Despite the cartoon (sorry, I just couldn't resist) this post actually compliments Obama. This past week, he made a couple of tough decisions which have inflamed the ACLU, other human rights organizations, and much of the liberal base. He has reversed on his promise to release several controversial photos of detainees because, according to Obama, "the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger." It was reported that this was actually the belief of his top military commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan who were concerned less about politics and more concerned about saving American lives. They urged the President to reconsider his position, which he did.The second decision was to restart the Bush-era military tribunals - which Obama halted by executive order during his first week in office. Regarding this policy reversal, Obama said, "These reforms will begin to restore the commissions as a legitimate forum for prosecution, while bringing them in line with the rule of law. This is the best way to protect our country, while upholding our deeply held values." Contrast this statement with something he said on the compaign trail when he described Guantanamo tribunals as "a flawed military commission system that has failed to convict any one of a terrorist act since the 9/11 attacks and that has been embroiled in legal challenges."
Amnesty International's Larry Cox is ticked. "President Obama is reinstating the same deeply-flawed military commissions that in June 2008 he called an 'enormous failure.' In one swift move, Obama both backtracks on a major campaign promise to change the way the United States fights terrorism and undermines the nation's core respect for the rule of law by sacrificing due process for political expediency."
So I'm curious, what is really going on here? Was it really 'politically expedient' for Obama to make these decisions? It doesn't seem like it. It seems, based on the leftist critics, that he's departing from campaign promises of transparency, accountability, and a different direction than Bush. I personally applaud President Obama for these two moves. He showed real courage knowing that he would upset the liberal base. This was also a step towards more Presidential maturity. I think he has come to realize that it is one thing to talk big on the campaign trail. But if staying true to some of these campaign promises means endangering American lives in the real world, I'm glad he decided that it was more important to protect those lives than to appease the party base. To me, these developments are encouraging. What do you guys think?
1 comment:
I'm going to agree and add one more thing I have been pleased with. Actually two. Taking the invitation to speak at Notre Dame even though a lot of Catholics strongly dislike Pres. Obama pretty much solely based upon his belief in Roe v. Wade showed he can talk with people who disagree with him. The other was appointing my favorite republican Jon Huntsman to be the ambassador to China (could this also be the door opening to getting missionaries to China? It could be...) I don't really know much about the tribunals but I am glad he didn't release the photos. Telling everyone is one thing, but no need to relive something we should forget about. And one more thing, I really think Pelosi should be demoted as speaker of the house. Whether or not she is lying, she's making some pretty bold claims that the CIA is misleading congress. I personally think she's lying to cover her own tracks, but I think she should resign that post. However, I think Pelosi has way too much pride for that, and has her own interests in front of the country's. If you can't tell, I really do not like Nancy Pelosi. I think we could put someone a lot better for the country as speaker of the house. But that's just me.
Post a Comment