The Republican position, such as it is, on the administration's anti-terror efforts is nothing short of astounding. I mean, this is the party that's "strong" on national security. I would think, in that case, they'd be all for whatever works -- such as the 100% conviction rate when terrorism suspects are tried in federal courts, and the humane treatment that makes it possible for suspects' families to work with us to get the information we need.
I suspect, however, that the left blogosphere is correct: it's politics uber alles for the right.
John Aravosis quotes Jonathan Alter:
I think they're [Republicans] in a place now where they just want to hurt Obama. What they don't get - and I wish they would look into their souls a little bit - if they convey, over and over again, that the President of the United States is weak, what does that do? It emboldens the terrorists. And I don't say that lightly. Think of terrorists overseas, or at home, that might be plotting an attack - if they think that the President is weak, which he is not, he is manifestly not. He's killed twice as many of them, not to put too fine a point on it, with Predators as his predecessor did. He is not weak. But if they continue to convey that he is weak, that gives serious help to the terrorists.
I think the pressure should now be on these Republicans, aren't you helping the terrorists, by insisting, against all evidence - remember we have 100% conviction rate of terrorists in civilian courts in this country. 100%. It's not like any of them are out walking the streets, as we're told. The only detainees from Guantanamo who have been released and who have returned to terrorism in their home countries were released under President Bush. So far there has not been one case of that happening under President Obama. So, this line is a bunch of hooey, and they have to stop saying it, and the onus now has to be on them for why they're not harming us by continuing to do so.
That seems to be the consensus in the left blogosphere, and it seems from this vantage that it's correct. The Cheney policies toward terrorists or suspected terrorists -- torture, rendition, military kangaroo courts (which haven't even worked the way Cheney wanted -- it seems that even enemy combatants have rights: who knew?), holding people for years without evidence of any wrongdoing on their part -- have only served to swell the ranks of al Qaeda and its allies. It's a history of failed policies predicated on the idea that we have to fight a "war" against terrorism. We've seen how well that works: nothing like occupying a third-party nation -- one that, as far as attacks on American soil were concerned, was perfectly innocent -- to swell the ranks of al Qaeda.
It's the war mantra that, I think, is very revealing. The Europeans have been more successful at ferreting out and dealing with suspected terrorists than we have, at least until recently: they've treated terrorism as a police action, based on good intelligence and cooperation between the agencies involved. That seems to work, but working is a minor consideration, apparently: we'd rather posture and rattle sabers and huff and puff and blow the wrong house down. Doesn't matter.
So now we have an administration that is interested in actually doing something, and all the right wing can do is -- well, huff and puff. They'd rather trash the Constitution and turn this country into a trembling, weak-kneed mess, which is exactly the goal of al Qaeda and its allies.
And gods forbid someone should call them on it, as the president's counterterrorism czar, John Brennan, did:
Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda. Terrorists are not 100-feet tall. Nor do they deserve the abject fear they seek to instill. They will, however, be dismantled and destroyed, by our military, our intelligence services and our law enforcement community. And the notion that America's counterterrorism professionals and America's system of justice are unable to handle these murderous miscreants is absurd.
Brennan's attack got the expected response:
GOP Senator Kit Bond (R-MO) is calling on a senior anti-terror official in the Obama administration to resign because the anti-terror official actually stood up to the GOP and called them on their bullying.
The Democrats should grow balls like that. As far as Bond is concerned, it seems that in a chamber filled with caricatures, everyone is trying to unseat Joe Lieberman for first place.
There are layers here. The surface is painting the president as "weak" on terrorism because he has, to a certain extent, dispensed with the "conservative" policies that don't work. (Not enough of them, and not decisively enough.) That ties in with the new "populism" of the right -- war, God, apple pie, the Constitution (until we can dispense with it in favor of the Ten Commandments), all of which serves to energize the constantly shrinking base and has no other real effect. Under that, of course, is the Republican determination to block anything this administration tries to do, no matter what, because then they can point to Obama as a failure and win an election. (The problem is, they're no better at governing than the Democrats.)
And please note that they have no faith in the American system of justice. It must be hard when you start believing your own propaganda, particularly when actual events demonstrate conclusively that the propaganda is bullshit. (I've noted before that I think the right wing in this country has come down, not as "un-American," but as "anti-American" -- they don't really seem to value our institutions at all.
Speaking of balls, I suspect there's a deeper motivation behind all this posturing. I alluded to it jokingly in this post on DADT, but I think there's an underlying truth -- call it living with the discomfort of "masculinity," which in its traditional form is a pretty awful concept, and it's at least as harmful to men as it is to anyone else. It seems that many of these hawks, starting with Cheney, have never gone to war themselves, although they are really enthusiastic of putting someone else out there. I guess it gets their testosterone levels up. Frankly, I know lots of guys, gay and straight, who are perfectly comfortable with themselves and don't feel any particular need to subscribe to this bizarre idea of what's "masculine," and certainly don't need to torture or kill someone -- or have someone else do the torturing and killing -- to prove how butch they are. (And yea, by and large these are the people opposed to repeal of DADT.)
(Disclaimer, or something like it: Ironically, as I've grown older I've worried less and less about my "masculinity," and yet people are now more likely to see me as masculine. Odd how that works -- I think it's the comfort level with who I am. I'm not perfect -- I'm not as patient or kind or generous as I think I should be -- but by and large I'm happy being me, and I think that, more than anything else, makes a real man. Think about that the next time some Republican draft-dodger starts spouting off about the "war on terror.")
I guess Alter is right: the Republicans are a bunch of wusses who are giving the terrorists everything they want.
No comments:
Post a Comment