Obama Administration: As Quick on the Draw on Iran as the Campaign Was On Georgia
In my miscellany post Saturday, I pointed out the improbability of the results. As was the case during the campaign when Russia for a few weeks last summer invaded and occupied large portions of Georgia, the Obama Administrtion and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been slow and measured in their response to an obviously rigged election, no doubt worrying about being called neo-Bushians if they take a stand for democratic rights under the Iranian dictatorship. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who has already certified the victory of his puppet, President Ahmadinejad, has called for an investigation of fraud (duh, you think?) Do you think the ayatollah is going to admit he was wrong in the first place? Are you interested in buying the Brooklyn Bridge? The only way that the ayatollah is going to throw Ahmadinejad under the bus is if he thinks the popular uprising might topple him... Our hearts and prayers are with the Iranian patriots standing up for their rights and their future against the dictatorship.
Is Leon Panetta Right About Cheney?
Former Vice President Dick Cheney has been highly critical of the Obama's Administration's penchant for announcing surface-level policies before addressing the more difficult issues. For example, if, as Cheney argues, a more controlled version of waterboarding yielded actionable intelligence not obtained through alternative methods, why would we unilaterally renounce an effective intelligence method? Why would we publicize what methods we would use, thus enabling our adversaries to devise counter-measures? Why would we close the Guantanamo Bay detainee center, a paid-for facility, to look for vacancies at high-cost prison facilities within the states?
Cheney is questioning the wisdom of the Obama Administration throwing the baby out with the bath water, strategies and policies that helped keep America safe during the remaining 7 years of the Bush Presidency.
Why is the Obama Administration doing this? Simply to placate their ideological supporters on high-level symbolic goals?
Leon Panetta, CIA director, who actually seems to support that enhanced intelligence techniques were deemed effective, has a critical perspective on Cheney's relevant discussions:
It's almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it's almost as if he's wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point. I think that's dangerous politics.
I think that this is a rather polemical interpretation of Cheney's intent. I think Cheney is sincerely worried that the Obama Administration is unilaterally surrendering effective tools and infrastructure which he thinks have been proven to work, without something comparable in nature to replace them. Ultimately it's unknowable: how do we know exactly what actionable intelligence we might have gotten through a technique we're not using? Obviously if we knew all the actionable intelligence a terror suspect has, we could compare effectiveness between techniques.
I think all Cheney is making is a very simple point: We shouldn't leave money on the table. If, in fact, enhanced interrogation methods yielded results not available through other methods, that lost intelligence could have preempted attacks and saved lives. Would the Obama Administration be morally responsible for those? Perhaps. The only person who might know is the suspect himself.
I will say that I am skeptical about the ways that these enhanced interrogation techniques were used. There are varying reports on how many times they were used on the 3 detainees. Now if almost all the information was revealed at the start (according to some anecdotal sources), what was the purpose for multiple instances? And why was it effective in some cases but not others? Even if I concede Cheney is right in aggregate terms, there are serious questions about how the techniques were used.
Should the Iraq/Afghan Pictures Should Be Released?
Of course not, although I'm sympathetic to the questions of accountability and transparency and the right of the people to know. Presumably whatever is on those photos is inconsistent with our military code, and I would like to get closure those GI's whom violated the rules have been suitably prosecuted and punished. I would also like to know that the military has made whatever course corrections are necessary, whether it's replacement of ineffective officers or additional/revised policies. I have the deepest respect for the professionalism of the American GI, but at all times we expect soldier performance worthy of America and her finest traditions.
Letterman Joke All a Plot Over Ratings?
What most people forget is that Letterman owned the initial ratings war against Leno, and it really wasn't until Leno landed a coveted interview with actor Hugh Grant after his much-publicized arrest with a Hollywood prostitute. [He was dating Elizabeth Hurley at the time, and Leno spoke for all us admirers of Ms. Hurley's charms: "What the hell were you thinking?"]
I am not a television executive, but there are decisions I don't understand. After Dan Rather's disgraceful exit, Bob Schieffer brought a breath of fresh air, and ratings improved week by week. And then Katie Couric assumed the anchor position, and after an initial rating boost by curious viewers, Couric's ratings started a long slump downwards. Then there's the fact that Jay Leno voluntarily relinguished the Tonight Show to Conan O'Brien, despite having held the time period. With all due respect to O'Brien, I don't care for his style of comedy, and I suspect the Couric example will hold: Letterman will win the time slot after the novelty of O'Brien wears off. In fact, it looks as though that was already beginning to happen last week, O'Brien's second week.
Was last week's poor-taste joke about Bristol Palin (which others, without any common sense, seem to suggest was really about Bristol's younger sister) a savvy, calculated to drive ratings? Hardly. Dave Letterman did not suggest when Sarah Palin would visit New York or even would take in a Yankee game--still yet, with one of her daughters right in the middle of the O'Brien-Letterman rating war. Letterman had made Palin family jokes before without a vitriolic reactions from Palin--or big ratings. Others had made Bristol Palin jokes in questionable taste without rating boosts. I don't recall a politician being foolish enough to personally attack a comedian. It may be very popular with her base, but it sets a red flag about her temperament and judgment; this is already on top of the 60% whom didn't think she was ready to be President.
FNC: Baby Steps Towards More Balanced Coverage of Palin Versus Letterman
I think Fox News, which I blasted over the weekend for its doting coverage, i.e., "slobbering love affair with all things Sarah Palin", is somewhat dialing things back; I saw this morning's coverage including one of a prior Leno Bristol Palin joke I reprinted in my Saturday post (although they didn't note prior Letterman Bristol jokes). Megyn Kelly had an interview with John Ziegler, a known pro-Palin talk show host whom is trying to launch a boycott of Letterman over the joke, and at least this time she challenged the guest on a few of his talking points (versus leading the prosecution of Letterman). However, Fox News was implicitly endorsing the concept of a boycott over a joke and failed to note necessary background information to its audience, including his attacks on Couric over the Palin interviews (yes, let's blame the crafty journalist or the McCain campaign staffers for Sarah Palin's painful-to-watch fumbling tough questions, like prominent Supreme Court rulings and what newspapers and magazines she reads).
I am disappointed that Fox News hasn't addressed the bigger issues: Sarah Palin decided to pick this fight for what particular purpose? Letterman never brought 14-year-old Willow into the conversation. The country is talking about the deepest recession in decades, massive government intervention in the financial service and auto industries; health care, and cap-and-trade; the Republican Party is all but shut out of New England for the first time since Lincoln was President with eroding memberships, especially in fast-growing minority communities. And what does Sarah Palin talk about? (1) oil and gas development in Alaska; (2) ousted beauty queen Carrie Prejean; (3) a tasteless joke by Letterman. Gingrich is going around talking about stimulating investment, government intervention, and health care solutions, and Palin is, well, talking about herself. No wonder 60% of the American voters felt she was unprepared to be President!
[Earth to Sarah: this is not the first time Letterman has joked about you or your family. When you accepted a spot on the national ticket, what did you think would happen? Especially when you oppose sex education beyond abstinence and you have a 5-month pregnant 17-year-old daughter? You not only brought your daughter to the convention, but you brought the baby daddy (Levi Johnston) with her. Then your daughter, after breaking off her engagement, goes around the country promoting abstinence education and is the cover story for an issue of People magazine. You visit New York City, Letterman's home turf, take in a Yankee game with a daughter, and you think Letterman, who had a history of making Palin jokes, isn't going to make a joke out the situation?
You're worried about David Letterman around 14-year-old Willow? Well, listen, Ms. "Hockey Mom"... What sport did Levi Johnston play? Maybe you should stop worrying about David Letterman and start worrying about Willow dating those hockey players...]
Invalid Comparison Between the Imus Rutgers Joke and the Letterman Rodriguez Joke
Some have trivially made a comparison between the firing of Imus, for telling a joke in questionable taste about the Rutgers female basketball team using the term "hos". First of all, I don't believe he should have been fired. This is not to say I approved of what he said, but I thought he had made a good faith effort to apologize. I never bought that a number of 6-foot, strong female athletes could be devastated by a solitary insult from an old man. When I played youth baseball, I often heard other players say things about opposing team player mothers and daughters. The women's basketball team played the victimization card to the maximum. I don't listen to Imus, but at the time I remember he had gotten away with saying worst things in the past.
Palin is a different case. She made choices, including the decision to accept being John McCain's running mate. She could have kept her oldest daughter out of the spotlight. Jokes come with the territory. Others (e.g., Leno) made jokes about Bristol when she was 17, and Palin didn't respond--and Bristol at the time was a minor. I thought Palin calling Letterman a pervert was out of line; apparently she can't distinguish between bad taste and perversion. I thought she was using political correctness, not out of sincerity of a belief in victimization but as a weapon against Letterman.
Gitmo Uighar Detainees: You've been to the Afghan Front. Where Are You Going Next? Bermuda!
