Obama and the CIA investigation: when in doubt, go after Bush

The New Neo Posted on by

John Hindraker of Powerline has read the lengthy CIA report on which claims of terrorist interrogator misconduct are based. He writes a devastating piece on how very minor the infractions appear to have been, and how most of them are mere allegations (some based on hearsay).

Read his article and understand just how low the Obama administration and its Attorney General Eric Holder have sunk in making much ado about virtually nothing. As the WSJ says, “We suspect millions of Americans will be shocked to learn that these unshocking details are all that the uproar over ‘torture’ is about.” The administration seems to have lost all sense of proportion in its attempt to make the previous administration look as bad as possible, as well as compromising our security along the way.

Here—as in so many other things—Obama attempts to play it both ways. To the Left, angry at him for not ramming the public option through before the American people had time to realize what was happening, he throws the tasty fish of more breast-beating about pretend torture and the possible prosecution of evil CIA interrogators (actually, it appears to be mostly a single CIA debriefer—not even an interrogator—who was most clearly at fault, but the MSM isn’t reporting that). For moderates, Obama mouths words that indicate it’s actually rogue Attorney General Holder who is pursuing this against the President’s will, and that Obama himself would just as soon let bygones be bygones.

Yeah, right.

But that’s the way the story is being reported in much of the MSM. Tom Raum of the AP is fairly typical—poor pitiful Obama “caught in the crosswinds” between his own desire to move on and the vengeance of the out-of-control Holder [emphasis mine, for sarcasm]:

After declaring he would rather look forward, President Barack Obama is delving instead into the past to deal with lingering assertions of CIA mistreatment of terror suspects during the Bush administration…

Obama’s approval of a new elite interrogation unit ”” to operate within the FBI but under supervision of an interagency group to be chaired by the White House national security adviser ”” allowed him to get out in front of the decision by Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a government prosecutor and the administration’s release of a newly declassified report detailing harsh Bush-era interrogation practices…

White House officials said the disclosure of Obama’s decision on the new interrogation team on the same day as the release of the report and the prosecutor announcement was coincidental.

Even so, Obama’s role in creating the new unit may help keep the controversies alive despite his hopes of putting the Bush administration’s controversial interrogation policies behind him and moving on…

See how it’s shaping up?

Mandate? What mandate?

The New Neo Posted on by

Clive Crook writes in the Financial Times that Obama has squandered his overwhelming mandate for health care reform:

The paradox is that the White House has tripped up over healthcare reform—an initiative that the country both wants and needs, and which was at the centre of Mr Obama’s stunningly successful election campaign. For this, the administration has no one to blame but itself. Its own mistakes have brought it to this perilous point.

Crook is correct that the administration has itself to blame for its failures. But he is incorrect about the reasons behind Obama’s “stunningly successful election campaign.”

It is certainly the case that Obama spoke of wanting to reform health care, among other plans. But Obama’s appeal was never really based on policy, except for the liberals and Leftists who would have voted for him (or almost any other Democrat) anyway.

The specifics of exactly what programs Obama would put into place as president were less important, and certainly far less clear, to many moderate voters—the ones who put him over the top and were responsible in large part for his election—than what and who he seemed to be as a person. The perception was that whatever successes he was going to have in terms of policy would stem from qualities inherent in the man himself and his ability to bring people together, inspire confidence, and persuade. If most of his moderate supporters had been asked to predict the course of an Obama presidency prior to his inauguration, my guess is that the majority would have said he that would govern as a temperate, moderate, and bipartisan leader. And that would include his plans around health care reform.

So there’s no reason to believe that the 52% of the vote that Obama received in the election ever represented a powerful majority groundswell of popular demand for RADICAL AND SWEEPING HEALTH CARE REFORM, NOW!

It’s also instructive to remember that the financial climate during most of the run-up to the 2008 election was very different than the climate at the time of the election and beyond. When the economy went belly-up very late in the game, it’s pretty clear that most non-Leftists who voted for Obama assumed that he would put the financial state of the economy above other considerations, and place large and destabilizing policy changes on hold until it had recovered.

What Obama did instead was the exact opposite. He attempted to push through a major overhaul of health care at lightning speed, minus an explanation of the details, and assured us that we should trust him that it would not impact negatively on the economy. What’s more, he branded those who objected as being insincere and having bad motives. This combination of factors seems to have stunned a substantial segment of his moderate supporters, and caused them to view him more negatively.

One of Obama’s many errors may have been to assume that his election meant he had a strong mandate for the policy changes he had in mind. But my guess is that he was well aware that this was not the case. I think he believed, however, that he could be successful in pushing his agenda through despite its unpopularity, if he managed to do so fast enough and furiously enough.

That, or course, has not happened. And it has exposed the fact that there was never any mandate to begin with for the sort of changes Obama envisioned.

I wrote this post before I saw Fouad Ajami’s excellent piece in today’s Wall Street Journal. But Ajami makes a similar point, and expands on it as follows:

American democracy has never been democracy by plebiscite, a process by which a leader is anointed, then the populace steps out of the way, and the anointed one puts his political program in place. In the American tradition, the “mandate of heaven” is gained and lost every day and people talk back to their leaders. They are not held in thrall by them. The leaders are not infallible or a breed apart. That way is the Third World way, the way it plays out in Arab and Latin American politics.

Ajami believes that the American public has reasserted its American-ness, and is now talking back to Obama and telling him just what it doesn’t like about what he’s doing. Let’s hope so. But my guess is that he won’t be listening, except to make some strategic adjustments. There’s too much at stake. As Press Secretary Gibbs said recently, Obama is “quite comfortable” being a one-term president:

I have heard the president say that if making tough decisions in getting important things done that Washington has failed to do for decades means that he only lives in this house and makes those decisions for four years, he’s quite comfortable…The way he approaches this issue…is not in a mode of self preservation, but in a mode of how best — given all the information out there– how best to make decisions that he thinks is in the best interest of the American people, not what’s in the best interest of his personal career.

Every president must follow his own conscience and do what he thinks best. Obama is no different that respect. I fervently hope, however, that Americans will keep asserting their American-ness, and will let their legislative representatives know that there will be consequences to them and to their re-election chances if they pass bills that go against the will of the people.

Mandate or not, Obama can do a great deal of damage in his four years as president. But Congress can stop some of the bleeding—especially if enough of its members see such action as in their own self-interest.

Inglorious basterds: fiction and non

The New Neo Posted on by

One of my pet peeves is how movies that draw on history often misrepresent it.

The phenomenon is at its worst with Oliver Stone epics that purport to be biopics and are mainly a figment of the director’s imagination. It wouldn’t matter so much if history were properly taught in the schools. But in the absence of basic historical grounding, for way too many viewers (especially youthful ones) the fiction replaces fact and becomes the stuff of history itself.

Now comes the Quentin Tarantino World War II film “Inglorious Basterds.” It’s fiction and presented as such, so that should get Tarantino off the hook.

And to a certain extent it does. Anyone stupid enough to imagine that a Tarantino film has any sort of historical truth to it is probably stupid enough to believe anything.

But I’m still disturbed by the plot point described in the following; I’m utterly convinced that many viewers will come away thinking it’s based on historic fact:

The film tracks the separate attempts to kill Hitler by two disparate forces, one being the “Basterds”, a motley crew of Jewish American soldiers out for revenge against the Nazis. The Basterds have a modus operandi whereby each man must cut off the scalp of a dead Nazi soldier, with orders to get 100 scalps each. The Basterds allow one German soldier to survive each incident so as to spread the news of the terror of their attacks. However, the Basterds carve a swastika into the forehead of that German.

This idea sprang full-blown from the head of Tarantino himself, who conceptualized Aldo, the leader of the Basterds (played by Brad Pitt) as a part Native American non-Jewish Southerner. In a recent interview Tarantino explained:

Basically, Aldo’s this character I’ve had in my mind for a very, very long time…[T]he fact that he’s part Native American is significant, because what he’s doing against the Nazi’s is similar to the Apache resistance, the ambushing of soldiers, desecrating their bodies and leaving them there for other Germans to find. Aldo’s idea is to find Jewish soldiers because he should be able to motivate them more easily because they are essentially warriors in a holy war against an enemy that’s trying to wipe their race off the face of the Earth.

Tarantino is either ignorant of the fact (or doesn’t much care; take your pick) that his fictional unit of scalping and body-carving Jews commit acts that go utterly against Jewish teachings and philosophy. The desecration and/or mutilation of the living or dead human body is strictly forbidden by Judaism—with the single exception of the act of ritual circumcision for Jewish males.

For example, those who follow Jewish law are not allowed to tattoo themselves or even to use cremation instead of burial (so that, in addition to all the other atrocities committed on Jews during the Holocaust, the tattooing of numbers on the arm and the crematoriums for burning the bodies were extra added offenses).

Here’s a fuller explanation:

In Jewish law, the human body belongs to its Creator. It is merely on loan to the person, who is the guardian of the body, but he or she has no right to deface it in any way. The body must be “returned” in its entirety, just as it was given.

Additionally, Man was created in “G”‘d’s image and likeness.”Any violation of the human body is considered, therefore, to be a violation of G”‘d Himself.

This general principle and law governs many [Jewish] laws, like those prohibiting self-mutilation or tattoos…This principle applies after death, too; any mutilation of the dead is prohibited…This is also one of the reasons why Jewish law does not permit autopsies other than in the most extenuating of circumstances.

Many secular Jews obviously violate some of these rules. But the guidelines indicate a very deeply-held and basic cultural and religious attitude of Jews, and Tarantino’s notion that Jews would be especially amenable to Aldo’s scalping and carving orders could not be more incorrect. In fact, respect for the integrity of the body is enshrined in Jewish law for the treatment of the corpse of the stranger and even the criminal (see this).

If you’re interested in historical accuracy, there actually was a secret commando unit composed partly of Jewish refugees from the Nazis during World War II, but it was a British enterprise. Kim Masters, whose father was one of these men, describes their exploits here. She writes:

…[O]ne day a notice was posted seeking anyone “wishing to volunteer for special and hazardous duty.” When my father reported for an interview, he was asked why he wanted to serve. “I think part of this war belongs to me, sir,” he replied.

All the soldiers accepted for the outfit that Winston Churchill called “X Troop” had to have false British identities. Obviously the hazards to them as men in the field would be greatly multiplied if the Germans knew that some of the commandos were European Jews. My father, Peter Arany, became Pvt. Peter Masters, who had been born in London, was a member of the Church of England, and had volunteered for the commandos from the Queen’s Own Royal West Kent Regiment.

Kim’s father is deceased. But she quotes some of the surviving Jewish-British commandos on the subject of the Tarantino movie:

Of course they haven’t seen the film, which opens later this month, but what they hate is the premise that Jewish soldiers would hunt for scalps or bludgeon prisoners with a baseball bat.

“We killed people elegantly, without that sort of thing,” said Tony Firth, now 90.

“Shocking!” said my father’s friend, Peter Terry, now 85. “I mean””really!”…

He never saw anyone abuse prisoners, whom he describes as a dispirited lot for the most part.

Another Jewish former commando named Manfred Ganz (whose cover name during the war was Freddy Gray), isn’t pleased with Tarantino either:

Ganz…doesn’t seem likely to be engaged by Tarantino’s comic-book violence. “To me, the reality was brutal enough,” he says. Ganz allows that Tarantino “has the right to express his fantasies.” But he would much prefer that the real story be told.

I’d much prefer it as well.

[ADDENDUM: Just now I happened to read a spoiler that gave away the end of the film. The ending is clearly fictional, at least to anyone with even a glancing knowledge of history. Perhaps that will help make more viewers consider the whole idea of the Jewish commando unit scalping and carving swastikas into Nazis as fiction, as well. But I wouldn’t bank on it.]

[ADDENDUM II: Here’s someone who seems to agree with me.]

Belly up to the buffet

The New Neo Posted on by

The other night I went to a restaurant that served a gargantuan buffet dinner. There must have been close to a hundred dishes there—and that’s not even counting the desserts.

There was everything from pizza and lasagna to mussels and clams and tons of shrimp, from roast beef (let’s have an end cut, please!) to grilled marinated vegetables, from the homey comfort of macaroni and cheese to spicy barbequed ribs, from the boredom of a salad bar to the kick of stir-fried Hunan beef, all ripe for the picking.

But alas, I find I’m no longer quite up to the challenge. In my youth—well, best not to look back on faded glory. Lets just say that for about the last twenty years my ability to do right by a buffet has been slowly fading, till now it’s been reduced to “a bite of this and a bite of that” (although naturally, bites of forty or so dishes doth a fairly hefty meal make). And although the quality of this particular buffet was relatively high by buffet standards, there’s almost no way that food sitting out for any amount of time can compare to meals freshly made and brought to the table.

But I tried my best. And I’m proud to say that I managed to leave in that rare but deeply-desired post-buffet state: that of being pleasantly full but not stuffed to the gills.

Scotland learns that you lie down with dogs…

The New Neo Posted on by

…you get up with fleas.

MacAskill still thinks he did the right thing in releasing Lockerbie bomber Al Megrahi, but he seems surprised that those nice Libyans didn’t keep their end of the “compassion” bargain:

Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said the warm homecoming welcome for al-Megrahi breached assurances from Libyan authorities that “any return would be dealt with in a low-key and sensitive fashion.”

“It is a matter of great regret that Mr. (al-) Megrahi was received in such an inappropriate manner,” MacAskill told the Scottish parliament. “It showed no compassion or sensitivity to the families of the 270 victims of Lockerbie.”

It reminds me just a tiny bit of Neville Chamberlain’s far more epic miscalculation when he said of Hitler that “here was a man who could be relied upon when he had given his word.”

Libya’s flouting of whatever agreement may have existed between Scotland (and/or the Brits) and Libya makes me think that perhaps there really was no quid pro quo, and that MacAskill is telling the truth when he says he acted out of a mere desire to show just how compassionate the Scottish people (and MacAskill) are. Otherwise, I would assume Libya wouldn’t feel so very comfortable thumbing its nose at MacAskill and his gullible ilk. My guess is that Libya rightly assumes there will be no negative consequences worth bothering about for breaking its word, and that MacAskill can impotently express his “great regret” all he wants.

Al Megrahi up close and personal

The New Neo Posted on by

The Times Online gets all warm and cozy with terrorist Al Megrahi in a puff piece repulsively entitled “At home with the Lockerbie bomber.”

And at least one Scot says “not in our name, Mr. MacAskill.

[ADDENDUM: Johns Hopkins professor of international law Ruth Wedgewood nails it, as does Geoffrey Robertson, member of (of all things) the United Nations Justice Council.

Wedgewood writes about some of the evidence implicating Al Megrahi, as well as the effect his release has on Libya. Robertson, in strong words that ought to have been voiced by our very own lawyer President (yeah, dream on) says:

The decision to release [Al Megrahi] for what any person of any intelligence at all would foresee as a hero’s welcome in Libya was lacking in compassion to every victim of terrorism and makes an absurdity of the principle of punishment as a deterrent. MacAskill’s arguments are both morally and logically fraudulent. We show mercy towards the merciless by abjuring torture and the death sentence. Crimes against humanity are so heinous that the perpetrator forfeits any claims to favourable treatment beyond that laid down by the Geneva conventions, namely humane treatment in prison overseen by the Red Cross. His release, in order that the criminal state which approved his crime may celebrate it and so justify its criminal actions (which include provision of semtex for many IRA atrocities as well as training terrorists for worldwide barbarities and the assassination of Gaddafi’s opponents at home and abroad, and in several cases in England), is a sad day for humanity and for the struggle for global justice. We should be ashamed that this has happened.

And yet there is much support for MacAskill’s actions rather than shame. Many Westerners have come to the conclusion that the most important thing in the world is to prove what fine and forgiving people they are. That way lies madness.]

If Obama’s lost Bob Herbert…

The New Neo Posted on by

…he’s in bigger trouble than I thought.

And it’s not just that Herbert doesn’t think Obama’s been “progressive” and feisty enough, either, although that’s certainly part of it for the ultra-liberal NY Times columnist. But Herbert also said this about Obama yesterday:

The American people are worried sick over the economy…This is the reality that underlies the anxiety over the president’s ragged effort to achieve health care reform. Forget the [probably Union Leftist—see this] certifiables who are scrawling Hitler mustaches on pictures of the president. Many sane and intelligent people who voted for Mr. Obama and sincerely want him to succeed have legitimate concerns about the timing of this health reform initiative and the way it is unfolding.

The president has not made it clear to the general public why health care reform is his top domestic priority when the biggest issue on the minds of most Americans is the economy…People worried about holding on to their standard of living need to be assured, unambiguously, that an expensive new government program is in their—and the country’s—best interest. They need to know exactly how the program will work, and they need to be confident that it’s affordable.

Mr. Obama, who has a command of the English language like few others [sic], has been remarkably opaque about his intentions regarding health care. He left it up to Congress to draft a plan and he has not gotten behind any specific legislation. He has seemed to waffle on the public option and has not been at all clear about how the reform that is coming will rein in runaway costs. At times it has seemed as though any old “reform” would be all right with him.

It’s still early, but people are starting to lose faith in the president. I hear almost daily from men and women who voted enthusiastically for Mr. Obama but are feeling disappointed.

Obama the non-philanderer

The New Neo Posted on by

Several people have asked me in the comments section of this post to explain the following statement of mine:

It’s almost incomprehensible that Obama would cheat on his wife; he’s too controlled, for one thing.

I admit that the explanation I offered was a rather minimal and inadequate one. My statement was based mostly on a hunch, a gut feeling, an intuitive perception that Obama’s coolness and control extends to that particular aspect of his life.

I could be wrong, of course; I’m certainly not privy to Obama’s bedroom activities. But let me try to explain by comparing him to other presidents.

Take the example of Bill Clinton. Quite a contrast, no? He not only had a long-held reputation as a womanizer even before being elected, but on a personal level he always gave the impression of a man of great appetite and exuberance, both for food and for people and for life. He never could be described as a cool character, nor as a controlled and disciplined one, even when wearing shades and playing the saxophone. It took no stretch of the imagination to see him as a philanderer. And of course, after a while, we didn’t have to imagine it—we got all the salacious details.

Lyndon Johnson was another president whose appetites were—shall we say—hearty. He was famously ribald and earthy as well. It’s no surprise whatsoever that he was serially unfaithful, despite having a loving marriage. It helped that he had an understanding wife, one who said “No matter what, I knew he loved me best” (see this for more).

But Obama is none of those things. Can you imagine him overeating, for example? I cannot. And although I know that an appetite for food and one for philandering do not necessarily go together, I can’t help but sense that Obama isn’t tempted that much to stray, and even if he were he wouldn’t risk it. It’s part of what Ann Althouse (in a different context) calls his “infuriatingly bland” manner—a lack of the spark of passion.

Jimmy Carter was another in that mold, although for different reasons. For example, Carter was a devout Christian—although we certainly know that doesn’t necessarily stop a person from messing around. But somehow, his persona was such that when Carter stated in a 1976 Playboy interview that he’d “looked on a lot of women with lust” and “committed adultery in [his] heart many times,” it seemed more of an attempt to make himself appear macho than a heartfelt confession.

JFK was different. He was cool, all right. But he was raised in a family that trained him in compulsive womanizing, almost considering it a requirement for manhood, including the example of his own father. Whatever running around Obama’s father may have done, Obama wasn’t exposed to it during his formative years.

Obama’s vices of the flesh seem to be limited to smoking, and in his early days to drugs such as pot and cocaine. I’m not saying he was or is asexual; he writes about ex-girlfriends in Dreams From My Father, and I assume that he and Michelle have whatever passes for a regular sex life in the White House, what with the Secret Service and all. But illicit sex never seems to have been one of Obama’s big temptations.

My impression of Obama’s inner life is mere supposition, of course. But I have long been impressed by his interest in control and coolness, especially after I read this article in August of 2008 about the contrast between the offices of then-candidates John McCain and Barack Obama. It’s worthwhile to read the whole thing, but here are some excerpts:

McCain’s office oozes comfy clutter and informality: random piles of books, a fortune-cookie message taped to the desk, an abundance of tchotchkes and bric-a-brac.

Obama’s office feels more like a gallery of modern art: precisely placed objects, sparsely adorned surfaces, clean lines, choreographed displays…

[Obama] played a big part in putting it all together,” said Ashley Tate-Gilmore, the Illinois senator’s executive assistant—right down to selecting the straw-colored tint of the walls and carpeting. When the office was due for new carpeting, he wanted exactly what he had before. That particular carpeting had been discontinued, but Senate officials scrounged around to find an identical replacement.

The decor is carefully choreographed. When an assistant shifted the location of one painting while Obama was away, the senator had it moved back…

Obama’s desktop, once used by former Illinois Sen. Paul Simon, is a testament to discipline.

It is home to two family photos, a very uncrowded inbox, a mug full of pens, and little else.

Of course, such a huge effort at control often means there’s something brewing underneath that might just threaten to break through. In Obama’s case, here’s the only clue:

Are there any cracks in all of this office discipline?

Obama does doodle, his aides report.

And although “doodle” can have a ribald meaning as well, somehow I doubt that’s what Obama’s aides were talking about.

The WaPo gets it half right: release of the Lockerbie bomber

The New Neo Posted on by

The WaPo has a hard-hitting editorial condemning Scotland’s release of Al Megrahi as well as Libya’s hero’s welcome for him.

The editors use words like “sickening” and “travesty of justice” and “breathtaking abuse of power.” They state that the only way Al Megrahi should have come home was “in a box.” In addition, they argue (as I did) that it was compassion enough to have allowed him to live all these years in prison and get visits from his family.

All very well and good. But the end of the editorial features this curious bit [emphasis mine]:

Mr. Megrahi’s joyful airport homecoming, which featured flag-waving crowds bused to the airport by the authorities, is proof that the government of Moammar Gaddafi feels not the slightest trace of remorse for the slaughter at Lockerbie, despite having admitted its complicity in the bombing and paid $2.7 billion in compensation to the victims’ families. It makes a mockery of Washington’s decision to elevate Libya’s status from international pariah to the community of civilized nations. If the Libyan regime does not heed the U.S. demand that Mr. Megrahi remain under house arrest until his death, the Obama administration should consider reinstituting sanctions.

As I pointed out yesterday, unless there’s a lot of behind-the-scenes tough talk going on, we have seen no “demand” from the US or Obama, nor are we likely to see any.

The WaPo also manages to omit any mention of just why it might be that Gaddafi feels so emboldened as to thumb his nose at the US by not only allowing Al Megrahi a hero’s welcome from the crowds, but also personally embracing and receiving him in a manner befitting a visiting dignitary. Could it possibly have anything to do with the fact that he thinks Obama carries no stick at all?

The WaPo points out that the welcome is evidence that Gaddafi “feels not the slightest trace of remorse for the slaughter at Lockerbie.” But the WaPo is profoundly naive; Gaddafi’s admission of guilt and payment of reparations was never about emotions such as remorse. It was about power and leverage and fear—as Machiavelli (or even Osama Bin Laden, with his strong and weak horses) could have told them.

And here—if you can stomach the sight—are some heartwarming photos from the homecoming. The first features the embrace with Gaddafi, the second a handhold with Gaddafi’s son, and the third Gaddafi receiving Al Megrahi and his grateful extended family:

embrace2.jpg

handhold2.jpg

bomberfamily2.jpg

[ADDENDUM: On the hand, FBI Director Rober Mueller gets it completely right, for all the good it does him, and us. In a letter to the Scottish Justice Secretary (an Orwellian title if ever I’ve heard one), Mueller writes:

I have made it a practice not to comment on the actions of other prosecutors. Your decision to release Megrahi causes me to abandon that practice in this case. I do so because I am familiar with the facts, and the law. … And I do so because I am outraged at your decision, blithely defended on the grounds of ‘compassion…[The release is] as inexplicable as it is detrimental to the cause of justice. Indeed your action makes a mockery of the rule of law…[and] gives comfort to terrorists around the world who now believe that regardless of the quality of the investigation … the terrorist will be freed by one man’s exercise of “compassion”…Where, I ask, is the justice?

Where, indeed.]

Libya and Al Megrahi: about those words and that big stick

The New Neo Posted on by

The White House came through with some stronger words on Al Megrahi today:

Asked after issuing a statement on Afghanistan’s elections for his thoughts on the jubilant crowd that greeted Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in Tripoli on Thursday, Obama said: “I think it was highly objectionable.”

His chief spokesman, Robert Gibbs, earlier had denounced the homecoming scene as “outrageous and disgusting.”

Note, however, that the stronger statement came from the Press Secretary rather than the President.

The topic in this case is not the release of Al Megrahi itself, but his reception in Tripoli as a hero, despite earlier White House pleas that he not be given a hero’s welcome and should be put under house arrest.

I use the word “pleas” purposely rather than another and stronger word such as “demands.” Teddy Roosevelt’s old adage about speaking softly and carrying a big stick seems to have gone unappreciated by Obama. Although it’s possible that there have been some behind-the-scenes threats from Obama to the Libyan government, it’s hard to believe that they carry any weight.

The stick not only has to be big, but the person being admonished by it has to believe that it will actually be wielded. That’s where Obama falls down. Our enemies have sized him up, and found that even if the “stick” he carries—the might and influence of the US, including its weaponry—is large, the intent to use it is lacking.

That was one of the good things about the Bush presidency. His threats were credible and gave other countries pause, because they believed him to be fully capable of following through. Obama not only speaks softly most of the time, and in a conciliatory and even apologetic manner, but our enemies know that he’s very reluctant to wield that stick.

If you read the AP article to the end, you’ll note that State Department spokesman Ian Kelly offered little other information despite Gibbs’ strong condemnation of Libya’s hero’s welcome for Al Megrahi. In careful diplomatese, Kelly said:

…he would not say that “single event at an airport” will cause the U.S. to “totally reconsider our relationship with Libya, but we will be watching as they go forward how this man is treated.”

Kelly said he understood that al-Megrahi has been taken to his home, but that Libya has yet to tell the U.S. what his status is.

Unless there are some big sticks being waved about behind the scenes, it’s hard to see how statements such as that have any effect whatsoever, except to put Libya in the driver’s seat.

[ADDENDUM: This piece says that the Libyan reception was unusually restrained, and represents Libya’s desire not to harm relations with the US and the West. But it seems to me that Libya is taking the measure of the US and the West and finding that it can get away with more than in the recent past, and that it will pay no price for its defiance.]

Noonan on the flaws in Obama’s health care reform

The New Neo Posted on by

Peggy Noonan makes some good points here:

Every big idea that works is marked by simplicity, by clarity. You can understand it when you hear it, and you can explain it to people.

…The president’s health-care plan is not clear, and I mean that not only in the sense of “he hasn’t told us his plan.” I mean it in terms of the voodoo phrases, this gobbledygook, this secret language of government that no one understands”””single payer,” “public option,” “insurance marketplace exchange.” No one understands what this stuff means, nobody normal.

And when normal people don’t know what the words mean, they don’t say to themselves, “I may not understand, but my trusty government surely does, and will treat me and mine with respect.” They think, “I can’t get what these people are talking about. They must be trying to get one past me. So I’ll vote no.

The rest of Noonan’s piece is of the genre of those that give helpful advice to Obama, assuming he can listen, regroup, and scale back his ambitions for health care reform to reflect the reality that the American people aren’t buying what’s on the table right now. This assumes that he is not a committed Leftist ideologue, but a reasonable realist. I have my doubts about that one.

I also think that Obama’s lack of clarity on health care reform—which Noonan correctly points out—is neither an error nor an oversight. My hunch is that it’s intentional, and Obama is aware that what he wants in terms of reform goes against the wishes of the majority of Americans. Therefore he is purposely vague and purposely obfuscating, as well as (at times) purposely deceptive and purposely contradictory.

Obama may regroup and pull back. But only if he is convinced that the health care reform bill as presently constructed—and the public option in particular—is completely and utterly dead in the water. He may then try to craft a policy that is designed to reassure the people while sneaking in the public option eventually, through the logical (and in this case intended) consequences of a new bill.

If not, and if some sort of health care reform passes that is truly bipartisan and truly an improvement, and yet allows the individual freedom of choice in insurance (including a robust private option) and keeps government hands largely off health care decisions, as well as reducing costs, then I’ll be exceedingly pleased—although exceedingly surprised.

Let’s not get wee-wee’d up

The New Neo Posted on by

We’ve been treated to an explanation of Obama’s rather bizarre statement of yesterday that in August, “everyone in Washington gets all wee-wee’d up.”

First, let’s hear it from the horse’s mouth:

And now for the official word on the origin of the expression:

“It’s a phrase I use,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said today, hesitating at his press briefing to offer a physical demonstration of the phraseology.

“Let’s do this in a way that’s family friendly,” Gibbs said. “I think ‘wee-weed up’ is when people get all nervous for no particular reason….Bedwetting would probably be the more consumer-friendly term for it,” the press secretary said.

Or even a more mature term for it. I prefer this explanation, myself.

If Gibbs is correct—and I have no reason to doubt that he is—it is still extremely odd for Obama to publicly use a phrase that’s some sort of private joke between him and Gibbs, or between Gibbs and Gibbs’s friends and/or family. To use such a term without explanation as part of a public address is to be strangely tone deaf and unaware.

However, I’m not planning to get all wee-wee’d up about it—except to say, can you imagine what would have happened had Obama’s predecessor said such a thing?

[ADDENDUM: The fallout begins:

Husband to our pug, prancing by the door, a few minutes ago: “Y’all wee wee-ed up? Need to go outside?”

God, I hope this isn’t a trend. It’s the first time in 17 years I’ve heard my husband use baby talk. And God willing, it will be the last.]