About Me

Name: Patrick Henry
Location: Vancouver, WA
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

NATIONAL INSECURITY

 
   Today we heard speeches by President Barack Obama and former Vice President
 
Dick Cheney on the topic of national security. The most interesting thing about the
 
speeches was how much they focused on the past, Obama attacking and Cheney
 
defending. Now there are undoubtedly Americans who still want either retribution
 
or vindication regarding alleged wrongdoings by people in the Bush administration.
 
But I suspect that most Americans are far more concerned about what will keep us
 
safe going forward. All we got on that front was glittering generalities and very few
 
specifics. Obama is a fine speaker. But if you asked me whether I feel a little safer
 
after listening to him today, I'd have to reply in the negative.
 
   He clearly intends to proceed with the closure of Guantanamo Bay, symbolic
 
gesture though it is. His breakdown of the detainees there into five categories
 
and his assurance that no one has ever escaped from a U.S. supermax prison were
 
neither new or especially reassuring. Mostly, he spent the time whining about the
 
"mess" he'd inherited and castigating the former administration (36 times, if I
 
counted correctly). While that may have played well to his leftist base of psychotic
 
Bush haters it did little to explain what concrete steps he will take to keep the
 
nation as safe as it proved to be after 9/11. Since Obama won't order the release
 
of CIA records showing just what was learned through "enhanced interrogation"
 
we'll never really know if it was helpful. Obama wants us to take his word for it
 
that it wasn't. He didn't tell us how he will obtain similar information.
 
   He seemed to wander afield with his claim that enemy soldiers will now eagerly
 
surrender to us because they know they will be better treated than if they returned
 
to their superiors. Hmmmm! He forgets that the Taliban and al Qaeda are not
 
"soldiers" in the classical sense. The fight according to no laws, codes or rules,
 
wear no uniforms, fly no flag, represent no country or government and seem to
 
have no compunction at all about killing or using as human shields innocent
 
civilians. And there is no record of which I am aware of mass executions of their
 
own fighters by these groups. These are fanatics driven by insane hatred of the
 
west and misguided religious fanaticism. It strains the credibility that they are
 
going to lay down their arms in significant numbers just because Obama promises
 
not to torture them.
 
   There is no inkling of a plan as to what to do with detainees who cannot be tried
 
but clearly pose a danger to this country. Worse, there seems to be no forethought
 
regarding what to do with future detainees captured in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
 
Are we going to dispatch 100,000 FBI agents to do criminal investigations into each,
 
bring them all back, try them in American courts and hold them in our prison system?
 
And even if that were feasible (not even close), how much would it cost?
 
   It is the sheer recklessness of making extreme commitments out of loathing for the
 
past without substantial planning with regard to how to accomplish the same result
 
by different means that is making even members of Obama's own party nervous. A
 
much better speech would have said, "Here's what we're going to do differently, and
 
here's why it will work better." It wasn't there, and it underscores the amateurism in
 
play at today's White House. We can only hope they can figure it out before we find
 
ourselves digging out of the rubble from another ground zero. When they do, you
 
might be suprised just how much the future resembles the past.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

TIME TO FISH OR CUT BAIT

 
 
   U.S. economic distractions have allowed Iran to produce enough fissionable material to make a nuclear weapon. Their launch of a satellite capable missile suggests they may soon be in a position to target any nation on the globe with such a weapon. With TARP, Spendulus and the great mortgage bailout either finished or on the way, it is now time for President Barack Obama to tell the American people precisely what he intends to do about the Iranian threat.
   "Threat" is the operative term, because not only are the fanatics in Tehran near the capability to eradicate an entire city with one blast, their actions and rhetoric suggest they may just be willing to do it. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called publicly for the annhilation of Israel, and his generals have directly threatened American forces abroad. Iran has supplied and trained Iraqi insurgents who have killed Americans. That is no longer a question for debate by serious people. They have armed and encouraged Hezbollah and Hamas in their attacks on Israeli and American targets. They have aided al-Qaeda in Yemen in their attack on the American embassy there. How much more is it going to take to convince this president that these people aren't kidding?
   Obama has consistently expressed a prefeence to address the situation through diplomacy, saying that he would meet with Ahmadinejad "without preconditions." To that, Iran's foreign minister suggested that they might be open to talks after the USA publicly admits its crimes and apologizes for its policy toward Iran and the Muslim world. Gee, thanks. If Obama goes to the table under that cloud, one cannot help but be pessimistic about the outcome.
   But this much is true: Obama firmly and publicly promised, during his campaign, that he would not accept a nuclear-armed Iran. It's time for Americans to stop worshipping him like a bunch of addled school children and call him out on that promise, because the clock is ticking. How about it Mr. President? What are you going to do about Iran? And are you planning to wait until New York and Los Angeles glow in the dark for a thousand years before you do it?
   History has proven that the longer free nations appease tyranny and try to avoid military action, the more costly, intense and long that military action tends to be. Wouldn't a conventional intervention now be better than a nuclear one later? How many more Israelis and Americans do Hamas and Hezbollah have to butcher before America says enough? How well did we do in negotiating with Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Chavez, Saddam Hussein? Come on, Mr. President, it's time to fish or cut bait. What are you going to do about the Iranian nuclear threat, and when?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »