf was briefed several times,  presumably because he represents the area,  but made no mention of any other briefings,  which I find very peculiar.    No one not a few bricks shy of a full load would believe that Obama had only Wolf briefed,  and not the Democrats on the relevant committees.

As always,  you must watch what Obama does,  not what he says.

First thing —  Cheney’s speech has been booked for weeks, while His Oneness only scheduled his in the last few days, which should tell you that Obama is nervous abut the competition.

Politico’s take is here .  Note that Obama repeated a line he has used often of late:  “Let me begin by disposing of one argument as plainly as I can:  we are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security,  nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people.”     No mention of the fact that placing large groups of terrorists at any facility other than Gitmo will make it worthwhile for their fellow jihadists’  to mount an attack on the local populace.    Just picture a schoolbus full of children being hacked to pieces one by one until the detainees are released.

He also trotted out a favorite straw man:  “I know some have argued that brutal methods like water-boarding were necessary to keep us safe.  I could not disagree more,” Obama continued. “As commander-in-chief,  I see the intelligence,  I bear responsibility for keeping this country safe,  and I reject the assertion that these are the most effective means of interrogation.”

Rush Limbaugh made the observation to Glenn Beck that Obama’s speech was like the party response to a presidential speech,  even though Obama spoke first.    I think this was because His Oneness was very defensive, perhaps because he’s accustomed to affirmation, not challenge.   Cheney came off as a statesman, sober and clear-eyed.   Obama was a disingenuous campaigner, repeating the same sound-bytes he has used for over 2 years —  Gitmo is a mess,  it’s a recruiting tool,  etc.    There is a vast chasm between what our president says and what he does.    Unfortunately for him,  while I appreciate words,   I always judge by actions.

What Politico didn’t tell you was that the press wasn’t allowed to report at the National Archives, with the White House saying it would handle everything,  and handing them a nice, complete news package to run.    A good way to rate media’s honesty is by whether those facts are revealed to you.    So far, only FOX News has allowed it to be known.

The Weekly Standard has a copy of Cheney’s speech,  which should be close to what he actually said.    If I find an updated copy,  I’ll post it.

Here’s Obama’s speech.

After failing to fund the closure of Gitmo because the disposition of the detainees was unknown,  Democrats are now trying to find a way out of the hole His Oneness dug for them.    Apparently,  having belatedly realized that any politician who accepts a Gitmo inmate on US soil will lose his job,  the Democrats new plan is to bribe foreign countries to take the detainees.    They figure this will insulate them — and Obama — from the profoundly unwise decision to close Gitmo.

What this really means is that the bribed countries won’t be first class world citizens,  but the dicier types,  and they will cheerfully take US taxpayer money,  promise incarceration,  and either turn the detainees loose,  or pass them on to the next bribe purveyor.

Considering that Obama pulled back on releasing the photos of abuse today,  Democrats have their heads down.    Republicans are praising the reversal without mentioning overly that someone who was actually concerned about the welfare of our military would never have agreed to release them in the first place.    Predictably,  the left has  gone ballistic.

Of course,  the official display of reasoning behind the reversal makes Obama look judicious and wise instead of  indulging in political hackery and sheer stupidity.   The man does have a facility with words,  unless you happen to remember what he previously said on the subject.    Tip:   The more he says  “As I’ve said before”  or  “My position has always been”,  the less likely it is to be true.

This is   Obama’s order to close Gitmo:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ClosureOfGuantanamoDetentionFacilities/

It would be more appropriately entitled  “A Pronouncement to Get  Me Creds From the Left and Have the World Love Me While My Guys Form  a Panel to Study Everything and Buy Me a Year Before I Have To Set  Up a New Gitmo Somewhere and My Attorney General  Creates  an Out  For Me On Interrogations.”

Make no mistake, he has left an escape hatch  whereby he can get legal opinions so he  isn’t restricted to the Army Field Manuel,    which ex-CIA agent Mike Baker  correctly says wouldn’t persuade a recalcitrant American teenager.  And notice Sec. 8 b — the entire plan to create a plan is  “subject to the availability of appropriations.”

It’s very clever politics, and utterly cynical leadership.  We will see  much more of this having it both ways,  just as His Oneness did during the campaign.

Of course, after making the appropriate noises of approval,  Europe is now going from “congratulations!” to “we can’t take them unless the USA certifies them as harmless.”  Obama’s charm doesn’t seem to be enough just yet.

Well, on his first afternoon as President, Obama ordered Gitmo closed, and suspension of  prosecutions.  And he had DefSec Robert Gates announce the suspension.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/guantanamo.hearings/index.html

Of course, Sen. Dianne Feinstein has already introduced legislation to close Gitmo.  Next I suppose His Oneness will have Sec. Gates announce that only the Army Field Manual interrogation techniques will be used henceforth.

Now would be an excellent time to start calling/emailing/writing the White House asking what the President’s definition of torture is.  All I ever got from the campaign was the customary liberal blather about the Geneva Conventions and vague international agreements, none of which actually define torture, so that it can mean anything anyone wishes it to.

And yes, I do have my own definition of torture:  Any action which would cause a normal person to suffer long-lasting or permanent physical or mental damage.

Barack and Michelle Obama have released a statement expressing their condolences for those killed and injured in the tragedy at Mumbai, India.    It is not a tragedy — it is a terrorist attack.  Obama has always called 9/11 “a tragedy,” too. In fact, a reliable indicator of liberalism is a person’s refusal to call a terrorist operation what it is.

Most indigenous cultures, including those of many American Indians, believe that if you reveal your true name to someone, that person acquires some power over you.  So how will Barack Obama fight terrorism when he refuses to name either the act or the actors?

He won’t.  Terrorism is a criminal matter, suitable for lawyers and courtrooms, not soldiers and bullets, which is why he uttered not a peep when Rep. Barney Frank proposed cutting the military’s budget by 25%.   We will hear lots of high-flown rhetoric about diplomacy and regaining the world’s respect, and talking to those disagree with us.

But remember Mumbai, because if Obama carries out his promise to close Gitmo immediately, the streets of those cities where the former Gitmo detainees are jailed will look more like India than America.