Commentary Magazine


Posts For: January 9, 2010

Why Does Obama Get to Absolve Reid?

Harry Reid’s egregiously inappropriate comment from the  2008 campaign that Obama is “a  light-skinned” African-American who “lacked a Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one” is causing quite a stir. But let’s be clear: had any Republican said it, he or she would be chased from office by Monday. But Harry Reid is no Trent Lott and the standards are different for Democrats. (John McCormack points out that even Obama had a different standard in 2002.) In this case, Obama is trying to snuff out the controversy, declaring:

Harry Reid called me today and apologized for an unfortunate comment reported today. I accepted Harry’s apology without question because I’ve known him for years, I’ve seen the passionate leadership he’s shown on issues of social justice and I know what’s in his heart. As far as I am concerned, the book is closed.

Why does Obama decide when the “book is closed”? This was not a personal insult limited to Obama only. Reid’s comment was a peek into the views, prejudices, and attitudes of the Senate Majority leader. Reid is engaging in what’s textbook-definition of racism: evaluating someone on the basis of skin color. It isn’t up to Obama to wipe the slate clean. He is, after all, only the president, not the supreme court of racial justice. He might be the nation’s most prominent African American but he is not the spokesperson of an entire race, nor the nation’s designated spokesperson on racial matters.

When Obama tried be the nation’s official race policeman in Gatesgate, he got himself in a heap of trouble – jumping to conclusions without facts and seeming to condescend his fellow citizens. The country cringed, wondering why the president presumed to lecture us on race. In the case of Reid, Obama has every right to accept the apology himself. He isn’t, however, authorized to give Reid a get-out-of-hot-water card. That judgment — whether Reid, for expressing views most Americans find abhorrent, should suffer political consequences — belongs to voters and to his fellow senators. Reid might well get away with it, given the double standard on race for politicians of the two major parties. (Or it might be a handy excuse to show Reid the door.) But it’s not Obama’s call.

Harry Reid’s egregiously inappropriate comment from the  2008 campaign that Obama is “a  light-skinned” African-American who “lacked a Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one” is causing quite a stir. But let’s be clear: had any Republican said it, he or she would be chased from office by Monday. But Harry Reid is no Trent Lott and the standards are different for Democrats. (John McCormack points out that even Obama had a different standard in 2002.) In this case, Obama is trying to snuff out the controversy, declaring:

Harry Reid called me today and apologized for an unfortunate comment reported today. I accepted Harry’s apology without question because I’ve known him for years, I’ve seen the passionate leadership he’s shown on issues of social justice and I know what’s in his heart. As far as I am concerned, the book is closed.

Why does Obama decide when the “book is closed”? This was not a personal insult limited to Obama only. Reid’s comment was a peek into the views, prejudices, and attitudes of the Senate Majority leader. Reid is engaging in what’s textbook-definition of racism: evaluating someone on the basis of skin color. It isn’t up to Obama to wipe the slate clean. He is, after all, only the president, not the supreme court of racial justice. He might be the nation’s most prominent African American but he is not the spokesperson of an entire race, nor the nation’s designated spokesperson on racial matters.

When Obama tried be the nation’s official race policeman in Gatesgate, he got himself in a heap of trouble – jumping to conclusions without facts and seeming to condescend his fellow citizens. The country cringed, wondering why the president presumed to lecture us on race. In the case of Reid, Obama has every right to accept the apology himself. He isn’t, however, authorized to give Reid a get-out-of-hot-water card. That judgment — whether Reid, for expressing views most Americans find abhorrent, should suffer political consequences — belongs to voters and to his fellow senators. Reid might well get away with it, given the double standard on race for politicians of the two major parties. (Or it might be a handy excuse to show Reid the door.) But it’s not Obama’s call.

Read Less

Egypt Does PR Right

Credit where it is due: The Egyptians know how to deal with Hamas and especially with the useful idiots who have turned Gaza into a cause celebre. When George Galloway and his traveling roadshow of activists showed up in Egypt to make trouble, the Egyptians simply threw all of them out of the country.

“George Galloway is considered persona non grata and will not be allowed to enter into Egypt again,” a Foreign Ministry statement said. The activist left Egypt Friday morning from Cairo airport. … “He was told that he is a trouble maker and his behavior is undermining Egyptian security.”

This is no exaggeration. The arrival of Galloway’s “relief convoy” was accompanied by Hamas-staged riots along the Gaza border in which a Hamas sniper killed an Egyptian border guard. As a result, “Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Ali Aboul Gheit said his country would ban aid convoys from entering its territory.”

Where are the outraged Human Rights Watch press releases? When are the UN Human Rights Council hearings? Where is the collective outrage of the British media? We have banned aid convoys to Gaza — this statement would cause global apoplexy if uttered by the Israeli foreign minister.

But Egypt isn’t done:

Mosques throughout Egypt took advantage of Friday prayers to criticize Hamas…London-based Arabic-language newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi reported Saturday that most of the 140,000 mosques operating under the auspices of Egypt’s Ministry of Awqaf took part in the verbal onslaught on the Palestinian Islamist group. …

According to another imam, Hamas is to blame for the blockade imposed on the Palestinians in Gaza. “Its leaders want to stay in power, even at the cost of their own people’s expulsion and starvation,” the imam said during a sermon at Cairo’s Al-Rahma Mosque.

Egyptian officials speak the terse and confident language of sovereignty. Israelis too frequently employ the defensive language of ethics, unaware that such noble rhetoric, when applied to foreign policy, invites little but skepticism and complaint.

Credit where it is due: The Egyptians know how to deal with Hamas and especially with the useful idiots who have turned Gaza into a cause celebre. When George Galloway and his traveling roadshow of activists showed up in Egypt to make trouble, the Egyptians simply threw all of them out of the country.

“George Galloway is considered persona non grata and will not be allowed to enter into Egypt again,” a Foreign Ministry statement said. The activist left Egypt Friday morning from Cairo airport. … “He was told that he is a trouble maker and his behavior is undermining Egyptian security.”

This is no exaggeration. The arrival of Galloway’s “relief convoy” was accompanied by Hamas-staged riots along the Gaza border in which a Hamas sniper killed an Egyptian border guard. As a result, “Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Ali Aboul Gheit said his country would ban aid convoys from entering its territory.”

Where are the outraged Human Rights Watch press releases? When are the UN Human Rights Council hearings? Where is the collective outrage of the British media? We have banned aid convoys to Gaza — this statement would cause global apoplexy if uttered by the Israeli foreign minister.

But Egypt isn’t done:

Mosques throughout Egypt took advantage of Friday prayers to criticize Hamas…London-based Arabic-language newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi reported Saturday that most of the 140,000 mosques operating under the auspices of Egypt’s Ministry of Awqaf took part in the verbal onslaught on the Palestinian Islamist group. …

According to another imam, Hamas is to blame for the blockade imposed on the Palestinians in Gaza. “Its leaders want to stay in power, even at the cost of their own people’s expulsion and starvation,” the imam said during a sermon at Cairo’s Al-Rahma Mosque.

Egyptian officials speak the terse and confident language of sovereignty. Israelis too frequently employ the defensive language of ethics, unaware that such noble rhetoric, when applied to foreign policy, invites little but skepticism and complaint.

Read Less

Downplay Danger and Willful Ignorance

Like many of us, Stephen Hayes is struggling to understand how it could be that the president could have seemed so misinformed (claiming that the bombing was the work of an “isolated extremist”) and so disengaged in the days following the Christmas Day bombing attack. He writes:

How is it possible that the president of the United States could get a central fact about an attempted terrorist attack—arguably, the central fact—dead wrong in his first public statement, three days after the attack?

President Obama and White House staffers have spent the subsequent two weeks pointing fingers at the intelligence community, detailing the many failures of the bureaucracy, and promising accountability. Given what we know about those failures, that’s appropriate. But in his January 7 statement announcing the results of the review he had ordered, the president boldly declared that the buck stops with him. Strong rhetoric. So what does it mean in practice? The Obama administration’s lack of seriousness on counterterrorism before the attack seems to have been rivaled only by its incompetence afterwards.

As Hayes points out, part of the explanation is that this was a concerted effort, mimicked by Janet Napolitano and Robert Gibbs, to downplay the incident. Nothing much here. No one died. Our decisions to reject the Bush anti-terror policies are working fine. No need for alarm. Can we get back to health care?

After all, the administration had gotten away with this same blasé routine following the Fort Hood incident. The liberal pundits howled over  anyone inferring a religious motivation (they preferred some psychological diagnosis rather than the ample evidence that Major Hassan did this in furtherance of his jihadist ideology.) The army chief of staff insisted that the biggest danger was the ensuing discrimination against Muslims. Given this, the Obami naturally expected that they could get away with another see-no-evil-hear-no-evil-don’t identify-any-evil routine. They must have been shocked that the public and media pounced on them.

But Hayes also suggests that there is genuine cluelessness at work. It’s not that the Obami knew better and lied to us. It is that they have engaged in willful ignorance for so long that they were actually surprised by the incident. Suddenly reality harshly interrupted their slumber. He notes anti-terrorism adviser’s John Brennan’s apparent shock “that an al-Qaeda affiliate that had promised to attack the United States had almost succeeded in doing so.” And this administration, as Hayes’s colleague Thomas Joscelyn points out, saw no problem in releasing Guantanamo detainees back to Yemen:

On December 19, 2009, the Obama administration transferred six detainees to Yemen. Only one Yemeni had been repatriated during the previous 11 months—and the Bush administration, which made many of its own mistakes with respect to detainee transfers, had only repatriated a handful of Yemenis over several years. (At least one of them has since returned to terrorism.) But the Obama administration was confident. The New York Times on December 19 cited a “senior administration official” who said the White House was “gaining confidence in Yemen’s willingness to handle returning detainees.” And at the beginning of last year, in January 2009, Obama’s ambassador to Yemen, Stephen Seche, had said the administration intended to repatriate “the majority” of the Yemenis at Guantánamo.

In short, Obama’s out-to-lunchness was both strategic (downplay the war against Islamic fundamentalists) and the result of abject ignorance, perpetuated throughout his administration, as to just how serious was the threat of a Yemen-hatched plot to attack the American homeland. The ho-hum rhetorical ploy has blown up in the Obami’s faces and is likely to be adjusted, although not to the extent that the president would use the words “Islamic fundamentalist” or some variation thereof to describe our enemy. But what about those who apparently didn’t grasp the nature of the threat we faced?

It is appalling, really, that those who wrapped themselves in a cloak of ignorance and carried out foolhardy policies (e.g., refueling the terrorist pipeline in Yemen) should remain in their jobs. Yes, the president is responsible, but he can’t be fired for another three years. In the meantime, what’s the excuse for keeping everyone else around?

Like many of us, Stephen Hayes is struggling to understand how it could be that the president could have seemed so misinformed (claiming that the bombing was the work of an “isolated extremist”) and so disengaged in the days following the Christmas Day bombing attack. He writes:

How is it possible that the president of the United States could get a central fact about an attempted terrorist attack—arguably, the central fact—dead wrong in his first public statement, three days after the attack?

President Obama and White House staffers have spent the subsequent two weeks pointing fingers at the intelligence community, detailing the many failures of the bureaucracy, and promising accountability. Given what we know about those failures, that’s appropriate. But in his January 7 statement announcing the results of the review he had ordered, the president boldly declared that the buck stops with him. Strong rhetoric. So what does it mean in practice? The Obama administration’s lack of seriousness on counterterrorism before the attack seems to have been rivaled only by its incompetence afterwards.

As Hayes points out, part of the explanation is that this was a concerted effort, mimicked by Janet Napolitano and Robert Gibbs, to downplay the incident. Nothing much here. No one died. Our decisions to reject the Bush anti-terror policies are working fine. No need for alarm. Can we get back to health care?

After all, the administration had gotten away with this same blasé routine following the Fort Hood incident. The liberal pundits howled over  anyone inferring a religious motivation (they preferred some psychological diagnosis rather than the ample evidence that Major Hassan did this in furtherance of his jihadist ideology.) The army chief of staff insisted that the biggest danger was the ensuing discrimination against Muslims. Given this, the Obami naturally expected that they could get away with another see-no-evil-hear-no-evil-don’t identify-any-evil routine. They must have been shocked that the public and media pounced on them.

But Hayes also suggests that there is genuine cluelessness at work. It’s not that the Obami knew better and lied to us. It is that they have engaged in willful ignorance for so long that they were actually surprised by the incident. Suddenly reality harshly interrupted their slumber. He notes anti-terrorism adviser’s John Brennan’s apparent shock “that an al-Qaeda affiliate that had promised to attack the United States had almost succeeded in doing so.” And this administration, as Hayes’s colleague Thomas Joscelyn points out, saw no problem in releasing Guantanamo detainees back to Yemen:

On December 19, 2009, the Obama administration transferred six detainees to Yemen. Only one Yemeni had been repatriated during the previous 11 months—and the Bush administration, which made many of its own mistakes with respect to detainee transfers, had only repatriated a handful of Yemenis over several years. (At least one of them has since returned to terrorism.) But the Obama administration was confident. The New York Times on December 19 cited a “senior administration official” who said the White House was “gaining confidence in Yemen’s willingness to handle returning detainees.” And at the beginning of last year, in January 2009, Obama’s ambassador to Yemen, Stephen Seche, had said the administration intended to repatriate “the majority” of the Yemenis at Guantánamo.

In short, Obama’s out-to-lunchness was both strategic (downplay the war against Islamic fundamentalists) and the result of abject ignorance, perpetuated throughout his administration, as to just how serious was the threat of a Yemen-hatched plot to attack the American homeland. The ho-hum rhetorical ploy has blown up in the Obami’s faces and is likely to be adjusted, although not to the extent that the president would use the words “Islamic fundamentalist” or some variation thereof to describe our enemy. But what about those who apparently didn’t grasp the nature of the threat we faced?

It is appalling, really, that those who wrapped themselves in a cloak of ignorance and carried out foolhardy policies (e.g., refueling the terrorist pipeline in Yemen) should remain in their jobs. Yes, the president is responsible, but he can’t be fired for another three years. In the meantime, what’s the excuse for keeping everyone else around?

Read Less

Lawyerly Responses to Intelligence Malpractice

Republicans are forcefully challenging the decision to treat Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as a criminal defendant. The Washington Post — as if on cue, referring to him as the man who “allegedly” tried to kill nearly 300 people on Christmas day — quotes an unnamed Obama official’s retort: “The bottom line is, you’ve had 100 people convicted in federal court over the past nine years for terrorism offenses and three from a military commission.” This is disingenuous in the extreme and proves the Obama critics’ point.

First, we have had a slow down and halt in military commissions in no small part because the Obama team put a halt to them. Second, does anyone really think that military commissions, once fully employed, would get worse results that a civilian trial? (This smacks of Eric Holder’s argument that snatching KSM from a military tribunal — where he had plead guilty and was to be executed — is the best way to assure a conviction.) And third, and most important, this is the sign of obsession with the criminal justice model. Their main “defense” to the question as to why we aren’t getting every scrap of intelligence information from the would-be bomber is to tell us that he’s sure to be convicted. Not the point. We know they will get “convicted” — what we want is intelligence to assist in the war we are fighting.

This and many other statements by the Obami do show just how obsessed they are with prosecution of individuals on a case-by-case basis rather than insurance gathering, which might provide some more “dots” or help connect those we already have. It is what comes from installing the lefty lawyers in the Justice Department as the arbiters of  our nation’s policies on handling of terrorists. We get lawyerly responses. And Abdulmutallab now sits mutely.

Republicans are forcefully challenging the decision to treat Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as a criminal defendant. The Washington Post — as if on cue, referring to him as the man who “allegedly” tried to kill nearly 300 people on Christmas day — quotes an unnamed Obama official’s retort: “The bottom line is, you’ve had 100 people convicted in federal court over the past nine years for terrorism offenses and three from a military commission.” This is disingenuous in the extreme and proves the Obama critics’ point.

First, we have had a slow down and halt in military commissions in no small part because the Obama team put a halt to them. Second, does anyone really think that military commissions, once fully employed, would get worse results that a civilian trial? (This smacks of Eric Holder’s argument that snatching KSM from a military tribunal — where he had plead guilty and was to be executed — is the best way to assure a conviction.) And third, and most important, this is the sign of obsession with the criminal justice model. Their main “defense” to the question as to why we aren’t getting every scrap of intelligence information from the would-be bomber is to tell us that he’s sure to be convicted. Not the point. We know they will get “convicted” — what we want is intelligence to assist in the war we are fighting.

This and many other statements by the Obami do show just how obsessed they are with prosecution of individuals on a case-by-case basis rather than insurance gathering, which might provide some more “dots” or help connect those we already have. It is what comes from installing the lefty lawyers in the Justice Department as the arbiters of  our nation’s policies on handling of terrorists. We get lawyerly responses. And Abdulmutallab now sits mutely.

Read Less

Nervous Employers, Obtuse Politicians

The Wall Street Journal editors observe:

Sooner or later the economic recovery will start creating new jobs, we promise. But it sure is turning out to be a long, agonizing wait. The economy has been growing for at least six months, amid high productivity growth and rebounding corporate profits, yet employers still shed a net 85,000 jobs in December. . . Perhaps most dismaying is that nearly four in 10 (39.8%) of the jobless have been unemployed for six months or more. The longer these Americans stay out of the workplace, the more their career prospects will suffer in an economy that rewards ever-higher skills.

As the editors remind us, the American economy is resilient and will rebound, but the pace of that rebound and the speed with which employers add to their payrolls is influenced by policy in Washington and the state capitals. And bad policy — or the threat of bad policy — takes its toll. So long as the Democrats in Washington refuse to give up their ultra-liberal agenda, “no one can be sure what they will pay for energy (rising oil prices, cap and trade) or new regulation (antitrust), how high their taxes will rise, and how much each new employee will cost (health care).” The Beltway set seems bent on making the employment environment more treacherous while they trot out this or that new program. Perhaps if they just promised to do nothing, employers might breathe a sigh of relief and start to hire again.

The Wall Street Journal editors observe:

Sooner or later the economic recovery will start creating new jobs, we promise. But it sure is turning out to be a long, agonizing wait. The economy has been growing for at least six months, amid high productivity growth and rebounding corporate profits, yet employers still shed a net 85,000 jobs in December. . . Perhaps most dismaying is that nearly four in 10 (39.8%) of the jobless have been unemployed for six months or more. The longer these Americans stay out of the workplace, the more their career prospects will suffer in an economy that rewards ever-higher skills.

As the editors remind us, the American economy is resilient and will rebound, but the pace of that rebound and the speed with which employers add to their payrolls is influenced by policy in Washington and the state capitals. And bad policy — or the threat of bad policy — takes its toll. So long as the Democrats in Washington refuse to give up their ultra-liberal agenda, “no one can be sure what they will pay for energy (rising oil prices, cap and trade) or new regulation (antitrust), how high their taxes will rise, and how much each new employee will cost (health care).” The Beltway set seems bent on making the employment environment more treacherous while they trot out this or that new program. Perhaps if they just promised to do nothing, employers might breathe a sigh of relief and start to hire again.

Read Less

Flotsam and Jetsam

Isn’t there some way to stop the kidnapping of Isralis like Gilad Shalit and end Hamas’s reign of terror? Well, when the people of Gaza have had enough: “Surely there have to be some who have begun to notice the flourishing of their brethren in Judea and Samaria and to ask themselves why they’ve been sentenced by Khaled Meshaal and his masters in Damascus and Syria to live lives as less than humans, as pawns in Hamas’s own very nerve-racking game; and, feeling all the horror of what they’ve become, begin to contemplate taking a stand against it. The moment they do will be the moment Hamas’s power over them—and the Israelis—ends.”

Hotline gets it right: “A poll of GOP insiders suggests that ex-AK Gov. Sarah Palin (R) has little support among the party’s professional class — and maybe that’s just how she wants it.”

One of nine reasons why the unemployment figures are bad news for Democrats: “Remember this simple formula: Unemployment drives presidential approval numbers and presidential approval numbers drive midterm election results.” And this seems especially toxic for Democrats facing an election later this year: “Also, there is every indication that as the slowly growing economy eventually draws workers back in the labor force, the jobless rate will creep up to new highs. (Big companies remain cautious about hiring, and small biz remains under pressure due to tight capital markets.) The validity of the Obama recovery plan will seriously be cast in doubt.”

Sometimes you just can’t spin the news: “Unemployment has not gotten better; it has gotten worse, and the statistics have hidden the real decline in 2009.  Until now, only a few media outlets bothered to highlight the problem.  The AP has finally made it clear — and that will mean a lot more attention in 2010 to the failed Porkulus legislation and the fumbled economic strategies of the Obama administration.”

The Democratic Public Policy Polling finds that the Massachusetts senate race is “losable” for the Democrats: “At this point a plurality of those planning to turn out oppose the health care bill. The massive enthusiasm gap we saw in Virginia is playing itself out in Massachusetts as well. Republican voters are fired up and they’re going to turn out. Martha Coakley needs to have a coherent message up on the air over the last ten days that her election is critical to health care passing and Ted Kennedy’s legacy- right now Democrats in the state are not feeling a sense of urgency.” And Scott Brown’s favorable odds are actually higher than Bob McDonnell’s were in the Virginia gubernatorial race. Yes, this is Massachusetts.

Keep America Safe puts out a devastating video on Obama’s reaction to the Christmas Day bombing. Watch it here.

And maybe the Democrats in Congress will finally wake up: “The Obama administration’s plans to transfer two more Guantanamo Bay detainees overseas in the wake of the Christmas Day bombing attempt is causing consternation on Capitol Hill. . .Recent reports about increasing rates of recidivism for transferred Guantanamo Bay terrorists is further complicating Obama’s goal of shuttering Guantanamo. In recent days, several media outlets have reported on an updated report by the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency saying one in five former detainees have returned to militant activity.”

Jon Stewart rags on stealth health care, the broken C-SPAN promise, and all the other Obama campaign pledges that have gone by the wayside. He makes a good point: Fox is no longer the only news organization being tough on Obama.

Sen. Paul Kirk threatens to vote for ObamaCare even if Scott Brown wins. Just in case there was any doubt as to just how much contempt the majority party has for voters. Might this backfire on Coakley?

The Washington Post editors chide Obama for hiding from the press. For a guy who says the buck stops with him is not willing to be grilled, we see, on his own misstatements and performance.

Isn’t there some way to stop the kidnapping of Isralis like Gilad Shalit and end Hamas’s reign of terror? Well, when the people of Gaza have had enough: “Surely there have to be some who have begun to notice the flourishing of their brethren in Judea and Samaria and to ask themselves why they’ve been sentenced by Khaled Meshaal and his masters in Damascus and Syria to live lives as less than humans, as pawns in Hamas’s own very nerve-racking game; and, feeling all the horror of what they’ve become, begin to contemplate taking a stand against it. The moment they do will be the moment Hamas’s power over them—and the Israelis—ends.”

Hotline gets it right: “A poll of GOP insiders suggests that ex-AK Gov. Sarah Palin (R) has little support among the party’s professional class — and maybe that’s just how she wants it.”

One of nine reasons why the unemployment figures are bad news for Democrats: “Remember this simple formula: Unemployment drives presidential approval numbers and presidential approval numbers drive midterm election results.” And this seems especially toxic for Democrats facing an election later this year: “Also, there is every indication that as the slowly growing economy eventually draws workers back in the labor force, the jobless rate will creep up to new highs. (Big companies remain cautious about hiring, and small biz remains under pressure due to tight capital markets.) The validity of the Obama recovery plan will seriously be cast in doubt.”

Sometimes you just can’t spin the news: “Unemployment has not gotten better; it has gotten worse, and the statistics have hidden the real decline in 2009.  Until now, only a few media outlets bothered to highlight the problem.  The AP has finally made it clear — and that will mean a lot more attention in 2010 to the failed Porkulus legislation and the fumbled economic strategies of the Obama administration.”

The Democratic Public Policy Polling finds that the Massachusetts senate race is “losable” for the Democrats: “At this point a plurality of those planning to turn out oppose the health care bill. The massive enthusiasm gap we saw in Virginia is playing itself out in Massachusetts as well. Republican voters are fired up and they’re going to turn out. Martha Coakley needs to have a coherent message up on the air over the last ten days that her election is critical to health care passing and Ted Kennedy’s legacy- right now Democrats in the state are not feeling a sense of urgency.” And Scott Brown’s favorable odds are actually higher than Bob McDonnell’s were in the Virginia gubernatorial race. Yes, this is Massachusetts.

Keep America Safe puts out a devastating video on Obama’s reaction to the Christmas Day bombing. Watch it here.

And maybe the Democrats in Congress will finally wake up: “The Obama administration’s plans to transfer two more Guantanamo Bay detainees overseas in the wake of the Christmas Day bombing attempt is causing consternation on Capitol Hill. . .Recent reports about increasing rates of recidivism for transferred Guantanamo Bay terrorists is further complicating Obama’s goal of shuttering Guantanamo. In recent days, several media outlets have reported on an updated report by the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency saying one in five former detainees have returned to militant activity.”

Jon Stewart rags on stealth health care, the broken C-SPAN promise, and all the other Obama campaign pledges that have gone by the wayside. He makes a good point: Fox is no longer the only news organization being tough on Obama.

Sen. Paul Kirk threatens to vote for ObamaCare even if Scott Brown wins. Just in case there was any doubt as to just how much contempt the majority party has for voters. Might this backfire on Coakley?

The Washington Post editors chide Obama for hiding from the press. For a guy who says the buck stops with him is not willing to be grilled, we see, on his own misstatements and performance.

Read Less




Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.