Sunday, 3 January 2010

Republicans - soft on facts & missing the point

Soft on terror? Not this president

Sunday, January 3, 2010 - Washington Post Editorial

THERE IS, it seems evident, more than enough blame to go around in the botched handling of the botched Christmas bombing. Not for some Republicans. With former vice president Richard B. Cheney in the lead, they have embarked on an ugly course to use the incident to inflict maximum political damage on President Obama. That's bad enough, but their scurrilous line of attack is even worse. The claim that the incident shows the president's fecklessness in the war on terror is unfounded -- no matter how often it is repeated.

These critics have set up a straw Obama, a weak and naive leader who allegedly takes terrorism lightly, thinks that playing nicely with terrorists will make them stop, and fails to understand the threat that the United States faces from violent extremists. Mr. Cheney said that the incident had made "clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war." Likewise, Republican Study Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.) called on Mr. Obama to "recognize that we are at war with a murderous enemy who will not relent because we heed political correctness, acquiesce to international calls for deference or close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay." Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano "and the rest of the Obama administration view their role as law enforcement, first responders dealing with the aftermath of an attack. And we believe in a forward-looking approach to stopping these attacks before they happen."

There are two ways to show how baseless these attacks are: examining Mr. Obama's words and examining his actions.

Words first. "Evil does exist in the world," Mr. Obama said in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. "Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms." In his weekly radio speech Saturday, he disposed of the war-vs.-law-enforcement canard, pointing out that in his inaugural address he made it clear that "0ur nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred and that we will do whatever it takes to defeat them and defend our country, even as we uphold the values that have always distinguished America among nations."

But actions speak louder, and Mr. Obama's actions -- often at the cost of enraging his party's liberal base -- have also demonstrated tenacity and pragmatism blended with a necessary reassessment of the flawed policies of his predecessors and a recommitment to the rule of law. He wants to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, which is all to the good given its stain on the national character, but he has delayed that goal until acceptable alternatives can be found. He has brought criminal charges against some terrorists, but he has also sent others to be tried by military tribunals. He has invoked the authority of the executive to have lawsuits dismissed because they risk exposing state secrets. In addition to the new troop deployments, he has aggressively used predator drones to strike at terrorists, including outside Afghanistan. Even before the failed attack, his administration has been working aggressively with Yemeni authorities to deal with extremists there.

It is possible to disagree with the administration's decision to bring criminal charges against the suspect in the failed airplane bombing, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, although we think that was the proper course. It is possible to fault, as we have, some of the administration's public statements in the immediate aftermath of the attack. And as the president has acknowledged, the incident revealed failures in intelligence and in security screening that must be urgently identified and corrected. The country would benefit from a serious and bipartisan effort in Congress to ensure that the lessons of the Christmas attack are learned. A groundless campaign to portray Mr. Obama as soft on terror can only detract from that effort.


  1. Hi! I haven't dropped in for a while..... I just wanted to wish you a happy 2010 and looking forward to your posts. Anne

    P.S. I agree that it is a bit tenuous to say Obama is war-averse just because some nutter tried to bomb a plane. I think they will have to do better than that to gain any credibility!

  2. Cosmic Navel Lint4 January 2010 at 17:36

    Hey Anne,

    Likewise love - hope it was a stonker for you and your loved ones! May 2010 be all you want and more!

    Apropos the article: aye, it seems that going to any lengths, regardless of how facile, is OK for Republicans. Perhaps that's what lost them the 2008 election?

  3. Oh! I just though of something really relevant ...... the bomber was actually caught before he managed to bomb a plane... surely that means that intelligence and security are doing a good job?!

  4. Cosmic Navel Lint12 January 2010 at 17:00

    If by, "... surely that means that intelligence and security are doing a good job...", you mean that by sheer coincidence a fellow passenger, and freelance Dutch documentary maker, by chance took the law into his own hands by Rugby-tackling him to the ground,  and then giving the suspect a sound beating to prevent him from detonating whatever it was he had sewn into his underpants, whilst any and all US security and intelligence personnel were none-the-wiser as to the suspect's presence on the plane or attempts to enter the country, then yes, I suppose you could say that it was a good job...


  5. "The country would benefit from a serious and bipartisan effort in Congress to ensure that the lessons of the Christmas attack are learned. A groundless campaign to portray Mr. Obama as soft on terror can only detract from that effort."

    THANK YOU! Serious and bi-partisan, that's how I wish our Congressional leaders would act! It's so frustrating!   

  6. Cosmic Navel Lint4 February 2010 at 05:49

    Hey Alanna,

    Great to see you again!

    Yes, it can be hugely frustrating reading what goes on in the US politics, as it's a two-fold job: first, sift through all the deliberate misdirection and dissemblance, then try and see if there's actually any valid criticism from the Right or just more 'Rush'.


Feel free to comment on this post

Related Posts with Thumbnails