By Seth Richardson
If anyone had any doubts about President Obama’s abysmal lack of skill as a diplomat, his recent debacles in Europe should dispel them. As if it weren’t bad enough that he arrogantly returned a bust of Winston Churchill loaned to the United States after the September 11 attacks, and sent Prime Minister Gordon Brown a batch of cheesy DVDs in exchange for a priceless bit of nautical history, a pen holder carved from the timbers of the HMS Gannet, sister ship to the HMS Resolute, from which Obama’s Oval Office desk is carved, he compounded his diplomatic ignorance when he gave the Queen of England an iPod. Worst of all, he did spineless obeisance to a Saudi potentate, bowing before him like some servile vassal.
Mr. President, you are the Command in Chief and President of the United States of America, and as our representative to the world, you bow down to no one. You meet them as equals, with your head held proudly high or you do not meet them at all.
But those are just social faux pas, though egregious ones. What you said in Europe last week was far worse and far more alarming. President Obama, you have a duty to represent our nation with pride and strength, and to present the American people as they truly are; a strong, vibrant, peace-loving and fair-minded people who wish harm to none and prosperity to all, but who take abuse from no one and will never seek to curry favor of anyone. If a nation or leader will not treat with us as equals in dignity and respect, then you must refuse to acknowledge them. And you have no authority whatsoever to so much as suggest that the United States will ever subjugate its sovereignty to any nation or league of nations.
In a recent speech in France, you said, “In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”
You do not speak for me, Mr. President. Nor do I believe that you speak for the majority of Americans. Europe has a position in the world only because the United States prevented the Soviet Union from absorbing it. It is Europe that owes a long-unpaid debt of gratitude to us, not vice versa. How dare you suggest that we have not sought or appreciated partnership with Europe? This sort of rank revisionism is intolerable coming from anyone, much less the President.
Later, you said, “It is true that we have to change our behavior in showing the Muslim world greater respect, and changing our language and changing our tone.” Again, you do not speak for me, Mr. President, and I strenuously object to your obsequiousness towards Islam.
The United States has shown the Muslim world all the respect that it is due, and more besides. However peaceable the majority of Muslims are, rare is the Muslim voice raised against Islamo-fascism and radical Islamic terrorism. If we need to change our tone, we need to demand that “moderate” Islam decisively and without equivocation repudiate Islamic extremism and those tenets of Islam that call for Jihad against non-believers.
Unless and until the so-called “peaceable” Islamic majority not only volubly speaks out against Islamic terrorism, but actually stands-to and takes up arms against the radical elements of their ideology, the United States should not take a conciliatory tone towards Islam. Appeasement is not an option for you, Mr. President. We will not tolerate such behavior from our elected representatives.
Then you said, “And when you start sacrificing your values, when you lose yourself, then over the long term that will make you less secure. When we saw what happened in Abu Ghraib, that wasn’t good for our security — that was a recruitment tool for terrorism. Humiliating people is never a good strategy to battle terrorism.”
Mr. President, you slander the United States and its people, and you tarnish the reputation of the Presidency by your implication that the People of the United States were in any way responsible for or approving of the criminal acts of a few poorly-commanded soldiers in an isolated incident during a war. Wrongs were done, and those truly responsible, those in command, escaped punishment, but you have no business impugning the honor of the United States in this manner because it diminishes us in the eyes of the world and it encourages our enemies far more than the actual events did. It disgusts me that you have done so merely to curry favor with our European “allies.”
I use that word advisedly because most of our so-called “allies” in NATO have been avoiding and evading their responsibilities under the treaties for years. Some, like France and Germany, are actively working against NATO and American interests by continuing to trade with enemy nations like Iran, Iraq and North Korea.
We undertook the liberation of Iraq with minimal show-piece participation from our “allies” in NATO. Many nations who sent “troops” to Iraq would not allow them into combat for fear of angering the Muslim sphere. These are not the actions of allies and friends of America.
France has repeatedly maligned the United States and refused to honor its commitments to NATO. They have no honor, and are due but small regard and disdain until they choose to honor their commitments instead of demonstrating cowardice.
After more than sixty years of economic and social advancement under the wing of the American eagle, which protected them against Soviet domination and which cost the American people trillions of dollars, the French in particular are thankless ingrates and are owed nothing. Your Chamberlainesque approach to the Europeans and their one-world-government pretensions toys with treason.
Your duty as President is to stand for the United States of America and ONLY for the United States of America. Not the UN, not the European Union, not any transnational ideology or scheme. Your duty is to us, Mr. President, and no one else. Look first and always to the well-being and security of the People of the United States, and place their rights and interests supreme above all else, and keep them foremost in your mind.
You took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States to the best of your ability. We expect you to do so or we expect you to resign your office. No, we demand that you do so, as is our right. You, sir, are President, but you remain a servant of the People, not our sovereign, and certainly not a lackey of the European Union.
© 2009 Altnews
This Obama rant was not particularly surprising in that all it is is a hostile rant not necessarily looking at the facts.
First: I admit that the ‘bowing’ to saudis does look bad, but in Japan for example, NOT bowing is a sign of intense disrespect. It is so wrong to show respect to someone? Would it have been preferable to have Obama stomping in and demand the saudi’s lick his boot? Would it be any different if the Saudi extended his hand in a handshake and Obama just dismissed it?
2nd: I admit that Europe owes us A LOT. However, think about this utilitarian, so what if we say a few things to Europe, words are cheap. But what do we gain? Support from Europe, now before you quickly deride this as ‘useless’ consider that statement carefully, because Europe, despite what we are told in America, is anything but useless, and it is far more useful to have friends then a world of enemies.
Lastly…I’d say ol’ Obama showed some strength with those pirates in the end huh?
Skip,
“…I request, even demand, an apology from you for your comments about the officer corps of our military”: Sorry, no. There has been too much publicity on the military attitude toward mental damage. Way too much press on the issue. “I challenge you to find a single officer who does not understand PTSD is real, does not want to do everything he or she can do to help, and does not feel helpless to understand what causes it and how to cure or avoid it”: That is an unreachable standard. The reports on military handling of mental damage have been plentiful in the past few years. It HAS improved recently, as I have learned from recent acquaintances. But only recently.
Generalizations are inavoidable in these discussions. I apologize for impugning ALL officers, if indeed iI did.
“The Iraqi with the leash around his neck was a medical decision, by the way. He was delusional, a threat to himself, and it was the best restraint they had at the time”: I would LOVE to know more about this case. Was he under the impression he was a dog? That’s the only rationale I can think of for the leash treatment. “There just shouldn’t have been any pictures:” There you go. Their only mistake was in getting caught, eh? Sorry, can’t accept that. More information would be welcome.
Guffman, I certainly agree that torture should not cause psychological damage. My apologies for not saying so.
Before discussing some of your points, I request, even demand, an apology from you for your comments about the officer corps of our military. I challenge you to find a single officer who does not understand PTSD is real, does not want to do everything he or she can do to help, and does not feel helpless to understand what causes it and how to cure or avoid it. You seem to also imply officers do not engage in combat and do not also suffer PTSD. That is BS. Over the years we have learned and evolved a lot since our Pattonesque days. This process has not been limited to our military, it has spanned the whole country, and the whole country has a lot more to learn. People suffer PTSD from natural disasters, car wrecks, dog attacks, etc. We don’t even know if this is the same as the effect of combat or something very different. We are still at the ignorant stage on this subject. I can tell you that when some one tries to kill you, or you kill another human, even an enemy, it changes you for life.
I have been blessed to not have to deal with mental illness. Thankfully.
I don’t think the potential of mental harm is the only reason torture is a subjective discussion. Pain is also subjective. Pinching for example. Without medical knowledge, I suspect a person could be mentally harmed by constant tickling of the feet over a long period of time. I don’t think this would make tickling torture. It would make excessive tickling torture. You may know that every interrogation facility includes medical personnel, both physical and mental health, in the assigned cadre. Their task is to make the medical decisions related to, basically, what is excessive. There are interesting and perhaps alarming stories about the sorry state of supplies, equipment, and facilities at Abu Ghraib. The doctors were forced to make some tough decisions. Some were right, some were wrong. The Iraqi with the leash around his neck was a medical decision, by the way. He was delusional, a threat to himself, and it was the best restraint they had at the time. There just shouldn’t have been any pictures.
While we are at it there are some things I would bar just for sensitivities sake. It includes attacking religion and deeply held cultural beliefs. Loud and culturally insensitive music is an interesting question. I hate RAP. It could drive me to mental problems. The young folks can’t stand the MUZAK stuff. I have read of judges sentencing teenagers to listening to MUZAK for hours. Apparently it is very effective in preventing repeat offenses. Is that torture? Bet those teenagers think so.
Thanks for the discussion.
Skip,
It looks like our difference is in whether potential psychological damage should be included in a definition of torture — whether physical injury is all that counts.
There remains in the military a Pattonesque attitude toward post-traumatic stress disorder, the condition formerly known as shell shock. Officers believe personnel who claim symptoms of PTSD are fakers, shirkers, crybabies. Not “real men.” And there are probably hundreds of thousands of Americans including tens of thousands of ex-military who would claim otherwise. I suggest the ex-soldiers, ex-sailors, ex-airmen and Marines I have known with PTSD are correct: they are not faking anything. The damage is genuine. The military’s attitude toward PTSD is part of this society’s lingering and dangerous stigmatization of mental illness in general as a character flaw rather than a disease. This stigma needs to be corrected. And part of that correction is the recognition that “torture” can and should include infliction of mental and emotional damage.
You may disagree. That would suggest that no one close to you has lived with a mental illness, which would be a blessing I myself don’t share, so both our views are skewed, of course. And that raises the question of objectivity. An “objective standard” for torture is inherently subjective, depending on one’s attitude toward mental illness/PTSD. It’s inevitably emotional.
I respect your escape and evasion training. I would suggest that the people who quit SHOULD have quit, because a soldier who cracks easily under pressure risks a whole lot of lives. Mental health is infinitely variable in its fragility, but when it breaks it leaves scars.
I appreciate dialogue with someone who actually knows what he’s talking about. It’s a pleasant change
Guffman – In 2005 the Army adopted FM 2-22.3, Human Intelligence Collector Operations. In 2008 the Army Manual was applied to CIA operations with the provision the President could authorize enhanced techniques.
The following is the portion of the manual defining authorized techniques. Other techniques such as I described are not approved and are therefore “enhanced interrogation techniques” or to many people “torture”.
Interrogation methods
The manual permits nineteen interrogation techniques,[16] Described in Chapter 8 of the manual as “approach techniques” to help establish a rapport, these are:[17]
• Direct approach. Pertinent questions are asked directly “as long as the source is answering the questions in a truthful manner”. In almost all HUMINT collection this is the first approach used, and an alternative approach is chosen once the source refuses to answer, avoids answering, or answers falsely.
• Incentive approach. A real or emotional reward is given, or a real or perceived negative stimulus is removed, within the limits of what can be delivered and what is permissible by national and international law.
• Emotional approaches join an emotional response with some attached incentive. These are:
o Emotional love. “Sincerity and conviction are critical” for the questioner to be persuasive. “For example, if the source cooperates, he can see his family sooner, end the war, protect his comrades, help his country, help his ethnic group.”
o Emotional hate. The questioner persuades the source that cooperation will harm his enemies. The manual prohibits the questioner from promising that a unit will be denied a chance to surrender or that it will be mistreated.
o Emotional fear-up. “The HUMINT collector must be extremely careful that he does not threaten or coerce a source”, but can rely on justifiable fears such as that the prisoner may be killed for cooperating unless he receives protection, and can rely on non-specific fears, such as by asking “You know what can happen to you here?”.
o Emotional fear-down. A fearful subject is reassured “through verbal and physical actions” to calm him and cause him to view the interrogator as a “protector”.
o Emotional-pride and ego-up. The subject is “flattered into providing certain information in order to gain credit and build his ego” using a “somewhat-in-awe tone of voice”. The subject might be complimented on a well-done operation or be persuaded to begin talking about an aspect of his job at which he is skilled.
o Emotional-pride and ego-down. The questioner attacks the subject’s “loyalty, intelligence, abilities, leadership qualities, slovenly appearance, or any other perceived weakness”. If the subject tries to defend himself he may provide useful information. This must not “cross the line into humiliating and degrading treatment of the detainee”, and the manual advises that the “experience level” and intended actions of subordinates be considered before an interrogation plan is approved using this method.
o Emotional-futility. The questioner uses factual information to try to convince the source that resistance is futile. This approach generally must be combined with another, such as the emotional love approach, to be effective.
• Several other approaches are classed as requiring considerable time and resources, and as more suitable for detainees.
o We know all. The interrogator “subtly convinces the source that his questioning of the source is perfunctory because any information that the source has is already known” by providing detailed information and answering himself when the source hesitates. The approach requires the interrogator to have a large amount of information already, and have committed much of it to memory.
o File and dossier. The interrogator prepares himself with a large dossier (padded with paper if necessary) indexed with tabs for “education, employment, criminal record, military service, and others” and proceeds as in the “We know all” approach.
o Establish your identity. The subject is told that he has been “identified as an infamous individual wanted by higher authorities on serious charges”. In a sincere effort to correct this mistake, against the interrogator’s persistent denials, he may provide leads for further development.
o Repetition. The interrogator “listens carefully to a source’s answer to a question, and then repeats the question and answer several times. He does this with each succeeding question until the source becomes so thoroughly bored with the procedure, he answers questions fully and candidly”.
o Rapid fire. One, two, or more interrogators “ask a series of questions in such a manner that the source does not have time to answer a question completely before the next one is asked. This confuses the source, and he will tend to contradict himself as he has little time to formulate his answers.” The source may then be persuaded to explain the inconsistencies.
o Silent. The interrogator “says nothing to the source, but looks him squarely in the eye, preferably with a slight smile on his face… [he forces the source to] break eye contact first. The source may become nervous, begin to shift in his chair, cross and re-cross his legs, and look away. He may ask questions…” After much delay, the interrogator asks questions such as “You planned this operation for a long time, didn’t you?”
o Change of scenery. When moved from the formal environment, “the source may experience a feeling of leaving the interrogation behind.” The interrogator steers conversation toward the topic of interest, and “the source may never realize he is still being questioned.”
• Two additional techniques require the approval of “the first O-6 in the interrogator’s chain of command”:
o Mutt and Jeff. Two interrogators who are “convincing actors” are chosen. The first may “for instance, be very strict and order the source to follow all military courtesies during questioning. Although he conveys an unfeeling attitude, the HUMINT collector is careful not to threaten or coerce the source.” The second scolds the first, may offer the source a beverage or a cigarette, and tries to persuade the source that they “share a high degree of intelligence and sensitivity”. However, he is very busy and “cannot afford to waste time on an uncooperative source. He can broadly imply that the first HUMINT collector might return…”
o False Flag. The goal is to “convince the detainee that individuals from a country other than the United States are interrogating him, and trick the detainee into cooperating with US forces.” It may be “effectively orchestrated with the Fear Down approach and the Pride and Ego Up”.
• The final technique, Separation, is detailed at much greater length than the others in Appendix M of the manual. It “may not be employed on detainees covered by Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, primarily enemy prisoners of war.” It must be approved by the COCOM Commander for use in theater, and each specific instance must be approved by “the first General Officer/Flag Officer (GO/FO) in an interrogator’s chain of command” following approval of the interrogation plan by the interrogation supervisor’s servicing SJA [Staff Judge Advocate]. Extensions of the initial times given require approval of the servicing SJA. “The purpose of separation is to deny the detainee the opportunity to communicate with other detainees in order to keep him from learning counter-resistance techniques” The approach can be combined with Futility, Incentive, or Fear Up approaches. The separation “must not preclude the detainee getting four hours of continuous sleep every 24 hours.” The two forms of separation are:
o Physical separation, which prevents the detainee from communicating. Limited to 30 days of initial duration.
o Field expedient separation. “Prolong the shock of capture” by using “goggles or blindfolds and earmuffs” to prevent the detainee from communicating for up to 12 hours, plus the time these are used “for security purposes during transit and evacuation”. “Use of hoods (sacks) over the head, or of duct tape or adhesive tape over the eyes” is prohibited. The manual states that the technique shall not amount to sensory deprivation, a known harmful practice[18]. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed described disorientation through the use of goggles and earmuffs in 2007.
End of AFM
As to Mr Christopher Hitchens and water boarding. I believe his observations and conclusion. If I were water boarded I’m sure I would also call it torture. It must be terrible. This is where we get in trouble with the definition of torture. We need to use a set of objective standards, not emotions. For example we should not cause physical injury. We should not inflict pain above some level. If I pinch you it causes pain. Is that torture?
Enhanced interrogation is difficult. There is a high probability of false information. The interrogators have to sort through this with cross checking and repeated questioning. We also cannot state our techniques because it will aid our enemies. They could train for it. But we can have a national discussion about it in general terms. We should do that.
During my training we had about 80 people. Two or three actually dropped out. They couldn’t hack it, in spite of knowing it was training, the bad guys were really our friends, and they would be going home in a few days. Imagine what those guys would call torture.
This is serious business and we are not approaching it in a serious fashion. At some point in the future we will again need more than the AFM techniques, our leadership will do what is necessary, the whole thing will blow up, and we will once again be whipping ourselves for not being a good country. We are just laying the foundation for our next problem.
I find it interesting that the AFM says Khalid Shaikh Mohammed experienced disorientation. Can you imagine that, it must have been a horrible experience, kind of like the way I feel every morning when I get out of bed.
Richardson writes: Worst of all, he did spineless obeisance to a Saudi potentate, bowing before him like some servile vassal.
Perhaps, Mr. Richardson should have compared this event with the one where Mr. Bush, embraced the Saudi Royal and kissed him on both cheeks a la continental, but I would not expect same from an individual that as tagged our President as a Marxist-Socialist!
An embrace and ritual European-style kiss-kiss is not an obeisance, it’s a common greeting and not a violation of protocol. Bowing is universally seen as obeisance except in Japan, where the ritual of bowing is extremely complex, and the depth of the bow rigidly defined by custom and protocol. In Obama’s case, he made a deep, from the waist bow that put his head below the chin of the Saudi. There is no possible definition of protocol that does not define this as obeisance. It was even a protocol error as defined by Saudi protocol. Why Obama did it is still in question because his staff is DENYING HE DID IT, even though the videotape is perfectly clear.
Skip,
Sorry for being unclear. Abu Ghraib likely was not policy, but torture, special rendition and secret prisons were.
“Torture is a tough one for me. Our country should not torture prisoners. We must hold ourselves to a higher standard regardless of the actions of our enemies”: My point exactly.
“I do not think water boarding is torture”: Writer Christopher Hitchens agreed with you at one time. Then colleagues suggested he experience it firsthand, which he did. Afterward he said, “if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture.”
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808
Hitchens is a man with firm and well-reasoned opinions, so when he changes his mind I don’t argue.
“…we have defined torture to include sleep deprivation, loud music, extreme positions, cold, heat, lack of food, threatening dogs, and probably some more things”: Who has defined torture that way? No blogger rantings, now
“It would be ironic if we had a situation where President Obama needs to use enhanced interrogation. Perhaps he could call it OOPS Interrogation. As in – ‘oops, I hope I didn’t hurt your fragile self esteem. Please don’t hate us’”: I don’t know if we have a comprehensive public listing of enhanced interrogation techniques. We’ve gone as far as waterboarding, I know that much. While I appreciate your sense of humor, please read the Hitchens piece before you write another joke.
Thanks Guffman:
I did not realize you are saying the activities at Abu Ghraib were government policy. Your words seemed to say the opposite. Certainly it was government policy to establish a prison system. I think the abuse that occurred there was the result of out of control troops and poor/terrible leadership. But not official government policy. Can you point to such findings? Specifically, not some blogger rantings.
I agree that rendering was a bad government policy. If something needs to be done, we should do it ourselves, no other choice. I am amazed that other governments even participated. Perhaps some of the governments didn’t know what was happening in their countries.
Torture is a tough one for me. Our country should not torture prisoners. We must hold ourselves to a higher standard regardless of the actions of our enemies. The problem is the definition of torture or “enhanced interrogation techniques”. I think we have gone over-board in defining torture down.
I do not think water boarding is torture. It does not cause physical harm. It does harm fragile self esteems, but that’s fair in war in my opinion. Even more concerning to me is that we have defined torture to include sleep deprivation, loud music, extreme positions, cold, heat, lack of food, threatening dogs, and probably some more things. A mistake in my opinion.
In 1968 I spent a week in what was called “escape and evasion” training prior to going to Vietnam. I’ll spare the details, but I experienced all of the above except water boarding. (I got to meet a world record German Sheppard with a mouth the size of an alligator) More importantly I did not realize I had been tortured until the national discussion began a few years ago. While it was unpleasant, I do not believe I was tortured. I have friends who were tortured in the Hanoi Hilton. They don’t have full use of their arms and legs. I known John McCain agrees with the present definition of torture. I cannot understand what he is doing. Perhaps he thinks it just isn’t worth the fight to get a realistic definition of torture.
It would be ironic if we had a situation where President Obama needs to use enhanced interrogation. Perhaps he could call it OOPS Interrogation. As in – “oops, I hope I didn’t hurt your fragile self esteem. Please don’t hate us”.
Skip, thanks for the reply.
“I do not find it surprising that you do not understand that war is a difficult endeavor”: I understand that quite well. I suspect anyone over the age of 12 understands that. “Combat does bad things to people. In every war there have been incidents of the weakest among us doing things no one is proud of, or approves of, or accepts”: OK, granted…. “You don’t recall the My Lai incident, which occurred before Irag, and was far and away a much worse violation of all civilized behavior”: …Lots of presumptions here. I well recall My Lai (Pusan was before my time). I was able to chalk My Lai up as an isolated incident committed by a few poorly commanded soldiers. Torture of prisoners was not an isolated incident, however, nor was special rendition or a network of secret prisons where God knows what went on. All that was POLICY.
“You create your own facts…”: Where? Please be specific. “…to develop a fantasy world in which our great country falls short if we are not able to fight the perfect war”: Nonsense. Perfection doesn’t exist, in war or anywhere else. I’m citing facts that support the proposition that the second Iraq War was waged with officially sanctioned tactics contrary to the general notion of American values.
“This is the greatest country in the world, and that is not a fantasy”: I wish I could agree with you.
Guffman says: I’ve had a pretty jaundiced view of this country since 1968. Even so, before Iraq I wouln’t have believed Americans capable of things like Abu Ghraib, torture and special extradition. I thought we were better than that. I grew up with the same greatest-country-in-the-world fantasies you did. We worked hard to spread those fantasies worldwide. The illusion is shattered. It’s hard — it was hard for me — but it can’t be healthy to cling to the old fantasies any more, as individuals or as a nation.
Mr Guffman, I do not find it surprising that you do not understand that war is a difficult endeavor. Combat does bad things to people. In every war there have been incidents of the weakest among us doing things no one is proud of, or approves of, or accepts. You don’t recall the My Lai incident, which occurred before Irag, and was far and away a much worse violation of all civilized behavior. You also don’t recall the slaughter of Korean refugees at the Pusan perimeter. War is truly HELL and some don’t get through it without doing bad things.
You create your own facts to develop a fantasy world in which our great country falls short if we are not able to fight the perfect war. There should be no collateral damage, no civilian casualties, no mistakes period. Ain’t going to happen, never has happened, and never will happen. You need to wipe away some of that jaundice and get a grip on the real world.
This is the greatest country in the world, and that is not a fantasy.
- “President Obama, you have a duty to represent our nation with pride and strength, and to present the American people as they truly are…”: So much in this sentence is subjective, starting with “pride” and “strength.” A majority of voting Americans found little to be proud of the past eight years and think we have LOST strength with our loss of respect around the world. “Peace-loving and fair-minded” wasn’t much in evidence the past few years. Do we really “wish harm to none and prosperity to all”? We have a lot to prove on that front. We “take abuse from no one”? Fine, but just how long shall we hold a grudge against, say, France, for real or imagined “abuse” since World War II? We “will never seek to curry favor of anyone”? I’m not even certain what that means any more for a country that shook hands and made deals with Stalin, the Shah of Iran, Franco, Batista, Marcos, Somoza, Torrijos, Noriega, Mobutu, Mao, Zia, Saddam… I know I’m forgetting somebody… when it suited our perceived national interests.
We have compromised our supposed values so many times, the world doesn’t know what if anything we stand for today. President Obama is trying to fix that.
- “…you have no authority whatsoever to so much as suggest that the United States will ever subjugate its sovereignty to any nation or league of nations”: Good to see this fine old hard-Right warhorse is still making the rounds. It’s older than I am and still going strong…. At what point precisely did President Obama offer to subjugate our sovereignty to anyone? Please be specific.
- “‘In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive’”: Which of these facts do you disagree with?
- “It is Europe that owes a long-unpaid debt of gratitude to us, not vice versa”: How do you propose that debt be paid, and when will it be paid in full? In other words, how long do we get to be paternalistic toward Europe because of World War II and the Cold War?
- “How dare you suggest that we have not sought or appreciated partnership with Europe?”: Note the phrase, “there have been times where…” in the quote you posted. “Old Europe” was dismissive. “Freedom fries” and “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” was derisive. Just to pick three bits of low-hanging fruit.
- “‘It is true that we have to change our behavior in showing the Muslim world greater respect, and changing our language and changing our tone’”: On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, a co-worker of mine snarled, “We should go out and burn a Koran!” That language and that tone have seeped into our public statements, and they just fuel the hatred of America in the Middle East. That’s not constructive. Tell me how I’m wrong.
- “However peaceable the majority of Muslims are, rare is the Muslim voice raised against Islamo-fascism and radical Islamic terrorism”: That’s an oddly common response when you’re in a situation in which dissent can get you killed. I don’t recall reading about throngs of Germans protesting against Nazism. Tibetans learned the hard way about what happens when you disagree with the Chinese government….
- “’And when you start sacrificing your values, when you lose yourself, then over the long term that will make you less secure. When we saw what happened in Abu Ghraib, that wasn’t good for our security — that was a recruitment tool for terrorism. Humiliating people is never a good strategy to battle terrorism’”: Again, which parts of that statement are wrong?
- “Mr. President, you slander the United States and its people, and you tarnish the reputation of the Presidency by your implication that the People of the United States were in any way responsible for or approving of the criminal acts of a few poorly-commanded soldiers in an isolated incident during a war”: 1) The distinction between our government and our people is tricky. The “poorly commanded soldiers” who committed criminal acts were American people. As noted elsewhere I don’t believe in collective guilt, but lots of people do. Al Qaeda does. Anyway I see no reason to believe President Obama was suggesting collective guilt for Abu Ghraib. 2) Believe if you must that no Americans approved of the Abu Ghraib incident, but you’re wrong. Anyway President Obama didn’t suggest in any way that Americans approved of it. 3) Abu Ghraib was “an isolated incident” that got photographed. How many “isolated incidents” WEREN’T photographed? We have no idea.
I’ve had a pretty jaundiced view of this country since 1968. Even so, before Iraq I wouln’t have believed Americans capable of things like Abu Ghraib, torture and special extradition. I thought we were better than that. I grew up with the same greatest-country-in-the-world fantasies you did. We worked hard to spread those fantasies worldwide. The illusion is shattered. It’s hard — it was hard for me — but it can’t be healthy to cling to the old fantasies any more, as individuals or as a nation.
- “…most of our so-called ‘allies’ in NATO have been avoiding and evading their responsibilities under the treaties for years. Some, like France and Germany, are actively working against NATO and American interests by continuing to trade with enemy nations like Iran, Iraq and North Korea”: 1) We won’t “subjugate our sovereignty” to a league of nations, but France and Germany have to follow NATO’s rules to the letter? So much for the notion of being equals in dignity and respect. You want the old America First world? It’s gone. 2) Given our record of dealing with tyrants, as noted above, we have no room to point fingers at ANYBODY for dealing with Iran and North Korea. 3) Iraq is our ally now, isn’t it? Why are France’s and Germany’s dealings with Iraq an issue — particularly since we were so helpful to Saddam in the past?
- “…the Europeans and their one-world-government pretensions…”: Says who? Specifics please.
- “Your Chamberlainesque approach… toys with treason”: Your hyperbole toys with nonsense.
- “You took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States to the best of your ability. We expect you to do so or we expect you to resign your office. No, we demand that you do so, as is our right”: At what point on the European trip did he do other than what his oath demands?
A little something to test the sense of humor. Let’s hope it doesn’t come true.
PRESIDENT OBAMA APOLOGIZES TO SOMALI PIRATES
Upon hearing of the Somali pirate incident President Obama quickly offered an apology to the pirates. He stated this was the action of a small number of American citizens which does not reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of Americans. The President said the American people have the highest regard for all Somalis, including the pirates. The President hopes none of the Americans involved acted in an arrogant fashion.
Me: “…Libertarian Newspeak.”
Leapingrealeyes: “OBAMA &Co – the advocates of policies based on force, deceit, and fraud.”
That’s it. Nonviolence is force. Truth is deceit and fraud.
Orwell: “War is peace. Freedom is slavery….”
Thanks for the demonstration.
For months he was a “Socialist.” Then Libertarian demigod Tibor Machan said he was a “Fascist.” Now apparently he’s Conservative.
Barack Obama: our first Chameleon-American President….
Libertarian Newspeak aside, it’s hard to know where to begin. I’ll stick with generalities for now: Obama is doing exactly what he said he’d do during the campaign, and it’s exactly what we elected him to do. He’s unwinding Bush-era “faux pas” that endangered the security of the entire Western world and made us a pariah nation. He’s countering the “old-Europe” bullstuff. He’s trying to counter the notion that we are at war with Islam. He’s making a broader point that the era of American Exceptionalism is and ought to be over.
And he’s doing it by speaking the truth.
One specific point: You insist that our President meet foreign leaders as an equal, head held high, and then endorse our paternalistic Postwar relationship with Europe. Do you see the disconnect there?
OBAMA &Co – the advocates of policies based on force, deceit, and fraud.
Twitter @leapingrealeyes
Dead on, Seth! Sharia law has arrived in The Netherlands. It’s elbowing its way into Great Britain and the rest of Europe, and now we have a United States President bowing to the Saudi king as prelude to its establishment here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-KHHKuVVRc