Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

May 28 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew


New on NRO . . .
Close
Where Have We Heard This Before?
A strange feeling of déjà vu.

By Rich Lowry


About Author Archive Latest E-Mail RSS Send Follow•   followers
Text  

It detains almost 200 people at Guantanamo Bay, the facility that Amnesty International calls “a global symbol for injustice and abuse.”

It will resort to military tribunals for those detainees it chooses to try. Dozens of the rest will simply be held indefinitely — international opinion be damned.

It relies on Gen. David Petraeus to turn around a difficult war of counterinsurgency. He’s “an extraordinary warrior for the American people,” it insists.

Advertisement

It surges American troops into the field, disregarding American public opinion and the opposition of the Left. It persists even though the war has been dragging on for years in a country beset by ethnic divisions, a long history of war and repression, and weak, corrupt political leadership.

It warns that this is “tough business” and “progress goes slow” but is stalwart nonetheless: We are “going on offense” in a war that is part of a global effort “to disrupt and dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda and its extremist allies.”

It refuses to heed the protests of antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan.

It fails to forge a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, or even stop the Israelis from building settlements.

It is not talking to North Korea or Iran.

It believes it has the right to kidnap people in the tactic known as “rendition,” without due process.

It targets people for assassination, without due process.

It rains missiles down on countries, Pakistan and Yemen, with which we aren’t at war and profess to be friendly.

It reserves the right to assassinate American citizens, and has targeted one U.S. citizen for killing in Yemen. He’s a Muslim religious leader not indicted for any crimes, let alone convicted of any.

It embraces the Patriot Act and its repeated reauthorization without hesitation. It ignores critics of the law like former Amnesty International USA chair Chip Pitts, who warns of “the institutionalization of this and other egregious infringements on freedom.”

It relies on the National Security Agency for a sweeping program of terrorist surveillance and brushes aside all legal challenges to it.

It bristles at congressional interference with, as the attorney general puts it, “the authority of the executive branch to determine when or where to prosecute terror suspects.”

It is prone to what advocates of government transparency criticize as the overclassification of government documents.

It won’t tolerate unauthorized leaks, prosecuting a host of whistle-blowers.

It invokes the “state secrets doctrine” to get court cases it finds inconvenient dismissed, including one by former U.S. detainees alleging abuse.

It issues signing statements challenging parts of laws passed by Congress, in a practice that lawmakers of both parties have criticized and the American Bar Association calls unconstitutional.

It outrages civil libertarians. They denounce it for “making impunity for torture the law of the land” (the ACLU). They inveigh against it for asserting that “the government shall be entirely unaccountable for surveilling Americans in violation of its own laws” (Electronic Frontier Foundation). They lament its policies for their “repressiveness” (Glenn Greenwald of Salon).

While it is attacked by the Left for its robust assertions of executive power in a global war on terror, it is defended by Dick Cheney for the same.

It advocates democracy and human rights in sweeping terms: “Societies are more harmonious, nations are more successful, and the world is more just when the rights and responsibilities of all nations and all people are upheld, including the universal rights of every human being.”

It prods the Arab world to reform, issuing a blunt warning that its “foundations are sinking into the sand.” And it lectures China for violating of the rights of its people.

It flatly boasts that we are “the greatest nation on Earth.”

But enough about the Obama administration . . .

— Rich Lowry is editor of National Review. He can be reached via e-mail, comments.lowry@nationalreview.com. © 2011 by King Features Syndicate.

Text  

You Might Also Like...

Malkin: Obama’s Land of the LOST

Lowry: Unleash Biden!

Charen: Obama’s Education Hypocrisy -- Again



COMMENTS   14

EXPAND  

 MAFV
   01/21/11 08:26

Mr. Lowry, thank you...keep it up...turn up the heat...you can't let people forget who BHO is at his core...WFB Jr. would have got a kick out of this...what fun!!!

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Esteban
   01/21/11 09:35

Excuse me, but exactly why are you criticizing Barry's administration over these policies? Ninety percent of them are perfectly agreeable to me, just as they were before under W. Are you attempting to criticize Barry's hypocrisy, or are you against all these policies? Make yourself clear, Rich.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   01/21/11 10:59

I'm surprised you passed the math question Esteban. Rich is clearly pointing out hypocrisy.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   01/21/11 12:00
   01/21/11 13:20

I've heard this kind of argument before, "Obama is a lot more conservative than you think, moving towards the center, etc." Well, triangulate this. It would be very easy to come up with a corresponding list to show where he (Obama) is acting completely against American survival (note: I did not say "interests,' I said survival).

Here's the deal and readers of "Radical in Chief" (and Mark Steyn) will get it. Obama's calculations are always political. If he thinks he can get away with it (i.e. add votes), that is, his base will complain but give him a pass because they understand the political realities of dealing with the knuckle-draggers, then he might very will do it.

On the other hand, if he thinks his base would erupt in fury (e.g. border control, back down on Obamacare, really cut spending to balance the budget, not just military (i.e. safe spending)), then there is no way he will do it. Obama has not moved to the center, not in the slightest. He is instead always testing the waters to see what he can get away with an eye to the 2012 elections. If he blocked in one area, he will find a dozen different ones to press forward. The goal never changes.

And what is that goal? Bankrupt the country, destroy it's defensive capabilities, take over and take out every one of it's key industries. And if our nation is reduced to being a vassal state of China, big deal, as long as he and his friends get to keep their bling and photo-ops in a job which isn't beneath him.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Den
   01/21/11 14:17

'It flatly boasts that we are “the greatest nation on Earth.”'

You were doing fine until that quote. Those collection of syllables may have been uttered, but like Enrico Caruso singing the National Anthem, those syllables carried no meaning with the utterer.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   01/21/11 15:24

One difference I notice is when GWB said we are “the greatest nation on Earth” I believed he meant it.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Esteban
   01/22/11 13:42

Well, pitgremlin, now that you've used the word "clearly" I guess that settles it.

Perhaps it's fun to snark about Barry's hypocrisy (ha ha ha That Obama is SUUUCH A HYPOCRITE!!!) but maybe, just maybe, it serves to give him credit for pursuing the correct policies, even if we know he would prefer not to. Would Rich Lowry prefer that Barry change the policies to match his rhetoric?

p.s. two plus two equals five

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
John Panian
   01/23/11 08:34

Rich,

As a late uncle of mine used say to explain when he saw or heard something surprising, but pleasing...
"Holy Cats!" (He didn't swear, apply any 4 letter word to substitute for "cats" which he truely meant.)
I agree with MAFV. An excellent column. Keep up the "good fight".)
"Holy Cats!"...forgot that language was inappropiate now.

JP
Golden, CO

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Wake up america
   01/23/11 15:01

I have to laugh because everybody is trying to figure Obama out. Is he moving to the center?! Is he pretending to move to the center?! Play the speeches Obama said in 2008 and you'll have your answer. Obama is as far left as he can be... However Obama has figured out that the majority of Americans can be fooled. He will dust his old speeches that worked for him and recycle them. People will again think that he walks on water... Obama will pat himself on the back and proceed with taking our country down, by the way... Intentionally! So no debate Obama will get reelected because of the ignorant people we now have in the u.s.a... Thanks to our educational system. By the way he will feed the schools more money. Only because they are mentoring the democrats future votes!! In other words... Stick a fork in us.. We're done!

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Alice
   01/24/11 12:16

Ok, so Obama's an opportunistic hypocrite, and this differs from any other politician on either side of the aisle how? And please don't give me the "But Blah Blah (R-Blah) is a totally good guy who will turn this country around!". As a conservative, I'm opposed to 75% of what's listed, particularly any items that include "without due process", "let alone convicted", "held indefinitely", "state secrets doctrine", "brushes aside all legal challenges", etc. Any government who claims the right to treat those I dislike as such will eventually do so to me. But, hey, I'm an actual small-government conservative, so I realize I may not fit in well here.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
EastwardHo!
   01/24/11 12:44

Stop trying to figure out Rich, Estaban. He's trying to have it both ways. Agrees with everything. But wait, it's Obama! Perfect illustration of the Repub reflex. Unable to critically process the disconnect between the "radical socialist" and his actual policies.
And to the respondents like Iowadove, I thought you judged someone by their actions rather than words.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
 MAFV
   01/24/11 13:33

"When you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody"...the words of BHO...regardless of what he says and does, this statement, whether you like it or not, whether you agree with the statement or not is who BHO is at his core...this is his vision...the transformation of America...for you "independents" have you ever heard "fool me once shame on you; fool me twice shame on me"...lest you remember BHO's "redistribute the wealth" proclamation you'll be fooled again...and by the way, how's that "change you can believe in workin' for you"...braahhhh!!!!

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   01/25/11 12:09

The fact that Obama is as clueless as Bush is hardly a surprise to Conservatives -- a group that Lowry appears to have abandoned.

To this day, Lowry seems in denial about the anti-McGovernite liberals, some of whom stayed in the Democrat Party, and some of whom infected the Republican Party -- unbelievably calling themselves neoConservatives.

The fact that he works for a magazine created by a real Conservative in William F. Buckley makes this all the more remarkable.

Pro-war anti-McGovernite liberals use the pentagon the same way they attempt to use the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, at nausea through the list.

They do not consider the Pentagon a necessary evil, rather they rush to it like pigs to the trough, believing that its role is to construct entire societies -- from the top down no less.

It is not that big of a jump from being a McGovernite liberal to being an anti-McGovernite liberal, and the people who make that jump are not moderates nor are they Conservatives.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact