What a great American story (so they say). Is that a qualification for the Supreme Court.
Its really just spin from the Democrats ... in the minority, they filibuster and slander qualified nominees. In the majority, they serve up affirmative action quotas, and underqualified liberal identity politics nominees and spin like crazy ....
Those ‘Wonderful American Stories’ [Jay Nordlinger]
In recent days, we’ve been hearing a lot about a “wonderful American story” — Sonia Sotomayor’s. Can’t oppose that, can you — that wonderful American story? Oh yes you can, if you’re the Democratic party. They certainly did it in the case of Miguel Estrada.
He came from Honduras, and was no Spanish aristocrat, to put it mildly. Arrived in America at 17 speaking barely any English. Graduated with honors from Columbia and Harvard: Law Review, Supreme Court clerkship, blah, blah, blah. Distinguished record in government service — an American success story, a Movie of the Week, a slam dunk.
Bear in mind that he started here — started here — at 17. What he accomplished, in the next years, is amazing.
George W. Bush nominated him for the Court of Appeals — and bam: The Democrats stopped him. They had to, some people think. Because, if he had been permitted to serve on that court, he may well have been nominated for the Supreme Court. And how could you stop that wonderful American story? How could you stop the first Hispanic justice?
Estrada came up in a talk that some of us NR-niks had with Bush in the Oval Office last December. I wrote about that meeting here. Bush said,
“I just talked about Harriet [Miers], but there’s a lot of other good judicial nominees who get nominated, scrutinized, and they just dangle out there. And all this is going to do is cause good people to say, ‘Why do I want to go through this, why do I want to have my family hang out there, why do I want to jeopardize my career, why do I want to put opportunities on hold, if I cannot get a fair hearing and a vote?’ I mean, I think of Miguel Estrada, unbelievably brilliant, and it’s a fabulous American story . . .”
I interjected, “That’s why he had to be stopped.”
Bush said, “Yes. Oh, absolutely. But I look at it from his perspective, not theirs. And his perspective is, I want to serve, I want to be in a position to exercise my intellect, I want to help my adopted country . . . And yet he just got hung out there. It was very discouraging, I’m sure, to him and to others who watched the process.”
The Democrats would not even grant Estrada a vote — up or down. They filibustered. And this was just an appeals court, mind you, not the Supreme Court. Somehow, I have the feeling that Sonia Sotomayor will get a vote. And there will be plenty of talk about a wonderful, or — to use President Bush’s word — fabulous, American story. When that talk comes from Democrats, you may want to remember Miguel Estrada.
I guess what I’m saying is, Look: Vote for Sotomayor if you want to, because you like her views. But cut the crap about American stories. Such stories didn’t matter much when Miguel desired to serve.
P.S. on ‘American Stories’ [Jay Nordlinger]
Readers are reminding me that this is to say nothing of Clarence Thomas — he of Pin Point, Ga., raised by his grandfather, no indoor plumbing or electricity, Gullah instead of English, etc., etc., etc. Is there a more amazing up-from-nothing story in America today? But Thomas cannot be a “wonderful American story,” of course, because he is conservative. I mean, really.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Sotomayor, part II
National Review weighs in ... (ouch !)
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmJiNzBjYzdhODE4M2ZmNmZiZWNhYzA3Yzc5NDFlOTE=
Advice on Consent
By the Editors
Judge Sonia Sotomayor is female, Hispanic, liberal, and mediocre. Conservatives should draw attention to the third adjective while understanding that the first two are likely to be politically decisive during her confirmation hearings.
Sotomayor’s liberalism would not constitute a reason for denying her a seat on the Supreme Court if it merely consisted of a set of policy positions identical to those of the Senate’s 15 most liberal members. Unfortunately, liberalism has for some time now incorporated a tacit judicial philosophy in which the goal is to impose policies as left-wing as a judge can get away with. Sotomayor seems to march to that beat. More to the point, perhaps, she has shown no signs of marching to any other one.
Judges who decide cases in this manner abuse their office and undermine the rule of law. They also generate policies that are harmful to our economy, dangerous to our national security, and destructive to our social fabric. Liberal activism on the bench has these effects even when the offending judges are geniuses. The nominee’s approach to judging is more important than her IQ, and it is on that subject that senators ought to be trying to shed light. And they should take their time doing it. Thanks to years of activism, Supreme Court justices have more power than most senators. We should spend at least as much time learning how they would exercise it as we do for Senate candidates.
Barring some shocking revelation, we know the outcome of these hearings. Some Republicans say that we could have done worse: Given what we know of her judicial craftsmanship and temperament, she is unlikely to have influence on the Court beyond her vote. But such musings are neither here nor there. The choice for Republican senators is not between Sotomayor and some hypothetical more dangerous Obama nominee; it is between her being confirmed with their consent and her being confirmed without it.
That consent should probably not be given, and should certainly be withheld for now.
Sotomayor: Bad for Business [Iain Murray]
Sotomayor is just as liberal as Souter on social issues like affirmative action and abortion, but far more liberal even than Souter on economic issues, such as punitive damages, preemption, and employment law. The Supreme Court, including Justice Souter, unanimously reversed her decision in the Dabit case, where she allowed lawsuits that were preempted by a federal law (SLUSA).
Business will likely lose billions of dollars over time as a result of her replacing Souter. That probably won’t bother Obama, given that “Obama has regretted that the Supreme Court ‘didn’t break free’ from legal constraints to bring about ‘redistribution of wealth.’”
Judge Sotomayor has managed to take already liberal, redistributionist areas of the law and push them even further down the road in the direction of redistributing wealth to constituencies favored by government offficials. The Supreme Court ruled in the Kelo case that governments can take private property and give it to developers as part of a general redevelopment plan that they rationally believe will benefit the public good (My colleague Hans Bader argued at the time that that violated basic axioms of constitutional construction, and rendered the Constitution’s “public use” clause redundant).
But Judge Sotomayor went well beyond that, to hold that property owners have no legal redress even in the face of what legal commentators have called extortion, in Didden v. City of Port Chester. In that case, a developer told a property owner to either give him $800,000 or half his property, or he would seize it by having the Village of Port Chester condemn it. When the property owner refused, the developer promptly had the town condemn it and transfer it to him. Judge Sotomayor and two of her colleagues upheld this seizure against a constitutional challenge in an unpublished opinion. George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin called this case an example of judicially sanctioned extortion.
Judge Sotomayor has also sided with environmental extremists against businesses, trying to stop the EPA from considering cost-benefit analysis in permitting decisions, another decision that the Supreme Court overturned. See Steve Milloy's Green Hell blog for the full story.
In short, Judge Sotomayor will be much more liberal than Justice Souter when it comes to cases involving business.
Good Justices Are Made in the Image of Obama [Jonah Goldberg]
I just wrote a column about Obama and Sotomayor (it'll be up tomorrow). In the process of reading all this stuff about Obama's criteria for a Supreme Court Justice (blah, blah, empathy, blah blah blah), it occurred to me that maybe what he really wants to do is appoint himself,* or at least the best approximation of himself he can find that politics will allow.
Think about it. He places this huge emphasis on a personal narrative that produces empathy for select disadvantaged groups — minorities, single moms etc. He wants someone who is smart enough, but whose real priorities can be boiled down to trite lefty tropes about "social justice." He allegedly wants someone charming and bipartisan solely so they will seduce conservative members of the court to more liberal positions (I say "allegedly" because you often hear this ascribed to the White House, but never actually stated outright). All of these traits are hallmarks of what might be called "Obamaism."
Now I know that Obama has some very well-thought-out, or at least elaborate, arguments for his idea of a good justice. But isn't it possible that some of this is really just a rationalization for a more fundamental narcissistic projection? After all, it is hardly news that Obama thinks very highly of himself, and sees all sorts of major issues through the prism of Obama. Everything he says about what would make a great, ideal, Supreme Court justice is stuff he clearly sees in himself. I think that is at least interesting.
*Why not cut out the middlewomen and just name himself? Okay, maybe that would be unconstitutional, but he could resign with expectation that President Biden would appoint him. Of course, this would also mean that Obama would have to step down as CEO of GM and Chrysler, as well as the majority shareholder in our biggest banks. And he couldn't give primetime press conferences every couple weeks either. That is a lot to ask.
Judging by Identity [Peter Kirsanow]
During the presidential campaign, there was considerable commentary about the prospect of a President Obama ushering in a post-racial era in America. The candidate himself fueled the commentary, frequently making sounds about the advent of a society that transcends race.The nomination of Judge Sotomayor demonstrates that identity politics not only remains alive and well, but may be accompanied by an unabashedly racialist interpretive doctrine. If there remains a sentient being in the White House press corps, he should ask Mr. Gibbs how a post-racial president could nominate to the Supreme Court a judge who said the following:
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.
So, inherent physiological differences may make a difference in one’s judging. Combined with Sotomayor’s vote in Ricci v. DeStefano, the statement suggests a judge quite comfortable with racial, ethnic, and gender preferences. In the Obama era, identity politics hasn’t gone away; it’s been joined by identity judging.
Judging by Identity II [Peter Kirsanow]
When George W. Bush nominated John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee spent considerable time analyzing the nominees’ respective interpretive doctrines. The Committee will do the same with Sotomayor.Obviously, the best evidence for a nominee’s judicial approach comes from the opinions the judge has authored. Further guidance can be gleaned from the nominee’s articles and speeches. In this regard, Sotomayor’s Berkeley lecture merits scrutiny because it describes the nominee’s view of the decisionmaking process.Senators should ask Sotomayor to expand upon her statement that “whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”Does Sotomayor contend that a judge’s interpretive approach is hard-wired to her gender and ethnicity? Does that mean that litigants should necessarily expect different decisions from a Justice Roberts than a Justice Sotomayor?What would Sotomayor think if John Roberts had made the identical statement? Is there any doubt that several members of the Judiciary Committee would’ve declared the statement sexist and racist?Does the Constitution have different meanings depending on one’s gender and ethnicity?
Sotomayor's Credentials [Ramesh Ponnuru]
Earlier today I described Sotomayor as Obama's Harriet Miers without explaining myself. What I'm suggesting is that both nominees were picked because they were women, because they were members of politically valued groups (evangelicals in Miers's case, Hispanics in Sotomayor's), and because they were considered politically reliable by the people who picked them. Neither was picked based on her impressive legal mind, although the pickers in each case doubtless believed that the nominee exceeded some threshold level of competence. These parallels seem like more than enough to justify the title of a Corner post.
But as the various outraged lefties who have commented on it correctly note, the analogy isn't perfect. For example, Sotomayor is likely to get confirmed. There's a big difference! It's also true, as Sotomayor's defenders keep saying, that Miers never served on the bench and didn't go to Ivy League schools. I am, incidentally, enjoying the spectacle of leftists who spent years saying President Bush was a moron carry on about how insane and probably racist it is for anyone to doubt the intellect of someone who went to those schools. The people who brought up this issue were Jeffrey Rosen's Democratic sources; save the racism charges for them.
For whatever it's worth, I am perfectly willing to assume that Sotomayor's IQ is north of 100. I also don't think that the issue ought to be decisive. A nominee who had a modest conception of the judicial role, constrained most importantly by the public's understanding of the meaning of the constitutional provisions to which it consented, would have my support even if he were less intelligent than the other justices; a genius nominee who held a more plastic conception of the law wouldn't. And I think that Senate Republicans would be well advised to look at the job qualifications the same way.
The Latina Lecture [Rich Lowry]
It's pretty amazing. Have we ever had a Supreme Court justice before who stated quite frankly that he or she is incapable of being objective?
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmJiNzBjYzdhODE4M2ZmNmZiZWNhYzA3Yzc5NDFlOTE=
Advice on Consent
By the Editors
Judge Sonia Sotomayor is female, Hispanic, liberal, and mediocre. Conservatives should draw attention to the third adjective while understanding that the first two are likely to be politically decisive during her confirmation hearings.
Sotomayor’s liberalism would not constitute a reason for denying her a seat on the Supreme Court if it merely consisted of a set of policy positions identical to those of the Senate’s 15 most liberal members. Unfortunately, liberalism has for some time now incorporated a tacit judicial philosophy in which the goal is to impose policies as left-wing as a judge can get away with. Sotomayor seems to march to that beat. More to the point, perhaps, she has shown no signs of marching to any other one.
Judges who decide cases in this manner abuse their office and undermine the rule of law. They also generate policies that are harmful to our economy, dangerous to our national security, and destructive to our social fabric. Liberal activism on the bench has these effects even when the offending judges are geniuses. The nominee’s approach to judging is more important than her IQ, and it is on that subject that senators ought to be trying to shed light. And they should take their time doing it. Thanks to years of activism, Supreme Court justices have more power than most senators. We should spend at least as much time learning how they would exercise it as we do for Senate candidates.
Barring some shocking revelation, we know the outcome of these hearings. Some Republicans say that we could have done worse: Given what we know of her judicial craftsmanship and temperament, she is unlikely to have influence on the Court beyond her vote. But such musings are neither here nor there. The choice for Republican senators is not between Sotomayor and some hypothetical more dangerous Obama nominee; it is between her being confirmed with their consent and her being confirmed without it.
That consent should probably not be given, and should certainly be withheld for now.
Sotomayor: Bad for Business [Iain Murray]
Sotomayor is just as liberal as Souter on social issues like affirmative action and abortion, but far more liberal even than Souter on economic issues, such as punitive damages, preemption, and employment law. The Supreme Court, including Justice Souter, unanimously reversed her decision in the Dabit case, where she allowed lawsuits that were preempted by a federal law (SLUSA).
Business will likely lose billions of dollars over time as a result of her replacing Souter. That probably won’t bother Obama, given that “Obama has regretted that the Supreme Court ‘didn’t break free’ from legal constraints to bring about ‘redistribution of wealth.’”
Judge Sotomayor has managed to take already liberal, redistributionist areas of the law and push them even further down the road in the direction of redistributing wealth to constituencies favored by government offficials. The Supreme Court ruled in the Kelo case that governments can take private property and give it to developers as part of a general redevelopment plan that they rationally believe will benefit the public good (My colleague Hans Bader argued at the time that that violated basic axioms of constitutional construction, and rendered the Constitution’s “public use” clause redundant).
But Judge Sotomayor went well beyond that, to hold that property owners have no legal redress even in the face of what legal commentators have called extortion, in Didden v. City of Port Chester. In that case, a developer told a property owner to either give him $800,000 or half his property, or he would seize it by having the Village of Port Chester condemn it. When the property owner refused, the developer promptly had the town condemn it and transfer it to him. Judge Sotomayor and two of her colleagues upheld this seizure against a constitutional challenge in an unpublished opinion. George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin called this case an example of judicially sanctioned extortion.
Judge Sotomayor has also sided with environmental extremists against businesses, trying to stop the EPA from considering cost-benefit analysis in permitting decisions, another decision that the Supreme Court overturned. See Steve Milloy's Green Hell blog for the full story.
In short, Judge Sotomayor will be much more liberal than Justice Souter when it comes to cases involving business.
Good Justices Are Made in the Image of Obama [Jonah Goldberg]
I just wrote a column about Obama and Sotomayor (it'll be up tomorrow). In the process of reading all this stuff about Obama's criteria for a Supreme Court Justice (blah, blah, empathy, blah blah blah), it occurred to me that maybe what he really wants to do is appoint himself,* or at least the best approximation of himself he can find that politics will allow.
Think about it. He places this huge emphasis on a personal narrative that produces empathy for select disadvantaged groups — minorities, single moms etc. He wants someone who is smart enough, but whose real priorities can be boiled down to trite lefty tropes about "social justice." He allegedly wants someone charming and bipartisan solely so they will seduce conservative members of the court to more liberal positions (I say "allegedly" because you often hear this ascribed to the White House, but never actually stated outright). All of these traits are hallmarks of what might be called "Obamaism."
Now I know that Obama has some very well-thought-out, or at least elaborate, arguments for his idea of a good justice. But isn't it possible that some of this is really just a rationalization for a more fundamental narcissistic projection? After all, it is hardly news that Obama thinks very highly of himself, and sees all sorts of major issues through the prism of Obama. Everything he says about what would make a great, ideal, Supreme Court justice is stuff he clearly sees in himself. I think that is at least interesting.
*Why not cut out the middlewomen and just name himself? Okay, maybe that would be unconstitutional, but he could resign with expectation that President Biden
Judging by Identity [Peter Kirsanow]
During the presidential campaign, there was considerable commentary about the prospect of a President Obama ushering in a post-racial era in America. The candidate himself fueled the commentary, frequently making sounds about the advent of a society that transcends race.The nomination of Judge Sotomayor demonstrates that identity politics not only remains alive and well, but may be accompanied by an unabashedly racialist interpretive doctrine. If there remains a sentient being in the White House press corps, he should ask Mr. Gibbs how a post-racial president could nominate to the Supreme Court a judge who said the following:
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.
So, inherent physiological differences may make a difference in one’s judging. Combined with Sotomayor’s vote in Ricci v. DeStefano, the statement suggests a judge quite comfortable with racial, ethnic, and gender preferences. In the Obama era, identity politics hasn’t gone away; it’s been joined by identity judging.
Judging by Identity II [Peter Kirsanow]
When George W. Bush nominated John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee spent considerable time analyzing the nominees’ respective interpretive doctrines. The Committee will do the same with Sotomayor.Obviously, the best evidence for a nominee’s judicial approach comes from the opinions the judge has authored. Further guidance can be gleaned from the nominee’s articles and speeches. In this regard, Sotomayor’s Berkeley lecture merits scrutiny because it describes the nominee’s view of the decisionmaking process.Senators should ask Sotomayor to expand upon her statement that “whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”Does Sotomayor contend that a judge’s interpretive approach is hard-wired to her gender and ethnicity? Does that mean that litigants should necessarily expect different decisions from a Justice Roberts than a Justice Sotomayor?What would Sotomayor think if John Roberts had made the identical statement? Is there any doubt that several members of the Judiciary Committee would’ve declared the statement sexist and racist?Does the Constitution have different meanings depending on one’s gender and ethnicity?
Sotomayor's Credentials [Ramesh Ponnuru]
Earlier today I described Sotomayor as Obama's Harriet Miers without explaining myself. What I'm suggesting is that both nominees were picked because they were women, because they were members of politically valued groups (evangelicals in Miers's case, Hispanics in Sotomayor's), and because they were considered politically reliable by the people who picked them. Neither was picked based on her impressive legal mind, although the pickers in each case doubtless believed that the nominee exceeded some threshold level of competence. These parallels seem like more than enough to justify the title of a Corner post.
But as the various outraged lefties who have commented on it correctly note, the analogy isn't perfect. For example, Sotomayor is likely to get confirmed. There's a big difference! It's also true, as Sotomayor's defenders keep saying, that Miers never served on the bench and didn't go to Ivy League schools. I am, incidentally, enjoying the spectacle of leftists who spent years saying President Bush was a moron carry on about how insane and probably racist it is for anyone to doubt the intellect of someone who went to those schools. The people who brought up this issue were Jeffrey Rosen's Democratic sources; save the racism charges for them.
For whatever it's worth, I am perfectly willing to assume that Sotomayor's IQ is north of 100. I also don't think that the issue ought to be decisive. A nominee who had a modest conception of the judicial role, constrained most importantly by the public's understanding of the meaning of the constitutional provisions to which it consented, would have my support even if he were less intelligent than the other justices; a genius nominee who held a more plastic conception of the law wouldn't. And I think that Senate Republicans would be well advised to look at the job qualifications the same way.
The Latina Lecture [Rich Lowry]
It's pretty amazing. Have we ever had a Supreme Court justice before who stated quite frankly that he or she is incapable of being objective?
Sonia Sotomayor for SCOTUS ?
Score one for liberal identity politics.
Here are a few links:
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/05/26/cupp_sotomayor_obama/
http://volokh.com/posts/1242229209.shtml
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/us/politics/27websotomayor.html?_r=1&ref=global-home
Here are a few links:
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/05/26/cupp_sotomayor_obama/
http://volokh.com/posts/1242229209.shtml
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/us/politics/27websotomayor.html?_r=1&ref=global-home
Thursday, May 21, 2009
More Commentary on Obama vs. Cheney
Good Stuff -- but Obama doesn't come off too well
Obama's National Security Speech [Andy McCarthy]
It's been a busy day, and I hope to have more to say about Vice President Cheney's terrific speech at AEI, as well as President Obama's not terrific speech at the National Archives. For now, I share with you my quick appraisal of the president's remarks, which was just posted by the New York Times in its occasional "Room for Debate" series:
President Obama’s speech is the September 10th mindset trying to come to grips with September 11th reality. It is excruciating to watch as the brute facts of life under a jihadist threat, which the president is now accountable for confronting, compel him forever to climb out of holes dug by his high-minded campaign rhetoric — the reversals on military detention, commission trials, prisoner-abuse photos, and the like.
The need to castigate his predecessor, even as he substantially adopts the Bush administration’s counterterrorism policy, is especially unbecoming in a president who purports to transcend our ideological divisions.
This was perhaps best exemplified by the president’s attack on the very military commission system he has just revived. The dig that the system only succeeded in convicting three terrorists in seven years conveniently omits the fact that the delay was largely attributed to legal challenges advanced by lawyers who now work in his own administration.
Those challenges, despite consuming years of litigation, failed to derail the commission system, which Congress simply re-authorized, substantially unchanged, after a thin Supreme Court majority erroneously struck it down in the 2006 Hamdan case. The commissions, moreover, are now being delayed several more months simply so Mr. Obama can make some cosmetic tweaks that work no real change in the commission process but will enable him to claim that they are somehow a departure from Bush commissions.
It is also not true, no matter how many times Mr. Obama and his supporters repeat it, that Guantanamo Bay and enhanced interrogation (or “torture” as they call it) are primary drivers of terrorist recruitment. The principal exacerbating factor in recruitment is successful terrorist attacks. That is what convinces the undecided to join jihadist movements, and that is what the Bush administration’s approach prevented. And if the president truly insists on “transparency,” he should stop suppressing memoranda that detail the effectiveness of the CIA interrogation program. Given his decision to reveal CIA tactics, is it too much to ask that the American people be informed about what intelligence the program yielded?
Another Take on the Obama/Cheney Speeches [Pete Hegseth]
I watched the “dueling speeches” this morning, and finally had a chance to jot down some hasty thoughts.
First, while President Obama proclaimed that he had no interest in re-litigating the problems of the past eight years, that is almost entirely what he did. In fact, as usual, it was difficult to differentiate this presidential address from a candidate Obama stump speech. Nearly every statement he made regarding terrorism, Iraq, Afghanistan, Gitmo, interrogations, etc. was (and is) consumed by a desire to stand on the rooftop and shout “I’m not George W. Bush!” Obama seems obsessed with refuting the Bush administration and I think this fact prohibits him from making sound decisions regarding the threats we face.
Second, Obama went to great pains to emphasize that Gitmo has created more terrorists than it has detained, has weakened American security, and the interrogation methods use there, and elsewhere, undermined our fight. This entire argument is premised on the belief that indefinite detention for unlawful combatants who ignore the rules of war — and alleged systematic mistreatment of said militants — provides overwhelming propaganda to our enemies and undermines our values (not to mention distressing the latte crowd across the pond).
Laying aside the debate over what is and what isn’t “torture,” it’s hard to argue with 8+ years of safety since 9/11. Yet, somehow, the interrogations we used to get valuable intelligence have "undermined" our safety. President Obama should tell that to the special operators I served with overseas — and who are still serving — who killed and captured truckloads of so-called jihadists on the battlefield with the intelligence from American interrogations. Or tell that to the American’s who were saved through intelligence we gathered that prevented attacks on our homeland.
Finally, my ears perked up when I heard the president tell Congress, “I’m not the only one who swore an oath to defend the Constitution” — implying that Congress should see him as the gold standard in defending our constitutional values. It’s true that all three branches of government have a responsibility to defend the Constitution, but there are millions more Americans — with more important jobs than the Beltway baby-kissers — who swore to defend the Constitution as well. American warriors on the battlefield put partisan allegiance aside and excute their given mission with professionalism and courage.
President Obama should think a bit more about how the actions he takes will have an affect on these “oath-takers.” When it came to the release of photos showing mistreatment, Obama made the right choice and kept them sealed (for now) in order to prevent more violence against our troops. He needs to take the same into account as he decides whether to ship dangerous terrorists out of Gitmo and provide them ever-more legal protections. Actions which could, theoretically, set dangerous terrorists free to fight another day.
The president’s juggling-act stands in stark contrast to former Vice President Cheney’s grown-up speech at AEI. After hearing President Obama literally call the Bush approach “a misguided experiment” and “a mess,” Cheney calmly dispelled the caricature of the big bad Bush sdministration.
His defense of doing what it takes — within the law and under the Constitution — struck me as the kind of gutsy, straightforward, and yet sophisticated approach our country needs from the White House. Cheney underscored the continued threat we face, and the need to support our war-fighters — and intelligence operatives — as they do the dirty work of defending the Constitution. He also emphasized that a) they must have all the tools they need (within the law); b) we can’t afford to start releasing terrorists, thereby putting our troops in more danger; and c) who cares what Europe thinks, American security is at stake here.
My guess is that most American’s will be drawn to President Obama’s souring rhetoric on the topic; but I think that if just the text of the speech was read to your average American without telling them who said it, most would side with the voice of leader, not a politician seeking to placate competing constituencies.
Stray Thought [Jay Nordlinger]
There are, of course, 10,000 things to say about President Obama’s national-security speech today, and I said just a few below. Once you start, it’s kind of hard to stop — sort of like eating potato chips. But let me offer just one more point — a somewhat offbeat one.
Obama said, “The Supreme Court that invalidated the system of prosecution at Guantanamo in 2006 was overwhelmingly appointed by Republican presidents.”
I don’t remember a president’s talking this way: about the party affiliations of presidents who appointed Supreme Court justices. I don’t recall a president’s describing a Court that way. Been following politics for a while. And I’ve never heard an important presidential national-security speech that sounded so much like a campaign speech — even in the midst of an actual campaign.
The longer you look at or ponder the speech, the less merely gassy and more offensive it appears — at least to me.
You want a contrast with Cheney’s? Cheney devoted the end of his speech to hymning the CIA interrogators who used the controversial techniques. He said,
Like so many others who serve America, they are not the kind to insist on a thank-you. But I will always be grateful to each one of them, and proud to have served with them for a time in the same cause. They, and so many others, have given honorable service to our country through all the difficulties and all the dangers. I will always admire them and wish them well.
Obama cited these very interrogations as an abomination, proof that we had lost our way, our moral bearings — had been untrue to ourselves.
Yes, these two speeches were very sharply contrasting — dueling, in that sense (even though Obama covered some of his Bush adoptions in rhetorical fog).
Hey, didn’t I say I had just one more point?
P.S. Obama said that the interrogations made us less safe — much less safe. Cheney said the opposite: that they had made the country much more safe. Big, big difference.
Obama's National Security Speech [Andy McCarthy]
It's been a busy day, and I hope to have more to say about Vice President Cheney's terrific speech at AEI, as well as President Obama's not terrific speech at the National Archives. For now, I share with you my quick appraisal of the president's remarks, which was just posted by the New York Times in its occasional "Room for Debate" series:
President Obama’s speech is the September 10th mindset trying to come to grips with September 11th reality. It is excruciating to watch as the brute facts of life under a jihadist threat, which the president is now accountable for confronting, compel him forever to climb out of holes dug by his high-minded campaign rhetoric — the reversals on military detention, commission trials, prisoner-abuse photos, and the like.
The need to castigate his predecessor, even as he substantially adopts the Bush administration’s counterterrorism policy, is especially unbecoming in a president who purports to transcend our ideological divisions.
This was perhaps best exemplified by the president’s attack on the very military commission system he has just revived. The dig that the system only succeeded in convicting three terrorists in seven years conveniently omits the fact that the delay was largely attributed to legal challenges advanced by lawyers who now work in his own administration.
Those challenges, despite consuming years of litigation, failed to derail the commission system, which Congress simply re-authorized, substantially unchanged, after a thin Supreme Court majority erroneously struck it down in the 2006 Hamdan case. The commissions, moreover, are now being delayed several more months simply so Mr. Obama can make some cosmetic tweaks that work no real change in the commission process but will enable him to claim that they are somehow a departure from Bush commissions.
It is also not true, no matter how many times Mr. Obama and his supporters repeat it, that Guantanamo Bay and enhanced interrogation (or “torture” as they call it) are primary drivers of terrorist recruitment. The principal exacerbating factor in recruitment is successful terrorist attacks. That is what convinces the undecided to join jihadist movements, and that is what the Bush administration’s approach prevented. And if the president truly insists on “transparency,” he should stop suppressing memoranda that detail the effectiveness of the CIA interrogation program. Given his decision to reveal CIA tactics, is it too much to ask that the American people be informed about what intelligence the program yielded?
Another Take on the Obama/Cheney Speeches [Pete Hegseth]
I watched the “dueling speeches” this morning, and finally had a chance to jot down some hasty thoughts.
First, while President Obama proclaimed that he had no interest in re-litigating the problems of the past eight years, that is almost entirely what he did. In fact, as usual, it was difficult to differentiate this presidential address from a candidate Obama stump speech. Nearly every statement he made regarding terrorism, Iraq, Afghanistan, Gitmo, interrogations, etc. was (and is) consumed by a desire to stand on the rooftop and shout “I’m not George W. Bush!” Obama seems obsessed with refuting the Bush administration and I think this fact prohibits him from making sound decisions regarding the threats we face.
Second, Obama went to great pains to emphasize that Gitmo has created more terrorists than it has detained, has weakened American security, and the interrogation methods use there, and elsewhere, undermined our fight. This entire argument is premised on the belief that indefinite detention for unlawful combatants who ignore the rules of war — and alleged systematic mistreatment of said militants — provides overwhelming propaganda to our enemies and undermines our values (not to mention distressing the latte crowd across the pond).
Laying aside the debate over what is and what isn’t “torture,” it’s hard to argue with 8+ years of safety since 9/11. Yet, somehow, the interrogations we used to get valuable intelligence have "undermined" our safety. President Obama should tell that to the special operators I served with overseas — and who are still serving — who killed and captured truckloads of so-called jihadists on the battlefield with the intelligence from American interrogations. Or tell that to the American’s who were saved through intelligence we gathered that prevented attacks on our homeland.
Finally, my ears perked up when I heard the president tell Congress, “I’m not the only one who swore an oath to defend the Constitution” — implying that Congress should see him as the gold standard in defending our constitutional values. It’s true that all three branches of government have a responsibility to defend the Constitution, but there are millions more Americans — with more important jobs than the Beltway baby-kissers — who swore to defend the Constitution as well. American warriors on the battlefield put partisan allegiance aside and excute their given mission with professionalism and courage.
President Obama should think a bit more about how the actions he takes will have an affect on these “oath-takers.” When it came to the release of photos showing mistreatment, Obama made the right choice and kept them sealed (for now) in order to prevent more violence against our troops. He needs to take the same into account as he decides whether to ship dangerous terrorists out of Gitmo and provide them ever-more legal protections. Actions which could, theoretically, set dangerous terrorists free to fight another day.
The president’s juggling-act stands in stark contrast to former Vice President Cheney’s grown-up speech at AEI. After hearing President Obama literally call the Bush approach “a misguided experiment” and “a mess,” Cheney calmly dispelled the caricature of the big bad Bush sdministration.
His defense of doing what it takes — within the law and under the Constitution — struck me as the kind of gutsy, straightforward, and yet sophisticated approach our country needs from the White House. Cheney underscored the continued threat we face, and the need to support our war-fighters — and intelligence operatives — as they do the dirty work of defending the Constitution. He also emphasized that a) they must have all the tools they need (within the law); b) we can’t afford to start releasing terrorists, thereby putting our troops in more danger; and c) who cares what Europe thinks, American security is at stake here.
My guess is that most American’s will be drawn to President Obama’s souring rhetoric on the topic; but I think that if just the text of the speech was read to your average American without telling them who said it, most would side with the voice of leader, not a politician seeking to placate competing constituencies.
Stray Thought [Jay Nordlinger]
There are, of course, 10,000 things to say about President Obama’s national-security speech today, and I said just a few below. Once you start, it’s kind of hard to stop — sort of like eating potato chips. But let me offer just one more point — a somewhat offbeat one.
Obama said, “The Supreme Court that invalidated the system of prosecution at Guantanamo in 2006 was overwhelmingly appointed by Republican presidents.”
I don’t remember a president’s talking this way: about the party affiliations of presidents who appointed Supreme Court justices. I don’t recall a president’s describing a Court that way. Been following politics for a while. And I’ve never heard an important presidential national-security speech that sounded so much like a campaign speech — even in the midst of an actual campaign.
The longer you look at or ponder the speech, the less merely gassy and more offensive it appears — at least to me.
You want a contrast with Cheney’s? Cheney devoted the end of his speech to hymning the CIA interrogators who used the controversial techniques. He said,
Like so many others who serve America, they are not the kind to insist on a thank-you. But I will always be grateful to each one of them, and proud to have served with them for a time in the same cause. They, and so many others, have given honorable service to our country through all the difficulties and all the dangers. I will always admire them and wish them well.
Obama cited these very interrogations as an abomination, proof that we had lost our way, our moral bearings — had been untrue to ourselves.
Yes, these two speeches were very sharply contrasting — dueling, in that sense (even though Obama covered some of his Bush adoptions in rhetorical fog).
Hey, didn’t I say I had just one more point?
P.S. Obama said that the interrogations made us less safe — much less safe. Cheney said the opposite: that they had made the country much more safe. Big, big difference.
Cheney vs. Obama on National Security ... Cheney by TKO
Of course, Cheney's speech was scheduled weeks ago, but given that they happened on the same day, the press made it out as mano v. mano.
Serious commenters cannot help but conclude that Cheney presents a cogent, thoughtful, experienced and well reasoned view; and Obama, well the same obfuscatory babble cloaked in the veneer of trying to sound forceful. In other words, NO CONTEST.
Obama's Speech: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGE0NDdkNTllNmJhZjdhMGYwNjg4ZDVjYjY5NDRiNGI=
Cheney's Speech: http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/05/text_of_cheneys_aei_speech.asp#more
Cheney vs. Obama: A mismatch
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/05/cheney_vs_obama_a_mismatch.asp
Cheney vs. Obama [Mitt Romney]
Two speeches, two very different men. Former Vice President Cheney seeks no political future. He speaks from the vantage of one who witnessed the killing of our fellow citizens, who deliberated and defined the strategy that would successfully prevent further murders of our fellow Americans.
His address today was direct, well-reasoned, and convincing.
President Obama, on the other hand, continues to speak as a politician. Contrary to the advice I and others gave him, he has placed two of his top political consultants in the West Wing, looking to them to opine on matters of national security. Barack Obama is having a hard time going from politician to president. His speech and his policies have one foot in campaign mode and another in presidential mode. He struggles to explain how he is keeping faith with the liberal advocates who promoted his campaign but in doing so, he breaks faith with the interests of the American people. When it comes to protecting the nation, we have a conflicted president. And his address today was more tortured than the enhanced interrogation techniques he decries.
It is laughable to suggest that Guantanamo is a meaningful aid in terrorist recruiting. Before Guantanamo came the first bombing of the World Trade Center, the bombing at Riyadh, the attacks on Khobar, the bombing of our embassies, the Cole. There will always be rallying cries for recruitment whether it is the existence of Israel or the freedoms enjoyed by Americans. Appeasement has not ever, does not now, and will never satisfy a foe who looks to destroy freedom and rule the world.
Vice President Cheney has been the target of every media, from mainstream to comic. But he spoke today as before without regard to the politics but with abiding respect for the truth. Barack Obama is still hanging on to the campaign trail. He said that the last thing he thinks about when he goes to sleep at night is keeping America safe. That's a big difference with Vice President Cheney—when it came to protecting Americans, he never went to sleep.
Cheney: Adult [Peter Kirsanow]
A serious, important speech.
Politicians and the media seem unduly impressed by favorability polls, often drawing unwarranted conclusions from them. Since Cheney has relatively high unfavorables, it's assumed that the public dismisses his statements.
It would be interesting to see the results of a more finely calibrated poll, one that compares how well-respected, competent, and effective the subject is perceived to be relative to similarly situated individuals. As a friend succinctly puts it, "When that big asteroid finally heads toward Earth, who's the person you'd most want to be in charge?" I suspect Cheney would score at or near the top.
Conservatives can only speculate about the state of affairs had we seen more of this type of detailed, sober defense during President Bush's tenure.
A Few Criticisms . . . [Jay Nordlinger]
. . . of Obama’s national-security speech. Just a few, for now.
1. Obama said the following about what he called America’s “brutal methods” of interrogation: “They risk the lives of our troops by making it less likely that others will surrender to them in battle, and more likely that Americans will be mistreated if they are captured.”
In my view, the first part of that statement is arguable — “They risk the lives of our troops by making it less likely that others will surrender to them in battle.” But the second part is flat-out false. Qaedists determine how they treat Americans by how Americans treat Qaeda detainees? Ridiculous. There is no reciprocity in the Qaeda playbook or mindset. They simply chainsaw away.
I regard this as an embarrassingly naive comment from the president of the United States. I wonder who fed him the notion — or whether he made it up himself or what.
I remember a tour I had of a detainee camp in Iraq last fall. We give them all sorts of classes: Islamic studies, nutrition, art, blah, blah, blah. There is a class on sewing, too. The instructor showed us “the graduation piece” the detainees make: a stuffed camel. I found myself thinking, somewhat bitterly: Gee, what’s the graduation piece for Americans in a Qaeda camp — if there were such camps, which, to my knowledge, there are not?
2. This is just a general comment: I think Obama found himself in a real jam about Guantanamo. He and the rest of the Left had made a bogey of it. They talk about how Gitmo became a symbol for our enemies, or potential enemies, abroad. I think it became more of a symbol for them — for our Left. Well, Obama wins the election, and he finds that Guantanamo does the job. He finds that other options are lousy. But he is stuck with his original language and assertions.
What to do? You can’t admit error; you can’t cut the Bush administration any slack. So you cover Guantanamo with a fog of words. You just brazen it out, rhetorically, trusting in a cooperative press, and in favorable world opinion. I think that is what Obama has done in this speech.
3. At a certain juncture, Obama said, “I want to be honest: . . .” That is slightly dangerous for a speechmaker: It implies that other parts of the speech — not so much.
4. Twice, Obama spoke of the “mess” at Gitmo, no doubt thinking it would be politically useful. But, when his attorney general went there, he found it a well-run, admirable prison. Which it is, by every conscientious account. So . . .?
5. Obama spoke of “those who think that America’s safety and success requires us to walk away from the sacred principles enshrined in this building” (the National Archives). Names, please? And does it become presidents to construct strawmen in this way?
I remember something charming that William Safire put in his memoir of the first Nixon administration — a very charming book. He said that, now and then, he felt someone should propose the easy way. Because the president was always saying, “Some have counseled that we take the easy way. But I . . .”
6. Obama named Zaccarias Moussaoui “the 20th 9/11 hijacker.” So it wasn’t Rush Limbaugh? Wasn’t the president chortling about that, a couple of weeks ago? All class, all class.
re: The Two Speeches [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
An e-mail:
The speeches are characteristic of the two men. The one appropriate to a campaign, the other to the business of government.
Obama vs. Cheney [Dana Perino]
The media seem so desperate for a fight that they’ve failed in almost every case to point out that Vice President Cheney’s AEI speech was scheduled weeks ago. I’m not suggesting the White House needs to check all of the think tanks in town before scheduling a speech, but this notion that the vice president was trying to set up a fight with President Obama on this exact day is nonsense. But it sells papers . . . well, they can hope it sells papers.
The president says that we lost our way in the war on terror. I disagree. We didn’t lose our way — we set up a structure to win.
I wish the Democrats would put half as much energy into fighting terrorists as they do in fighting Dick Cheney.
I also saw that the White House floated the idea of defending preemption today. Pause a moment to think about that. But I’m sure the New York Times editorial board will praise it as a tough decision by a fantastic commander-in-chief.
Once today’s fake duel is over, let’s hope we get back to some sanity in this discussion.
Meanwhile, the terrorists are still at work.
Closing Gitmo [Michael Rubin]
More live-blogging: Obama argues that Gitmo serves as a rallying point for jihadists and al-Qaeda terrorists and that this makes the United States less safe.
Question: How does the president address the fact that al-Qaeda struck and struck persistently before Gitmo?
This suggests that the problem, again, is ideology — and specifically al-Qaeda's ideology — rather than Gitmo. We will be less secure unless we focus on the ideological problem rather than blaming ourselves.
05/21 10:47 AMShare
First Reaction to Obama Speech [Michael Rubin]
A bit of live-blogging. It’s one thing to speak of an extremist ideology, but refusal to name that ideology belies the seriousness with which we should face the threat. And it’s one thing to praise the re-energization of the nuclear non-proliferation regime, but this too has become a mockery, as North Korea and Iran show every single day.
The basic issue which Obama is dancing around is whether terrorism is a police issue or a military issue. The difference is stark: If a police issue, in reality, we deal with the threat after the "crime" has occurred. If a military issue, we address preemptively.
The moral contrast argument is a diversion. We are a nation of laws, a nation of law for U.S. citizens and those on U.S. soil. Trying to apply U.S. law or even international law to those to whom they were never meant to apply undercuts security and undercuts the status of law. Ted Lapkin explains well, here. What Obama in effect does is take away any incentive for terrorists to adhere to rule of law.
To me, Obama is unserious if he believes his own drivel:
"our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions"
There's much much more ... this is just a sampling.
Read the speeches at least.
Serious commenters cannot help but conclude that Cheney presents a cogent, thoughtful, experienced and well reasoned view; and Obama, well the same obfuscatory babble cloaked in the veneer of trying to sound forceful. In other words, NO CONTEST.
Obama's Speech: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGE0NDdkNTllNmJhZjdhMGYwNjg4ZDVjYjY5NDRiNGI=
Cheney's Speech: http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/05/text_of_cheneys_aei_speech.asp#more
Cheney vs. Obama: A mismatch
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/05/cheney_vs_obama_a_mismatch.asp
Cheney vs. Obama [Mitt Romney]
Two speeches, two very different men. Former Vice President Cheney seeks no political future. He speaks from the vantage of one who witnessed the killing of our fellow citizens, who deliberated and defined the strategy that would successfully prevent further murders of our fellow Americans.
His address today was direct, well-reasoned, and convincing.
President Obama, on the other hand, continues to speak as a politician. Contrary to the advice I and others gave him, he has placed two of his top political consultants in the West Wing, looking to them to opine on matters of national security. Barack Obama is having a hard time going from politician to president. His speech and his policies have one foot in campaign mode and another in presidential mode. He struggles to explain how he is keeping faith with the liberal advocates who promoted his campaign but in doing so, he breaks faith with the interests of the American people. When it comes to protecting the nation, we have a conflicted president. And his address today was more tortured than the enhanced interrogation techniques he decries.
It is laughable to suggest that Guantanamo is a meaningful aid in terrorist recruiting. Before Guantanamo came the first bombing of the World Trade Center, the bombing at Riyadh, the attacks on Khobar, the bombing of our embassies, the Cole. There will always be rallying cries for recruitment whether it is the existence of Israel or the freedoms enjoyed by Americans. Appeasement has not ever, does not now, and will never satisfy a foe who looks to destroy freedom and rule the world.
Vice President Cheney has been the target of every media, from mainstream to comic. But he spoke today as before without regard to the politics but with abiding respect for the truth. Barack Obama is still hanging on to the campaign trail. He said that the last thing he thinks about when he goes to sleep at night is keeping America safe. That's a big difference with Vice President Cheney—when it came to protecting Americans, he never went to sleep.
Cheney: Adult [Peter Kirsanow]
A serious, important speech.
Politicians and the media seem unduly impressed by favorability polls, often drawing unwarranted conclusions from them. Since Cheney has relatively high unfavorables, it's assumed that the public dismisses his statements.
It would be interesting to see the results of a more finely calibrated poll, one that compares how well-respected, competent, and effective the subject is perceived to be relative to similarly situated individuals. As a friend succinctly puts it, "When that big asteroid finally heads toward Earth, who's the person you'd most want to be in charge?" I suspect Cheney would score at or near the top.
Conservatives can only speculate about the state of affairs had we seen more of this type of detailed, sober defense during President Bush's tenure.
A Few Criticisms . . . [Jay Nordlinger]
. . . of Obama’s national-security speech. Just a few, for now.
1. Obama said the following about what he called America’s “brutal methods” of interrogation: “They risk the lives of our troops by making it less likely that others will surrender to them in battle, and more likely that Americans will be mistreated if they are captured.”
In my view, the first part of that statement is arguable — “They risk the lives of our troops by making it less likely that others will surrender to them in battle.” But the second part is flat-out false. Qaedists determine how they treat Americans by how Americans treat Qaeda detainees? Ridiculous. There is no reciprocity in the Qaeda playbook or mindset. They simply chainsaw away.
I regard this as an embarrassingly naive comment from the president of the United States. I wonder who fed him the notion — or whether he made it up himself or what.
I remember a tour I had of a detainee camp in Iraq last fall. We give them all sorts of classes: Islamic studies, nutrition, art, blah, blah, blah. There is a class on sewing, too. The instructor showed us “the graduation piece” the detainees make: a stuffed camel. I found myself thinking, somewhat bitterly: Gee, what’s the graduation piece for Americans in a Qaeda camp — if there were such camps, which, to my knowledge, there are not?
2. This is just a general comment: I think Obama found himself in a real jam about Guantanamo. He and the rest of the Left had made a bogey of it. They talk about how Gitmo became a symbol for our enemies, or potential enemies, abroad. I think it became more of a symbol for them — for our Left. Well, Obama wins the election, and he finds that Guantanamo does the job. He finds that other options are lousy. But he is stuck with his original language and assertions.
What to do? You can’t admit error; you can’t cut the Bush administration any slack. So you cover Guantanamo with a fog of words. You just brazen it out, rhetorically, trusting in a cooperative press, and in favorable world opinion. I think that is what Obama has done in this speech.
3. At a certain juncture, Obama said, “I want to be honest: . . .” That is slightly dangerous for a speechmaker: It implies that other parts of the speech — not so much.
4. Twice, Obama spoke of the “mess” at Gitmo, no doubt thinking it would be politically useful. But, when his attorney general went there, he found it a well-run, admirable prison. Which it is, by every conscientious account. So . . .?
5. Obama spoke of “those who think that America’s safety and success requires us to walk away from the sacred principles enshrined in this building” (the National Archives). Names, please? And does it become presidents to construct strawmen in this way?
I remember something charming that William Safire put in his memoir of the first Nixon administration — a very charming book. He said that, now and then, he felt someone should propose the easy way. Because the president was always saying, “Some have counseled that we take the easy way. But I . . .”
6. Obama named Zaccarias Moussaoui “the 20th 9/11 hijacker.” So it wasn’t Rush Limbaugh? Wasn’t the president chortling about that, a couple of weeks ago? All class, all class.
re: The Two Speeches [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
An e-mail:
The speeches are characteristic of the two men. The one appropriate to a campaign, the other to the business of government.
Obama vs. Cheney [Dana Perino]
The media seem so desperate for a fight that they’ve failed in almost every case to point out that Vice President Cheney’s AEI speech was scheduled weeks ago. I’m not suggesting the White House needs to check all of the think tanks in town before scheduling a speech, but this notion that the vice president was trying to set up a fight with President Obama on this exact day is nonsense. But it sells papers . . . well, they can hope it sells papers.
The president says that we lost our way in the war on terror. I disagree. We didn’t lose our way — we set up a structure to win.
I wish the Democrats would put half as much energy into fighting terrorists as they do in fighting Dick Cheney.
I also saw that the White House floated the idea of defending preemption today. Pause a moment to think about that. But I’m sure the New York Times editorial board will praise it as a tough decision by a fantastic commander-in-chief.
Once today’s fake duel is over, let’s hope we get back to some sanity in this discussion.
Meanwhile, the terrorists are still at work.
Closing Gitmo [Michael Rubin]
More live-blogging: Obama argues that Gitmo serves as a rallying point for jihadists and al-Qaeda terrorists and that this makes the United States less safe.
Question: How does the president address the fact that al-Qaeda struck and struck persistently before Gitmo?
This suggests that the problem, again, is ideology — and specifically al-Qaeda's ideology — rather than Gitmo. We will be less secure unless we focus on the ideological problem rather than blaming ourselves.
05/21 10:47 AMShare
First Reaction to Obama Speech [Michael Rubin]
A bit of live-blogging. It’s one thing to speak of an extremist ideology, but refusal to name that ideology belies the seriousness with which we should face the threat. And it’s one thing to praise the re-energization of the nuclear non-proliferation regime, but this too has become a mockery, as North Korea and Iran show every single day.
The basic issue which Obama is dancing around is whether terrorism is a police issue or a military issue. The difference is stark: If a police issue, in reality, we deal with the threat after the "crime" has occurred. If a military issue, we address preemptively.
The moral contrast argument is a diversion. We are a nation of laws, a nation of law for U.S. citizens and those on U.S. soil. Trying to apply U.S. law or even international law to those to whom they were never meant to apply undercuts security and undercuts the status of law. Ted Lapkin explains well, here. What Obama in effect does is take away any incentive for terrorists to adhere to rule of law.
To me, Obama is unserious if he believes his own drivel:
"our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions"
There's much much more ... this is just a sampling.
Read the speeches at least.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Obama tramples Creditor Rights to favor Union benefactors
Fund Managers Burned by Obama Now Say They Are Wary (Update1) 2009-05-20
By Caroline Salas
May 20 (Bloomberg) — Hedge fund manager George Schultze says he may avoid lending to any more unionized companies after being burned by President Barack Obama in Chrysler LLC’s bankruptcy.
Obama put Chrysler under court protection on April 30 after lenders balked at a proposal giving them about 29 cents on the dollar for their $6.9 billion in debt. The investors said the president’s plan favored a union retiree medical fund whose claims ranked behind them for repayment. It was offered a 55 percent equity stake in the automaker.
Pacific Investment Management Co., Barclays Capital and Fridson Investment Advisors have joined Schultze Asset Management LLC in saying lenders may be unwilling to back unionized companies with underfunded pension and medical obligations, such as airlines and auto-industry suppliers, because Chrysler’s creditors failed to block Obama’s move. The reluctance may put additional pressure on borrowers seeking capital in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
“Lenders will have to figure out how to price this risk,”
Schultze, 39, said in a telephone interview from his office in Purchase, New York. “The obvious one is: Don’t lend to a company with big legacy liabilities or demand a much higher rate of interest because you may be leapfrogged in a bankruptcy.”
Dissident Lenders
Schultze, whose firm had about $247.7 million under management in February, according to a regulatory filing, declined to disclose which company debt he may avoid.
He was among the last holdouts. The dissident lenders to the Auburn Hills, Michigan-based automaker — including OppenheimerFunds Inc. and Perella Weinberg Capital Management LP, both in New York — caved after Obama blamed hedge fund “speculators” for the bankruptcy of the 83-year-old car company and said he stood with its employees.
At its peak, the group consisted of 30 funds holding more than $1 billion, according to Tom Lauria of White & Case LLP, the investors’ attorney, who is based in Miami and New York.
“Anything that involves a large number of jobs or affects a large number of people, you can expect to see a Chrysler redux,” Jerry del Missier, president of Barclays Capital, said in an interview from his New York office. “One of the consequences here is the so-called speculators, people who provide financing, will think twice about getting involved.”
Barclays Plc, based in London, is the third-biggest U.K.
bank.
‘Rights Were Trashed’
Jack Welch, former chief executive officer of General Electric Co., criticized how the government handled Chrysler’s bankruptcy, saying unions were favored at the expense of creditors.
“I didn’t like the terms,” Welch, 73, said in an interview yesterday at the Boston Convention Center. “The creditors’ rights were trashed and the unions got 55 percent of the company.”
The struggle between creditors and labor has also reached Hartmarx Corp., the 122-year-old clothing maker in Chicago that made the suit Obama wore to his inauguration. Unions are gaining government support in a fight against Wells Fargo & Co., the bankrupt company’s lender.
More than 30 members of Congress, including House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank are urging the San Francisco bank not to liquidate the clothier, according to Representative Phil Hare, an Illinois Democrat. The lawmakers are also seeking Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s backing.
Hare said last week that Wells Fargo, the fourth-largest U.S. lender, is responsible for Hartmarx’s collapse because it refused to extend credit. Wells Fargo said in a statement the bank wants the suit maker, which defaulted on more than $114 million in loans, to “stay in business.”
Preferential Treatment
General Motors Corp., which accepted $15.4 billion in U.S.
taxpayer aid, is also giving unions preferential treatment over bondholders in its restructuring, even though their claims rank equally. The biggest owners of GM debt include San Mateo, California-based Franklin Resources Inc. and Capital Research & Management Co. of Los Angeles, regulatory filings show.
Detroit-based GM on April 27 asked the investors to swap
$27 billion in debt for a 10 percent stake in the reorganized automaker, while offering a retiree health-care fund $10 billion in cash and as much as a 39 percent stake for $20 billion in unsecured claims.
“It’s terrible precedent,” said Schultze. “The sad thing is it impacts the manufacturing sector and the companies that have legacy liabilities directly. It will be nearly impossible, or much more expensive, to get secured financing for these type of companies.”
Offer Rejected
Unions spent $52 million to help elect Obama, which includes $5 million from the United Auto Workers, according to OpenSecrets.org, a Washington-based organization that tracks campaign spending. Roger Kerson, a spokesman for the UAW in Detroit, declined to comment.
A committee of GM bondholders rejected the offer and asked Obama’s auto task force on April 30 for 58 percent of the company’s equity. Their proposal hasn’t been adopted and bankruptcy is “probable,” Fritz Henderson, GM’s chief executive officer, said in a Bloomberg Television interview last week.
‘Strong-Arm’
The U.S. bankruptcy code allows for workers to get preference over bondholders, said Richard Hahn, co-chairman of the bankruptcy practice at Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, a New York law firm, who isn’t involved in the GM negotiations. Section
1114 of the bankruptcy code requires that a debtor “timely pay” all “retiree benefits” unless the bankruptcy court orders otherwise or the authorized representative of the recipients of those benefits agrees to other treatment, he said.
Chrysler lenders might have recovered nothing if the government hadn’t poured billions of dollars into the carmaker, said Gary Hindes, managing director of distressed investments at Deltec Asset Management LLC in New York. The hedge fund firm didn’t buy the company’s debt or GM’s, in part because of the risk the government’s involvement would damp returns, Hindes said.
“If you’re being paid more than what you would be paid in a liquidation, then the contractual obligation has been met,”
said Hindes, whose firm oversees about $526 million, according to a regulatory filing. “It’s still very disturbing to see the government basically strong-arm people into this.”
$4.2 Billion
While debt prices haven’t yet reflected the shunning of unionized companies by investors, steel and automakers and airlines will face higher borrowing costs when they attempt to raise funds, Schultze said.
Fort Worth, Texas-based AMR Corp. employs about 90,000 and
67 percent are represented by unions. AMR had about $4.2 billion in underfunded pension obligations as of year-end, according to Fitch Ratings.
AMR, the parent of American Airlines, is rated Caa2 by Moody’s Investors Service and B- by Standard & Poor’s, four and six levels above default.
Andy Backover, an American spokesman, declined comment.
Airline bonds haven’t fallen since Chrysler’s April 30 bankruptcy. High-yield air transportation debt is up 5.4 percent in May, outperforming the 3.8 percent climb in the average junk bond, according to Merrill Lynch & Co.’s U.S. High Yield Master II index.
Speculative-grade bonds for auto and auto-part makers are up 3.9 percent.
‘Justifiably Concerned’
“Creditors are justifiably concerned” about what precedent the auto bailouts are setting, said Mark Kiesel, global head of corporate bond portfolios at Pimco in Newport Beach, California. Pimco managed $747 billion as of Dec. 31.
“When you get these companies that have legacy costs, that’s something you have to factor in when evaluating credit risk,” Kiesel said. “Any investor is going to price in increasing political risk in considering where to put their money.”
Pimco, manager of the world’s largest bond fund, didn’t have a stake in Chrysler and owns an “infinitesimally small”
amount of GM debt, according to a report by co-chief investment officer Bill Gross on the firm’s Web site.
The government’s “grassroots trend” signals “an increasing uncertainty of cash flows from financial assets” and risk premiums will increase as a result, Gross wrote.
Small-Car Technology
GM’s $3 billion of 8.375 percent bonds due in 2033 have plummeted to 5.5 cents on the dollar from 21 cents at the beginning of the year, according to Trace, the price reporting system of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. The debt yields 146 percent.
Chrysler began a bankruptcy process last month designed to revive the business. It will focus on small-car technology through a new partnership with Turin-based Fiat SpA, Italy’s biggest automaker. Obama says the plan will save more than 30,000 jobs.
A group of senior secured creditors, the Committee of Chrysler Non-Tarp Lenders, opposed Obama’s plan. Putting labor ahead of them in line for repayment violated “long-recognized legal and business principles,” the investors said in a statement the day Chrysler filed for protection.
The committee gave up fighting on May 8 “after a great deal of soul-searching and, quite frankly, agony” and concluded that “they just don’t have critical mass to withstand the enormous machinery of the U.S. government,” said White & Case’s Lauria in an interview that day.
“People are starting to think ‘This is a very activist administration, even more than we counted on,’” said Martin Fridson, CEO of money manager Fridson Investment Advisors in New York. “If it comes down to the interest of creditors or labor unions, the administration is going to override what you thought you could do.”
By Caroline Salas
May 20 (Bloomberg) — Hedge fund manager George Schultze says he may avoid lending to any more unionized companies after being burned by President Barack Obama in Chrysler LLC’s bankruptcy.
Obama put Chrysler under court protection on April 30 after lenders balked at a proposal giving them about 29 cents on the dollar for their $6.9 billion in debt. The investors said the president’s plan favored a union retiree medical fund whose claims ranked behind them for repayment. It was offered a 55 percent equity stake in the automaker.
Pacific Investment Management Co., Barclays Capital and Fridson Investment Advisors have joined Schultze Asset Management LLC in saying lenders may be unwilling to back unionized companies with underfunded pension and medical obligations, such as airlines and auto-industry suppliers, because Chrysler’s creditors failed to block Obama’s move. The reluctance may put additional pressure on borrowers seeking capital in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
“Lenders will have to figure out how to price this risk,”
Schultze, 39, said in a telephone interview from his office in Purchase, New York. “The obvious one is: Don’t lend to a company with big legacy liabilities or demand a much higher rate of interest because you may be leapfrogged in a bankruptcy.”
Dissident Lenders
Schultze, whose firm had about $247.7 million under management in February, according to a regulatory filing, declined to disclose which company debt he may avoid.
He was among the last holdouts. The dissident lenders to the Auburn Hills, Michigan-based automaker — including OppenheimerFunds Inc. and Perella Weinberg Capital Management LP, both in New York — caved after Obama blamed hedge fund “speculators” for the bankruptcy of the 83-year-old car company and said he stood with its employees.
At its peak, the group consisted of 30 funds holding more than $1 billion, according to Tom Lauria of White & Case LLP, the investors’ attorney, who is based in Miami and New York.
“Anything that involves a large number of jobs or affects a large number of people, you can expect to see a Chrysler redux,” Jerry del Missier, president of Barclays Capital, said in an interview from his New York office. “One of the consequences here is the so-called speculators, people who provide financing, will think twice about getting involved.”
Barclays Plc, based in London, is the third-biggest U.K.
bank.
‘Rights Were Trashed’
Jack Welch, former chief executive officer of General Electric Co., criticized how the government handled Chrysler’s bankruptcy, saying unions were favored at the expense of creditors.
“I didn’t like the terms,” Welch, 73, said in an interview yesterday at the Boston Convention Center. “The creditors’ rights were trashed and the unions got 55 percent of the company.”
The struggle between creditors and labor has also reached Hartmarx Corp., the 122-year-old clothing maker in Chicago that made the suit Obama wore to his inauguration. Unions are gaining government support in a fight against Wells Fargo & Co., the bankrupt company’s lender.
More than 30 members of Congress, including House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank are urging the San Francisco bank not to liquidate the clothier, according to Representative Phil Hare, an Illinois Democrat. The lawmakers are also seeking Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s backing.
Hare said last week that Wells Fargo, the fourth-largest U.S. lender, is responsible for Hartmarx’s collapse because it refused to extend credit. Wells Fargo said in a statement the bank wants the suit maker, which defaulted on more than $114 million in loans, to “stay in business.”
Preferential Treatment
General Motors Corp., which accepted $15.4 billion in U.S.
taxpayer aid, is also giving unions preferential treatment over bondholders in its restructuring, even though their claims rank equally. The biggest owners of GM debt include San Mateo, California-based Franklin Resources Inc. and Capital Research & Management Co. of Los Angeles, regulatory filings show.
Detroit-based GM on April 27 asked the investors to swap
$27 billion in debt for a 10 percent stake in the reorganized automaker, while offering a retiree health-care fund $10 billion in cash and as much as a 39 percent stake for $20 billion in unsecured claims.
“It’s terrible precedent,” said Schultze. “The sad thing is it impacts the manufacturing sector and the companies that have legacy liabilities directly. It will be nearly impossible, or much more expensive, to get secured financing for these type of companies.”
Offer Rejected
Unions spent $52 million to help elect Obama, which includes $5 million from the United Auto Workers, according to OpenSecrets.org, a Washington-based organization that tracks campaign spending. Roger Kerson, a spokesman for the UAW in Detroit, declined to comment.
A committee of GM bondholders rejected the offer and asked Obama’s auto task force on April 30 for 58 percent of the company’s equity. Their proposal hasn’t been adopted and bankruptcy is “probable,” Fritz Henderson, GM’s chief executive officer, said in a Bloomberg Television interview last week.
‘Strong-Arm’
The U.S. bankruptcy code allows for workers to get preference over bondholders, said Richard Hahn, co-chairman of the bankruptcy practice at Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, a New York law firm, who isn’t involved in the GM negotiations. Section
1114 of the bankruptcy code requires that a debtor “timely pay” all “retiree benefits” unless the bankruptcy court orders otherwise or the authorized representative of the recipients of those benefits agrees to other treatment, he said.
Chrysler lenders might have recovered nothing if the government hadn’t poured billions of dollars into the carmaker, said Gary Hindes, managing director of distressed investments at Deltec Asset Management LLC in New York. The hedge fund firm didn’t buy the company’s debt or GM’s, in part because of the risk the government’s involvement would damp returns, Hindes said.
“If you’re being paid more than what you would be paid in a liquidation, then the contractual obligation has been met,”
said Hindes, whose firm oversees about $526 million, according to a regulatory filing. “It’s still very disturbing to see the government basically strong-arm people into this.”
$4.2 Billion
While debt prices haven’t yet reflected the shunning of unionized companies by investors, steel and automakers and airlines will face higher borrowing costs when they attempt to raise funds, Schultze said.
Fort Worth, Texas-based AMR Corp. employs about 90,000 and
67 percent are represented by unions. AMR had about $4.2 billion in underfunded pension obligations as of year-end, according to Fitch Ratings.
AMR, the parent of American Airlines, is rated Caa2 by Moody’s Investors Service and B- by Standard & Poor’s, four and six levels above default.
Andy Backover, an American spokesman, declined comment.
Airline bonds haven’t fallen since Chrysler’s April 30 bankruptcy. High-yield air transportation debt is up 5.4 percent in May, outperforming the 3.8 percent climb in the average junk bond, according to Merrill Lynch & Co.’s U.S. High Yield Master II index.
Speculative-grade bonds for auto and auto-part makers are up 3.9 percent.
‘Justifiably Concerned’
“Creditors are justifiably concerned” about what precedent the auto bailouts are setting, said Mark Kiesel, global head of corporate bond portfolios at Pimco in Newport Beach, California. Pimco managed $747 billion as of Dec. 31.
“When you get these companies that have legacy costs, that’s something you have to factor in when evaluating credit risk,” Kiesel said. “Any investor is going to price in increasing political risk in considering where to put their money.”
Pimco, manager of the world’s largest bond fund, didn’t have a stake in Chrysler and owns an “infinitesimally small”
amount of GM debt, according to a report by co-chief investment officer Bill Gross on the firm’s Web site.
The government’s “grassroots trend” signals “an increasing uncertainty of cash flows from financial assets” and risk premiums will increase as a result, Gross wrote.
Small-Car Technology
GM’s $3 billion of 8.375 percent bonds due in 2033 have plummeted to 5.5 cents on the dollar from 21 cents at the beginning of the year, according to Trace, the price reporting system of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. The debt yields 146 percent.
Chrysler began a bankruptcy process last month designed to revive the business. It will focus on small-car technology through a new partnership with Turin-based Fiat SpA, Italy’s biggest automaker. Obama says the plan will save more than 30,000 jobs.
A group of senior secured creditors, the Committee of Chrysler Non-Tarp Lenders, opposed Obama’s plan. Putting labor ahead of them in line for repayment violated “long-recognized legal and business principles,” the investors said in a statement the day Chrysler filed for protection.
The committee gave up fighting on May 8 “after a great deal of soul-searching and, quite frankly, agony” and concluded that “they just don’t have critical mass to withstand the enormous machinery of the U.S. government,” said White & Case’s Lauria in an interview that day.
“People are starting to think ‘This is a very activist administration, even more than we counted on,’” said Martin Fridson, CEO of money manager Fridson Investment Advisors in New York. “If it comes down to the interest of creditors or labor unions, the administration is going to override what you thought you could do.”
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Obama & Israel -- more VERY troubling signs
This is definitely not good ....
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmE3ZmUwZDY0ZmFiMzllYTJiY2UwOTllNjBjYTY2MGQ=
Obama’s U.N. Mistake
America is now on a collision course with Israel.
By Anne Bayefsky
In advance of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the United States on Monday, President Obama unveiled a new strategy for throwing Israel to the wolves. It takes the form of enthusiasm for the United Nations and international interlopers of all kinds. Instead of ensuring strong American control over the course of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations or the Arab-Israeli peace process, the Obama administration is busy inserting an international mob between the U.S. and Israel. The thinking goes: If Israel doesn’t fall into an American line, Obama will step out of the way, claim his hands are tied, and let the U.N. and other international gangsters have at their prey.
It began this past Monday with the adoption of a so-called presidential statement by the U.N. Security Council. Such statements are not law, but they must be adopted unanimously — meaning that U.S. approval was essential and at any time Obama could have stopped its adoption. Instead, he agreed to this: “The Security Council supports the proposal of the Russian Federation to convene, in consultation with the Quartet and the parties, an international conference on the Middle East peace process in Moscow in 2009.”
This move is several steps beyond what the Bush administration did in approving Security Council resolutions in December and January — which said only that “The Security Council welcomes the Quartet’s consideration, in consultation with the parties, of an international meeting in Moscow in 2009.” Apparently Obama prefers a playing field with 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, 22 members of the Arab League — most of whom don’t recognize the right of Israel to exist — and one Jewish state. A great idea — if the purpose is to ensure Israel comes begging for American protection.
The U.N. presidential statement also makes laudatory references to another third-party venture, the 2002 Arab “Peace” Initiative. That’s a Saudi plan to force Israel to retreat to indefensible borders in advance of what most Arab states still believe will be a final putsch down the road. America’s U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice, announced to the Security Council that “we intend to integrate the Arab Peace Initiative into our own approach.”
Make no mistake: This U.N. move, made with U.S. approval, sets America on a well-calculated collision course with Israel. U.S. collusion on this presidential statement was directly at odds with Israel’s wishes and well-founded concerns about the U.N.’s bona fides on anything related to Israel. Israeli U.N. ambassador Gabriella Shalev issued a statement of Israel’s position: “Israel does not believe that the involvement of the Security Council contributes to the political process in the Middle East. This process should be bilateral and left to the parties themselves. Furthermore, the timing of this Security Council meeting is inappropriate as the Israeli government is in the midst of conducting a policy review, prior to next week's visit by Prime Minister Netanyahu to the United States. . . . Israel shared its position with members of the Security Council.”
By contrast, Rice told reporters: “We had a very useful and constructive meeting thus far of the Council. We welcome Foreign Minister Lavrov’s initiative to convene the Council, and we’re very pleased with the constructive and comprehensive statement that will be issued by the president of the Council on the Council’s behalf. This was a product of really collaborative, good-faith efforts by all members of the Council, and we’re pleased with the outcome.”
The Obama administration’s total disregard of Israel’s obvious interest in keeping the U.N. on the sidelines was striking. Instead of reiterating the obvious — that peace will not come if bigots and autocrats are permitted to ram an international “solution” down the throat of the only democracy at the table — Rice told the Council: “The United States cannot be left to do all the heavy lifting by itself, and other countries . . . must do all that they can to shore up our common efforts.” In a break with decades of U.S. policy, the Obama strategy is to energize a U.N. bad cop so that the U.S. might assume the role of good cop — for a price.
On Tuesday the Obama administration did it again: It ran for a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council. As expected, the administration won election to represent the Council’s Western European and Others Group — it was a three-state contest for three spaces.
The Council is most famous, not for protecting human rights, but for its obsession with Israel. In its three-year history it has:
adopted more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than condemning the 191 other U.N. members combined;
entrenched an agenda with only ten items, one permanently reserved for condemning Israel and another for condemning any other U.N. state that might “require the Council’s attention”;
held ten regular sessions on human rights, and five special sessions to condemn only Israel;
insisted on an investigator with an open-ended mandate to condemn Israel, while all other investigators must be regularly renewed;
spawned constant investigations on Israel, and abolished human-rights investigations (launched by its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights) into Belarus, Cuba, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.
Moreover, every morning before the Human Rights Council starts, all states — and even observers like the Palestinians — get together in their regional blocs for an hour to negotiate, share information, and determine positions. All, that is, except Israel. The Western European and Others Group refuses to give Israel full membership. Now the U.S. will be complicit in this injustice.
Joining the Council has one immediate effect on U.S.-Israel relations: It gives the Obama administration a new stick to use against Israel. Having legitimized the forum through its membership and participation, the U.S. can now attempt to extract concessions from Israel in return for American objections to the Council’s constant anti-Israel barrage.
Obama administration officials may believe they can put the lid back on Pandora’s box after having invited the U.N., Russia, the Arab League, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference to jump into the process of manufacturing a Palestinian state while Israel is literally under fire. They have badly miscalculated. By making his bed with countries that have no serious interest in democratic values, the president has made our world a much more dangerous place.
— Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and at Touro College. She is also editor of www.EyeontheUN.org.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmE3ZmUwZDY0ZmFiMzllYTJiY2UwOTllNjBjYTY2MGQ=
Obama’s U.N. Mistake
America is now on a collision course with Israel.
By Anne Bayefsky
In advance of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the United States on Monday, President Obama unveiled a new strategy for throwing Israel to the wolves. It takes the form of enthusiasm for the United Nations and international interlopers of all kinds. Instead of ensuring strong American control over the course of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations or the Arab-Israeli peace process, the Obama administration is busy inserting an international mob between the U.S. and Israel. The thinking goes: If Israel doesn’t fall into an American line, Obama will step out of the way, claim his hands are tied, and let the U.N. and other international gangsters have at their prey.
It began this past Monday with the adoption of a so-called presidential statement by the U.N. Security Council. Such statements are not law, but they must be adopted unanimously — meaning that U.S. approval was essential and at any time Obama could have stopped its adoption. Instead, he agreed to this: “The Security Council supports the proposal of the Russian Federation to convene, in consultation with the Quartet and the parties, an international conference on the Middle East peace process in Moscow in 2009.”
This move is several steps beyond what the Bush administration did in approving Security Council resolutions in December and January — which said only that “The Security Council welcomes the Quartet’s consideration, in consultation with the parties, of an international meeting in Moscow in 2009.” Apparently Obama prefers a playing field with 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, 22 members of the Arab League — most of whom don’t recognize the right of Israel to exist — and one Jewish state. A great idea — if the purpose is to ensure Israel comes begging for American protection.
The U.N. presidential statement also makes laudatory references to another third-party venture, the 2002 Arab “Peace” Initiative. That’s a Saudi plan to force Israel to retreat to indefensible borders in advance of what most Arab states still believe will be a final putsch down the road. America’s U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice, announced to the Security Council that “we intend to integrate the Arab Peace Initiative into our own approach.”
Make no mistake: This U.N. move, made with U.S. approval, sets America on a well-calculated collision course with Israel. U.S. collusion on this presidential statement was directly at odds with Israel’s wishes and well-founded concerns about the U.N.’s bona fides on anything related to Israel. Israeli U.N. ambassador Gabriella Shalev issued a statement of Israel’s position: “Israel does not believe that the involvement of the Security Council contributes to the political process in the Middle East. This process should be bilateral and left to the parties themselves. Furthermore, the timing of this Security Council meeting is inappropriate as the Israeli government is in the midst of conducting a policy review, prior to next week's visit by Prime Minister Netanyahu to the United States. . . . Israel shared its position with members of the Security Council.”
By contrast, Rice told reporters: “We had a very useful and constructive meeting thus far of the Council. We welcome Foreign Minister Lavrov’s initiative to convene the Council, and we’re very pleased with the constructive and comprehensive statement that will be issued by the president of the Council on the Council’s behalf. This was a product of really collaborative, good-faith efforts by all members of the Council, and we’re pleased with the outcome.”
The Obama administration’s total disregard of Israel’s obvious interest in keeping the U.N. on the sidelines was striking. Instead of reiterating the obvious — that peace will not come if bigots and autocrats are permitted to ram an international “solution” down the throat of the only democracy at the table — Rice told the Council: “The United States cannot be left to do all the heavy lifting by itself, and other countries . . . must do all that they can to shore up our common efforts.” In a break with decades of U.S. policy, the Obama strategy is to energize a U.N. bad cop so that the U.S. might assume the role of good cop — for a price.
On Tuesday the Obama administration did it again: It ran for a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council. As expected, the administration won election to represent the Council’s Western European and Others Group — it was a three-state contest for three spaces.
The Council is most famous, not for protecting human rights, but for its obsession with Israel. In its three-year history it has:
adopted more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than condemning the 191 other U.N. members combined;
entrenched an agenda with only ten items, one permanently reserved for condemning Israel and another for condemning any other U.N. state that might “require the Council’s attention”;
held ten regular sessions on human rights, and five special sessions to condemn only Israel;
insisted on an investigator with an open-ended mandate to condemn Israel, while all other investigators must be regularly renewed;
spawned constant investigations on Israel, and abolished human-rights investigations (launched by its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights) into Belarus, Cuba, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.
Moreover, every morning before the Human Rights Council starts, all states — and even observers like the Palestinians — get together in their regional blocs for an hour to negotiate, share information, and determine positions. All, that is, except Israel. The Western European and Others Group refuses to give Israel full membership. Now the U.S. will be complicit in this injustice.
Joining the Council has one immediate effect on U.S.-Israel relations: It gives the Obama administration a new stick to use against Israel. Having legitimized the forum through its membership and participation, the U.S. can now attempt to extract concessions from Israel in return for American objections to the Council’s constant anti-Israel barrage.
Obama administration officials may believe they can put the lid back on Pandora’s box after having invited the U.N., Russia, the Arab League, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference to jump into the process of manufacturing a Palestinian state while Israel is literally under fire. They have badly miscalculated. By making his bed with countries that have no serious interest in democratic values, the president has made our world a much more dangerous place.
— Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and at Touro College. She is also editor of www.EyeontheUN.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
