Imagine, if you will, that the BB gun attackers [in San Fran] had been white. Or from Utah. Or from Texas.  Or Laramie, Wyoming. What kind of wild adjectives would have been applied? We can only surmise. Editorializing against mainstream Americans who are now out-of-favor by the media (whites, Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons, conservatives) happens everyday on America’s front pages and network news programs. But when it comes to Arab/Muslim attackers — all silence is golden for the American media.

<…>

It is also important to note that the fundamental philosophies of a majority of the American gay activist community have been rooted with elements of anti-capitalism, anti-democracy, anti-war, and anti-Israeli sentiment for the past three decades. You could not have attended an anti-Iraq war rally in 2003-2007 without seeing many rainbow flags (the unofficial symbol of gays and lesbians) mixed in with pro-communist, anti-capitalist, anti-Bush and anti-American signs, symbols and chants.

In order to be gay and part of “the community” in America, you must first renounce “the mainstream,” your individualism, liberty, capitalism, the Constitution, the basic right to vote and your patriotism. All those checked? Join the club!

Read the whole thing.  And please let me know your thoughts.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

The proposal says the conduct reached by the statute “includes but is not limited to” the itemized conduct. (My italics.) That means any interrogation tactic that a prosecutor subjectively believes is “degrading” (e.g., subjecting a Muslim detainee to interrogation by a female CIA officer) could be the basis for indicting a CIA interrogator.

Waterboarding is not all. The Democrats’ bill would prohibit — with a penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment — the following tactics, among others:

- “Exploiting the phobias of the individual”
- Stress positions and the threatened use of force to maintain stress positions
- “Depriving the individual of necessary food, water, sleep, or medical care”
- Forced nudity
- Using military working dogs (i.e., any use of them — not having them attack or menace the individual; just the mere presence of the dog if it might unnerve the detainee and, of course, “exploit his phobias”)
- Coercing the individual to blaspheme or violate his religious beliefs (I wonder if Democrats understand the breadth of seemingly innocuous matters that jihadists take to be violations of their religious beliefs)
- Exposure to “excessive” cold, heat or “cramped confinement” (excessive and cramped are not defined)
- “Prolonged isolation”
- “Placing hoods or sacks over the head of the individual”

Naturally, all of these tactics are interspersed with such acts as forcing the performance of sexual acts, beatings, electric shock, burns, inducing hypothermia or heat injury — as if all these acts were functionally equivalent.

Andy sums up with something we have known pretty much all along:

Here is the fact: Democrats are saying they would prefer to see tens of thousands of Americans die than to see a KSM subjected to sleep-deprivation or to have his “phobias exploited.” I doubt that this reflects the values of most Americans.

As I said, please read the whole thing. Then call your Congressman.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

UPDATE: Good news… The bill has been pulled.

The Taliban’s top military commander was captured several days ago in Karachi, Pakistan, in a secret joint operation by Pakistani and American intelligence forces, according to American government officials.

The commander, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, is an Afghan described by American officials as the most significant Taliban figure to be detained since the American-led war in Afghanistan started more than eight years ago. He ranks second in influence only to Mullah Muhammad Omar, the Taliban’s founder and a close associate of Osama bin Laden before the Sept. 11 attacks.

Kudos particularly to Leon Panetta, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and President Obama.  Does seem that he has a sound policy on Afghanistan.  And here, while our intelligence forces carried out the operations, the Administration authorized it.  As with his choice of General Stanley McChrystal, it seems Obama has tapped good people to fight the Taliban in this theater of operations.  Gotta give him credit for that.

And when Obama gets things right, the New York Times (who appears to have broken the story) shows its true colors.  First, read this passage:

The New York Times learned of the operation on Thursday, but delayed reporting it at the request of White House officials, who contended that making it public would end a hugely successful intelligence-gathering effort. The officials said that the group’s leaders had been unaware of Mullah Baradar’s capture and that if it became public they might cover their tracks and become more careful about communicating with each other.

The Times is publishing the news now because White House officials acknowledged that the capture of Mullah Baradar was becoming widely known in the region.

Now, Michelle Malkin’s analysis:

Fancy that. The terror-tipping NYT blabbermouths who repeatedly undermined national security during the Bush years by disclosing sensitive/classified information about many key counterrorism programs are now sensitive to ongoing counterterrorism operations. The paper that went to court to force the government to release classified information about jihadis and has shown reckless disregard for the consequences of disclosure is now delaying reports at the request of White House officials.

Wonder if that has anything to do with the partisan affiliation of those officials.

Anyway, this weekend at the Islamic Center of New York University, in response to a question about the recidivism rate of erstwhile Guantanamo-based terrorists, in equating these murderers and enemies of the United States to common criminals (and the 50% recidivism rate of “the American penal system”), Brennan flippantly says, “20% isn’t bad.”

Many will jump on the soundbite and simply criticize Brennan’s continued lack of concern for most American’s fear of any terrorists being granted a second opportunity to kill us all. But they’ll miss the more dramatic point of his response: That these enemies are basically no different than the prisoners who are incarcerated for stealing cars, selling drugs, or kiting checks.

Does Brennan (and does the current Administration) see no difference?

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

ZAHN: Final question for you, moving onto the issue of John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban. How much pressure should they put on this man to get information out of him as they interrogate him?

HOLDER: Well, I mean, it’s hard to interrogate him at this point now that he has a lawyer and now that he is here in the United States. But to the extent that we can get information from him, I think we should.

(Emphasis added.)  Eight years later, Holder, now the Attorney General is singing a different tune; he admitted today “that he was the one who made the decision to treat Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as a civilian criminal.“

The Corner has details:

“I made the decision to charge Mr. Abdulmutallab [Christmas Day bomber] with federal crimes, and to seek his detention in connection with those charges, with the knowledge of, and with no objection from, all other relevant departments of the government,” Holder says in a letter addressed to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and other senators who have sought testimony from Holder on the treatment of Abdulmutallab.

In an at-times testy letter, Holder endorses the treatment of terrorist attacks as a matter of criminal justice, and implies that Senate Republicans are using the Abdulmutallab case for political gain, saying that his Justice Department relied on procedures that were not criticized when employed by previous administrations

Wonder what caused his change of heart?  Or did he really have a change of heart?  It’s just that back in 2002, he may have playacting for the cameras at a time when then-President George W. Bush was riding high, with strong public support for his tough policies on terror.

Still, I think we should take the guy at his word and wonder why he was so quick to ensure that Abdulmutallab had his rights read to him when, in the wake of 9/11, he thought affording a lawyer to a terror suspect would diminish his ability to provide intelligence that could help protect Americans from further attacks.

Shortly after takeoff, a young Middle Eastern-looking man in First Class (seat 2A) covered himself with a hooded jacket and blanket, dropped his pants and appeared to go to town.

My friend believes that an air marshal was on board. But I reported the incident to a TSA supervisor at Charlotte-Douglas and he didn’t seem to care and told me to call the airline itself.

I’m not sure what about these events today is most disturbing.

A visit to a doctor and a few days rest at a local Holiday Inn and soon my brother was back to normal.

The lesson of this anecdote should be familiar to anyone who has found himself in a position of responsibility.  When the circumstances change, you need to change your plans.  My parents recognized that with my brother’s illness, we could not continue the trip as planned.

So too should Obama recognize that with increasing evidence of a growing terror threat and continuing uncertainty about the economy, he has to turn his attention from regulatory schemes like health care and cap and trade and focus on jobs and national security.

Sometimes, I wonder if the president pushed through such a massive “stimulus” at the outset of his Administration, assuming that releasing so much cash would be certain to create jobs.  The economy would pick up, allowing Democrats to focus on their pet big-government projects.

But, things didn’t work out as planned.

That’s why this Democrat needs to learn from FDR.  Had it not been for the wars in Europe and the Far East, had that Democrat bid for a third term in 1940, he likely would have lost the presidential contest that fall, to be known to history as an inspiring failure.  But, as the threat to Western Civilization grew, he pivoted to meet the emerging challenges.  Magazine covers notwithstanding, the latest Democrat to occupy the White House shows few signs of following in his illustrious predecessor’s footsteps.

The “stimulus” hasn’t worked.  He needs develop new and different programs to increase employment.

His national security team offered a ham-handed response to the attempted bombing of Northwest Flight 253.  He needs shake up that team and devote greater attention to the terrorist threat.   Obama, as Rudy Giuliani contends, may have “turned the corner” in his understanding of that threat, but he needs show that he has made countering it a priority.

Eight years ago, George W. realized he could no longer focus on the domestic issues which defined his campaign.  He knew that 9/11 changed everything.  His successor hasn’t faced such a catastrophic attack, but the juxtaposition of the event on Christmas Day and the unemployment figures released today show us the issues of paramount importance to our nation.

In our daily lives, we all recognize that we must change our plans to address unforeseen circumstances.  The way we handle such circumstances marks out qualities of leadership.  It is why Americans of all political stripes admire Captain Chesley Sullenberger.

True leaders change course when circumstances merit. Obama appears to be standing pat.

It appears that a band of Joan Rivers impersonators had been deployed to conduct a campaign of terror by disrupting sleep patterns throughout the United States.  The Joan Rivers look-alikes talk with voices that interfere with the normal wavelengths of human perception.  The cackling and screeching being uttered across the nation would have resulted in mass insomnia from coast to coast.

Thank God our CIA, TSA and worldwide intelligence officials were on the look out for these dangerous suspects and picked up their leader before she had a chance to deploy this evil plot.  White House Spokesperson Robert Gibbs was quick to point out today that the Joan Rivers Sleeper Cell was a direct result of GITMO being used as a recruiting tool with drag queens.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

In general, U.S. presidents see the world through the eyes of four giants: Alexander Hamilton, Woodrow Wilson, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson. Hamiltonians share the first Treasury secretary’s belief that a strong national government and a strong military should pursue a realist global policy and that the government can and should promote economic development and the interests of American business at home and abroad. Wilsonians agree with Hamiltonians on the need for a global foreign policy, but see the promotion of democracy and human rights as the core elements of American grand strategy. Jeffersonians dissent from this globalist consensus; they want the United States to minimize its commitments and, as much as possible, dismantle the national-security state. Jacksonians are today’s Fox News watchers. They are populists suspicious of Hamiltonian business links, Wilsonian do-gooding, and Jeffersonian weakness.

<…>

Like Carter in the 1970s, Obama comes from the old-fashioned Jeffersonian wing of the Democratic Party, and the strategic goal of his foreign policy is to reduce America’s costs and risks overseas by limiting U.S. commitments wherever possible. He’s a believer in the notion that the United States can best spread democracy and support peace by becoming an example of democracy at home and moderation abroad.

<…>

At their best, Jeffersonians provide a necessary element of caution and restraint in U.S. foreign policy, preventing what historian Paul Kennedy calls “imperial overstretch” by ensuring that America’s ends are proportionate to its means. We need this vision today more than ever: If Obama’s foreign policy collapses — whether sunk by Afghanistan or conflicts not yet foreseen — into the incoherence and reversals that ultimately marked Carter’s well-meaning but flawed approach, it will be even more difficult for future presidents to chart a prudent and cautious course through the rough seas ahead.

Since the Christmas Day terror attack (it was 99% successful, by the way), I’ve been having a recurring thought.  Has President Obama’s “worldview” been shattered?  After all, the election of Obama alone was supposed to endear the world to the USA and cause those pesky “man-made disaster” creators (aka – Islamic Terrorists) to throw up their arms and praise Obama’s name.

Victor Davis Hanson pointed out yesterday at National Review:

But more than one-third of all terrorist plots since 9/11 transpired in 2009 — despite loud chest-thumping about rejecting the idea of a war on terror, reaching out to the Muslim world, and apologizing for purported American sins. A non-impoverished Major Hasan or Mr. Mutallab (or Mr. Atta or KSM) does not fit with the notion that our enemies act out of poverty or oppression or want.

Clearly, Obama fell for his own hype and he has been governing like that for a year.  But maybe — just maybe — the 12/25 attack on America has shattered his extreme naivety.  Perhaps he will wake from his arrogance and realize that no matter how nice he is, no matter what gestures he gives — America has enemies bent on killing civilians and destroying our way of life.

Perhaps.  But I’m not holding my breath.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I agree with Tom Fitton from Judicial Watch:

The Obama administration’s anti-terrorism policies have made the United States less safe.

Obama’s decision to end the use of the enhanced interrogation techniques prevents us from gaining intelligence that can save lives and prevent terrorist attacks (like the recent attempt to blow up the Detroit-bound airliner).

Obama’s decision to prosecute 9/11 terrorists in civilian court is a public relations victory for Al Qaeda that will lead, among other deadly dangers, to the release of intelligence data that will help terrorists.

Obama’s decision to prosecute the recent airline bomber Abdulmutallab in the civilian system prevents our defense and intelligence agencies from gaining access to timely information that might prevent future terrorist attacks.  And it will encourage more terrorism by suggesting leniency can be had by terrorists in plea bargain negotiations with civilian prosecuters.

Obama’s decision to close Gitmo will result in terrorists being brought to the United States, with all the attendant risks to the homeland – which include the outright release of terrorists in the United States.

Obama’s decision to release terrorists from Gitmo and elsewhere will lead to more terrorism from recidivist terrorists. [GP Ed. Note -- Released Gitmo terrorists (under Bush) already have returned to the battlefield.]

But the real question is…. what do you think?  What do your neighbors think?  What do the majority of Americans think?  Is America Less Safe Under Obama?

I’d like to see Gallup ask that question.  The best part of this whole conversation is that Dick Cheney began the discussion with that very point.  Hooah.

UPDATE: A related thought from Marc Thiessen at National Review:

Thanks to Obama, the terrorists know they have nothing to fear — and thus have no incentive to talk. And even if they did face some enhanced techniques, the techniques would no longer work — because the terrorist would know from the memos that there are limits to what they would face. The effect of the techniques is psychological, not physical. They trick the terrorists into thinking what they are enduring is worse than it really is.

It’s like the show Magic’s Biggest Secrets Revealed — once you know how the magician saws the woman in half, you’re not fooled. The same goes for enhanced interrogation.

Obama’s policies themselves are making our nation less safe.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

TSA Targets Bloggers, Not Terrorists – AP

As the government reviews how an alleged terrorist was able to bring a bomb onto a U.S.-bound plane and try to blow it up on Christmas Day, the Transportation Security Administration is going after bloggers who wrote about a directive to increase security after the incident.

TSA special agents served subpoenas to travel bloggers Steve Frischling and Chris Elliott, demanding that they reveal who leaked the security directive to them. The government says the directive was not supposed to be disclosed to the public.

Frischling said he met with two TSA special agents Tuesday night at his Connecticut home for about three hours and again on Wednesday morning when he was forced to hand over his lap top computer. Frischling said the agents threatened to interfere with his contract to write a blog for KLM Royal Dutch Airlines if he didn’t cooperate and provide the name of the person who leaked the memo.

That type of threat to a private citizen from the US Government is completely abhorrent and those TSA agents should be immediately terminated.

Dan Riehl has the same thought about this outrage that I did:

The most troubling part of this TSA going after bloggers deal is that it wouldn’t be happening had it been the New York Times that broke the story. They can write an entire series, bring down a classified, covert prison system with implications around the world and win a Pulitzer.

But if a blogger did that, Uncle Sam would be kicking down their door. This is going after the little guy because they can get away with it, or think they can.

But the bloggers aren’t the troubling side effect of the “systematic failure” of the Obama Administration.  Passengers on Flight 253 fear an FBI cover-up of a 2nd accomplice in the attempted attack.  This is information the Mainstream Media is NOT reporting..

“For the last five days I have been reporting my story of the so called “sharp dressed man.” For those of you who haven’t read my account, it involves a sharp dressed “Indian man” attempting to talk a ticket agent into letting a supposed “Sudanese refugee” (The terrorist) onto flight 253 without a passport.

What is important is that the terrorist avoided using normal passport checking procedures (apparently successfully) in order to avoid a closer look into his red flags. Who cares if he had a passport. The important thing is that he didn’t want to show it and somehow avoided a closer inspection and “normal passport checking procedures.”

The American public deserves its own chance to attempt to identify the “sharp dressed man”. I have no doubt that if the video indicated that my account was wrong, that the video would have already swept over the entire world wide web. Instead of the video, we get a statment that the video has been viewed and that the terrorist had a passport. Each of these statements made by the FBI is a self serving play on semantics and each misses the importance of my prior “sharp dressed man” account.

Mr. President — what the hell is going on with your Government?  Is THIS how “your system works”?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low-key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of Sept. 11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war.

“He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core Al Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war.  He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency — social transformation — the restructuring of American society. President Obama’s first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war.”

Ouch… that had to have left a mark.  What gives Cheney such power in his argument is that he stands with a moral conviction to protect this nation.  What lacks in Obama is any passion whatsoever to comprehend this existential threat to our Republic in an age where nuclear weapons can go rogue.

Again, I think by 2012 — a majority of Americans will wish Cheney was back in government in some capacity.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

President Obama, acting just minutes after a Yemeni group affiliated with Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the airplane bombing attempt over Detroit on Christmas, declared Monday that the United States would continue to press its accelerated offensive against terror cells in Yemen and elsewhere in the world. . . . 

“We will continue to use every element of our national power to disrupt, to dismantle, and defeat the violent extremists who threaten us–whether they are from Afghanistan or Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia, or anywhere where they are plotting attacks against the U.S. homeland.”

Indeed, the Administration has since increased the pressure on the nation on the Southwest corner of the Arabian peninsula with whom our government has worked to root out terrorist operations:

Since the attack, U.S. officials have repeatedly upped their pressure on the Yemen government to help them investigate Abdulmutallab’s ties to Al Qaeda, which he said had provided training and explosives.

Even before the Detroit incident, the United States in conjunction with the government of Yemen–had aggressively stepped up its counter-terrorism operations in the country, seeking to combat a rapidly expanding Al Qaeda network there.

Seems like steps in the right direction.  Still, in the war against Islamicist terrorists who seek to murder American civilians in their war on Western civilization, the incumbent president of the United States has not used the bully pulpit as effectively as his predecessor did nor has he used it as aggressively (or as readily) as he has used it himself on issues of lesser import.

His Administration, however, are taking action.   And that’s nothing to sneeze at.   But, right action is not always enough, we also need rhetoric with greater resolve.  Let’s hope the president’s team follows up on their initial steps, not letting up, continuing to pursue the terrorists (and their enablers) aggressively.

The President would serve himself (and the nation) well if he didn’t repeat a mistake his predecessor did in the wake of 9/11:  retaining his national security/intelligence team. Obama could start by asking for the resignation of his Homeland Security Secretary.

Let us hope he uses the power of the bully pulpit more readily and more effectively in the coming year than he has in recent days instead use it as he had used it in other endeavors in the past year.

In a strong statement to the press on Monday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel called the actions of Iran’s state security services “unacceptable.”

She called on them to “avoid any further escalation of the violence and to pursue political dialogue to peacefully settle internally disputed matters,” and also to respect their commitment to the International Pact on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees the right to peaceful protest.

What is our President doing while the world burns (again)?  Enjoying some rays and reading what looks to be a Harry Potter book on the beach.

In the meantime, Gestapo Janet says, “the system worked fine” as reports surface that a new wave of airline bombers may be coming.

It is too bad I missed this as a Christmas gift… I think they will sell out soon.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Airliner attack fails over Detroit; Northwest Ohioans on board witness incident - T0ledo Blade (h/t – Amanda Carpenter)

A Northwest Airlines passenger from Nigeria who said he was acting on al-Qaeda’s instructions set off an explosive device Friday in a failed terrorist attack on the plane as it was preparing to land in Detroit, federal officials said.

 Flight 253 had 278 passengers aboard, including northwest Ohio residents who saw the incident.

The flight was 20 minutes from the airport when what sounded like a firecracker exploded, witnesses said.  One passenger jumped over others and tried to subdue the man. Shortly afterward, the suspect was taken to a front-row seat with leg burns.  One U.S. intelligence official said the explosive device was a mix of powder and liquid that failed to fully detonate.

The White House said it believed it was an attempted act of terrorism, and stricter security measures were imposed on airline travel. Those measures were not specified.  A Northwest Airlines passenger from Nigeria who said he was acting on al-Qaeda’s instructions set off an explosive device Friday in a failed terrorist attack on the plane as it was preparing to land in Detroit, federal officials said.

 Flight 253 had 278 passengers aboard, including northwest Ohio residents who saw the incident.

 The flight was 20 minutes from the airport when what sounded like a firecracker exploded, witnesses said.

One passenger jumped over others and tried to subdue the man. Shortly afterward, the suspect was taken to a front-row seat with leg burns.

One U.S. intelligence official said the explosive device was a mix of powder and liquid that failed to fully detonate.

The White House said it believed it was an attempted act of terrorism, and stricter security measures were imposed on airline travel. Those measures were not specified.

First let me point out one simple fact:  While nearly all levels of the US government seem paralyzed to do anything lately, we have more evidence of the American public — specifically this one passenger — who will do what it takes to protect his nation. 

Moving forward I believe Congress should look into our Homeland Security practices immediately.  There are many questions that Gestapo Janet has to answer for.  Is she too consumed on cracking down on “right-wing extremists” that she dropped the ball on a worldwide war declared on this nation?  Did the Obama Adminstration take its eye off the ball in 2009 while trying to ram healthcare reform down our throats?  Has Obama spent too much time focusing on Afghanistan, and not enough time on Yemen — where there increasing reports of Iran-sponsored al-Qaeda groups gaining strength?

We all know that Senator Obama would have asked Congress to investigate the Bush Administration under reverse circumstances had this airline attack happened two years ago.  So I hope Barry’s 2008 so-far empty pledge of transparency will at least be honored when it comes to protecting American citizens.

We stayed safe on our homeland for seven years after the 9/11 attacks.  The American public demands to know why there has been one successful terror attack (Ft. Hood), and one that nearly happened yesterday under the watch of our new President.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

When I started reading snippets on conservative blogs, most singing the speech’s praises (with slight quibbles for some of the language), I thought I was reading something from a speech by John McCain or Joe Lieberman.  So, I printed it out to read at my leisure.

Now that I have read it, I agree that it is very strong speech, if a bit overlong.  My biggest quibble was that he didn’t acknowledge those great warriors throughout history who have secured the peace, whether it be generals like George Washington and Ulysses S. Grant or leaders like Winston Churchill and Ronald Reagan.  When the president mentioned the Gipper, he didn’t mention his arms buildup which put the U.S. in a position to promote peace through strength, but cited instead his “efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika“.

That said, the Gipper would have appreciated the better part of this address.

I absolutely loved his beginning when he acknowledged the “considerable controversy” of his selection.  He called “the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics . . . far more deserving of this honor than” he.

Then, he was wise to describe the war in Afghanistan as “a conflict that America did not seek”.   A great way to introduce the notion of a just war.  Then, in perhaps my favorite passage in the speech (because it relates to some of my dissertation research):

Now these questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease — the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a “just war” emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

Well said, very, very well said.  Later, after expressing great admiration for Mohandas Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., two advocates of non-violence, he reminds us that their strategy cannot always work:

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

He went on to praise the United States  for helping

underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest — because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

And without uttering the word, “Iraq,” he included words which could be used to justify the liberation of that nation from Saddam’s tyranny:  ”if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable.”  He even called out Iran and North Korea for gaming the system.

On the whole, it was a strong speech which spoke to the best in America and acknowledged the (occasional) necessity of war.  Does this signal, as some have suggested, a change in his foreign policy?  It’s too early to say, but one can hope.

Perhaps, this address to the international community indicates Obama intends to be more aggressive toward Iran and to stand firm in his commitment on Afghanistan. The person who wrote this speech likely didn’t have a hand in the president’s address last month to the cadets at West Point.  Maybe it’s because that writer was too busy working on this one.

If so, it was well worth his effort.

And as far as Afghanistan is concerned, that’s not necessarily a bad thing.  In fact, it may be a good thing, indeed, a very good hence my slight change of heart since I heard him speak.

When he addressed the nation, he didn’t seem to have his heart in his speech as he has in past addresses. Yet, the nut and bolts of his strategy are pretty sound.  Not just that, he has in charge of the effort two men involved in the successful “surge” in Iraq, Defense Secretary Robert Gates who supervised that shift his strategy from his then-new perch at the Pentagon and General Stanley McChrystal who, as commander of the Joint Special Operations Command in 2007, helped General David Petraeus implement the surge in Iraq.

If the President’s heart is not as much in this effort as it is in overhauling our health care system, he likely won’t micromanage the war as LBJ micromanaged Vietnam, devoting his time to his domestic agenda.  He’ll let the generals win the war based on the broad guidelines he set and the conditions on the ground.  With General McChrystal in charge, the President has picked a good man.  Should he let his fight the war according to the plans that outstanding soldier has outlined, we’re likely to succeed in Iraq, achieving the victory Obama refused to call by its name.

Even so, should we win Iraq, Obama will deserve a substantial share of the credit.  He’s the guy who tapped McChrystal.  And he’s the one who signed off on his strategy.

RELATED:  Charles Krauthammer disagrees.

The speaker seemed cold, not connecting with his audience.  The delivery was stale, if rushed at times.  The rhetoric mundane, the organization lacking.  The speech had no theme and had, as Jim Geraghty put it, a kind of “kitchen sink quality to” it.  The President put in far more than was necessary to make his point.

At times, it seemed he was going through the motions, speaking without conviction, saying what he had to say.  He was merely dispensing with an obligation to which he needed to attend before moving out, what were to him, more pressing matters.  He wanted to get this over with.

I’m sorry, Mr. President, this is the most pressing matter.  And on the whole, you have acquitted yourself well, though belatedly, in the choice you have made.  In the past, your rhetoric made up for an absence of agenda.  Last night, you might have done better to make absent the rhetoric and let your aides provide the details of the agenda.

In large part, because of his absence of conviction, I won’t be increasing the count of cheers I have already offered you.  For my part, I grant you that one cheer for making a decent choice and withhold a further cheer because of the way you justified it last night.  Yet another might have been forthcoming had you not offered a timetable for the operation and provide instead an assurance of victory.

Indeed, that word, “victory” was strangely absent from the speech.  Yet, talk of himself was omnipresent as well as attacks on his predecessor’s failings.  Seems some habits are hard to break.  Did that predecessor ever, in a prepared speech, brag about the letters he signed to the families of soldiers who gave their all for our country?

Victor Davis Hanson who, like Charles Krauthammer, found the speech “strange,” wondered that the President deplored “partisanship while serially trashing Bush at each new talking point.”  There was a lot of stuff in the speech that just didn’t belong there as if he felt it necessary to include the talking points from his campaign and his Administration’s early days.  You know deploring political polarization, decrying the deficit, reminding us of how bad the economy us, telling us the days of division and failed policies are over.

All that said, there were some moments where he said some good and necessary things.  He distinguished this conflict from Vietnam.  He acknowledged the successes in Iraq, but didn’t acknowledge his predecessor for shifting strategy in Iraq so we might achieve those successes.  He acknowledged that he U.S. has been a force for good in the world.  He acknowledged Pakistan’s for undertaking “its largest offensive in years,” reminding us that “the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.”  Yet, here again, he felt compelled to take a swipe at his predecessor, suggesting he “defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly.”  Huh?  That predecessor strengthened our ties with that Islamic nation, helping it move from military dictatorship to constitutional democracy, with elections ushering in new leadership.

Perhaps, I’m being too critical about the speech.  After all, folks like me were already on board when we heard he had was planning something akin to a “surge.”  Perhaps, aware of that, he targeted his remarks to his left-of-center supporters who would appreciate his campaign bromides and anti-Bush broadsides.  Michelle references Andrew Ferguson who opined:

It’s worth an extra twenty minutes of presidential gassing off. It’s even worth a lot of guff about beginning to pull the troops out by a date certain, no matter what. (I’ll believe it when I see it.) If this is what he needs to mollify his political supporters, let him talk and talk and talk.

Yes, the president did talk too long (Ferguson thinks he “could have shaved 60 percent from his address tonight”).  Were I not a blogger, I might have stopped watching after  the speech’s first ten minutes.  I did have trouble concentrating and started chatting with friends on Facebook as he droned on  . . . and on . . . .

He did seem mightily defense and did not seem to have put his heart into this.  But, then, he did remind of the attacks of 9/11 and why we’re in Afghanistan.  And he has put forward a decent strategy for victory there. It’s just too bad he didn’t speak the word that came naturally to other wartime leaders as they rallied their people to a just cause.

Don’t get me wrong, there were some good things it, especially the points he made about Pakistan, but it was as Charles Krauthammer put it, a “strange speech.”

UPDATE:  I’m pretty happy with the president’s plan, saved for his insistence on an “Exit Strategy.”  He just seemed too defensive and didn’t really make the case for this plan, doing more to respond to the naysayers, more like the way a blogger responds to a critical comment than to the way he writes a post.

UP-UPDATE:  Krauthammer pretty much summarized my thoughts.  Ok, right now, I really don’t watch to blog about this.  May watch the second part of a miniseries about a more determined leader.

Will he ever say, “victory”?

Do appreciate that he said terrorists on 9/11 “murdered” Americans.  But, wait, did he call them terrorists?

Yup, using the expression “terrorist network.”  But, is at pains to talk about “international legitimacy.”

Also, he seems to be rushing this speech.

Why is he bringing it Iraq?  And the rifts it caused?  Bringing that war to a “responsible end.”  Hasn’t yet used the word, “victory” or any form of the verb “to win.”

Like the line about “hard-earned milestones” in Iraq.

Back to typing notes for a later post, but I’ll just say that I’m really not liking this speech, it seems to be more about his decision-making process than about the decision itself.  Has he yet said “defeat” Al Qaeda, focusing too much on turning over to Afghanis.  Shouldn’t we first defeat Taliban/Al Qaeda, then turn it over?  Did FDR turning over power to Germans before we had conquered the Nazis?