Rep. Peter Hoekstra of the House Intelligence Committee sends a warning shot over the bow of his colleagues who are anxious to convene a “truth commission” on the interrogation memos. He calls for “a list of the dates, locations and names of all members of Congress who attended briefings on enhanced interrogation techniques,” a release of the memos requested by Dick Cheney, and an assessment of “the likely damage done to U.S. national security by Mr. Obama’s decision to release the memos over the objections of Mr. Panetta and four of his predecessors.”
Hoekstra adds:
Perhaps we need an investigation not of the enhanced interrogation program, but of what the Obama administration may be doing to endanger the security our nation has enjoyed because of interrogations and other antiterrorism measures implemented since Sept. 12, 2001.
This is the inescapable direction in which we’re headed. Congressman accusing congressman, official blaming official, lawyer attacking lawyer. And what is the offense, what is the statute or charge all this is based on? It isn’t at all clear, even the mainstream media and academics concede. How do we know if someone stepped over the line if the accusers won’t define “torture”? And the result would be unclear — prosecutions maybe, or just the lasting stench of ruined careers. Then we will see how many talented people sign up for government service and how many flee.
The question remains whether this is what the president intended (abandoning his “look forward not back” pronouncement twenty-four hours earlier) or whether he simply committed the worst presidential gaffe in recent memory by musing aloud about the potential for hearings. In any case, it seems impossible to turn back now.
So we’ll be anxious to learn the answers to Hoekstra’s questions and the hundred like them that will come from every member of congress, not to mention from dozens of ex-officials and operatives who will rightly demand access to this information in order to formulate their own defenses. They will be allowed to defend themselves as they explain not only their own but their inquisitors’ involvement in reviewing the interrogation policies, right?
If Obama has time to read a book like this, we’re in worse trouble than it seems.
He doesn’t have the time. He had to take his wife to a romantic dinner in Chicago. There are only 24 hours in a day you know!!
A country with poor citizens has a government that prevents those same citizens the freedom to reach their individual goals. Khalidi uses the same lame excuse for the failures of his Arab brothers in the Middle East “it’s not their fault.” Until the Arabs are prepared to accept responsibility for their own misery nothing will change and the “Arab world” will remain beyond the pale of civilization.
As far as our president is concerned, people who are poor are in that condition due to no fault of their own and I suspect he will accept Khalidi’s thesis in it’s entirety.
Muslim apologists blame their failure to the west to gloss over their incompetence. If you read their history, their former leaders were a failure and succumbed with greed.
Nothing else is new.
It’s a useful reminder that the Palestinians, whatever the merits of their grievances, are the adversaries of the United States of America. They sided with Sadam in the first Gulf War, with Hitler in the Second World War, and with the Soviets in the Cold War, hence Khalidi’s sympathies. Of course, he enjoys the most basic freedom of being an American, i.e., living here with all the attendant rights and protections, while denouncing the U.S. at the same time.
Ivo Daalder-who wrote a blub for Khailidi’s book-was a foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama’s campaign.
I believe PBO views of the Arab world is in the same wavelength as that of Khalidi. His basic premises are the same so this book (and sure he read it) only cemented his own thinking. PBO is overall constraint (thank G’) by long standing practices and US polices which limit -to certain extent-
the radical the changes he would like to see. But he still has room to swing things around…and appoint the wrong people to certain posts (are Freeman and Khalidi friends?).
Now, what I want to know is the following: given all this publicity Khalidi is receiving of late ( the book 2 long interviews in Charlie Rose in the a past month, etc) are we entitled to see Khalidi’s Chicago farewell party video in which our historic president celebrated the man? To understand
our POYUS thinking and the impact of Khalidi in it the American people is entitled to the video
the Los Angeles Times is censuring. Release the video.
POYUS —-> POTUS (sorry).
Vlad said, ” I looked Obama in the eyes and saw the back of his head.”
He doesn’t need to read the book, for he internalized its theme long ago.
#9: ! And !!
note the attempt to diminish the ties between the two: “attended a party” rather than, used to have dinner with him and his wife regularly, said he learned a lot from him about the plight of the Palestinians, spoke at his farewell, etc…