Family Security Matters » Publications » Exclusive: Is Obama’s ‘Tortured’ Obsession with George Bush Impeding His Ability to Move Forward?

Family Security Matters » Publications » Exclusive: Is Obama’s ‘Tortured’ Obsession with George Bush Impeding His Ability to Move Forward?

May 22, 2009

Exclusive: Is Obama’s ‘Tortured’ Obsession with George Bush Impeding His Ability to Move Forward?

Pam Meister

“War cannot be won by apologies.” – Rush Limbaugh

In what was billed a Major Speech™ by the mainstream media (aren’t they all?), President Obama, aided by his trusty sidekick TeleTonto, discussed yesterday what he claims is his “single most important responsibility as President” – that of keeping our nation safe and secure.

That’s wonderful. I’m really glad to hear that keeping us safe from attack is a higher priority to The One than running our economy into the ground so that the Chicken Littles in Washington can say, “See, we NEED socialism!” to a wishy washy, gullible public that pays more attention to the outcome of American Idol than they do to what’s going on in our nation’s capitol. (Okay, I admit, it is more fun to look at that cutie pie Kris Allen than it is to look at Nancy “Botox Queen” Pelosi or perpetual sourpuss Harry Reid and their merry band of dandy highwaymen.) However, self-serving speeches like the one today makes one wonder exactly what Obama is trying to keep secure – the American people or his job rating within the UN and the MoveOn.org crowd.

The word “values” came up a lot, as they often do during Obama’s Major Speeches™, but what exactly he means by values remains about as clear as the actual meaning of Yes, We Can. Yes, we can…what? Abase ourselves in the eyes of friends, as well as enemies, across the world? Check. Dismantle the free market by having the government essentially take over the private sector, business by business? Check. Constantly bash the former administration as a way to keep the American people from paying attention to the current administration’s fumbles and foibles? Check.

I get it. I really do. Obama’s great, Bush is a dummy, and we’ll be reminded about that non stop until 2012 – 2016 if we’re really lucky. Fingers crossed!

Funny, though, that Obama would reverse himself on so many of the Bush security policies that he used as campaign fodder to appease the far left wing that helped elect him.

But back to the speech. If one wants to talk about torture, take a gander at the torture manual put together by our pals in al Qaeda about how to interrogate and torture captives. Blowtorches, hot irons, drills and electrocution are just part of the fun planned for anyone who falls into the clutches of al Qaeda operatives – unless, of course, they’re in a hurry and decide to just saw off the captive’s head for the sake of expediency so they can make the honor killing by stoning on time.

Let’s face it: listening to Robert Gibbs at a press briefing is more tortuous than waterboarding. And if it garners results – as it did when an attack on Los Angeles was thwarted thanks to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed buckling under the discomfort and fear brought on by waterboarding – should we not be applauding such tactics on high profile prisoners?

Then there’s that little issue about what is legally defined as torture. “What removes an act from the ambit of torture (besides lack of severe pain) is intent” (Andrew McCarthy). Surely a legal scholar of Obama’s stature would know that. After all, he keeps reminding us of his legal background.

In defending his views on this “torture,” Obama used Sen. John McCain’s views to bolster his own. If quoting one’s vanquished opponent – or, as we who follow politics closely like to say, the loser – is how Obama chooses to debate the issues, I really cannot wait until he gets together with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for that long-awaited tea party. (Oh, quick question: when that happens, will Anderson Cooper accuse the president of “teabagging”?)

Now this is where things get interesting. Obama defended his decision to close Gitmo “set back the moral authority that is America's strongest currency in the world” and the prison “became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.” He has no proof, of course, which is why he used the qualifier “likely.” Will reporters ask him what he thinks about the fact that a recently released report cites 1 in 7 Gitmo detainees return to the terrorist activities that landed them there in the first place? And if the existence of Gitmo really “sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries,” why aren’t those same allies willing to take the poor, beleaguered prisoners off of our hands if closing Gitmo is the right thing to do?

Obama is concerned about the 240 people in “legal limbo.” I doubt one of those in “legal limbo” gives a second thought to the thousands of Americans who perished on 9/11, unless it’s to do everything possible to make sure thousands more Americans join them.

If The One wants to “focus on the future” as he claims he does, he would do well to stop trashing the Bush administration with comments like, “the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable.” If that were true, why have we not been attacked since 9/11? Leftists in the blogosphere, egged on by the left-leaning mainstream media, would call news of yet another foiled terror attack convenient, either as a diversion from the news or the day or as a way to scare people into agreeing with the Bush administration’s policies. I have yet to see similar comments about the recent news that a homegrown Jihadist terror cell was broken up in New York before they could bomb a synagogue and shoot military planes out of the sky.

It certainly doesn’t help The One’s case that Congress, even with its Democrat majority, refused to fund the closing of Gitmo until there is a clear plan in place that doesn’t include transferring detainees to the United States. It’s amazing what a little fear – if not from the Islamist terrorists themselves, then from repercussions at the polls – will do. One of my colleagues wonders if yesterday’s speech wasn’t actually a temper tantrum by a spoiled, fractious child who didn’t get the toy he wanted. Or, perhaps more obviously, he wanted to show Dick Cheney – who also gave a speech yesterday to respond to Obama’s assertions about torture – who the biggest kid on the playground is.

Again, if Obama wants to look forward, he should heed the advice contained in Cheney’s remarks:

If Americans do get the chance to learn what our country was spared, it'll do more than clarify the urgency and the rightness of enhanced interrogations in the years after 9/11. It may help us to stay focused on dangers that have not gone away. Instead of idly debating which political opponents to prosecute and punish, our attention will return to where it belongs: on the continuing threat of terrorist violence and on stopping the men who are planning it. For all the partisan anger that still lingers, our administration will stand up well in history, not despite our actions after 9/11, but because of them. And when I think about all that has come – has to come during our administration and afterward – the recriminations, the second-guessing, the charges of hubris -- my mind always goes back to that moment. (emphasis added)