Category ►►► Obamic Options

November 15, 2009

Extradition Indecision - Obamic Options 005

John Hinderaker adds a chilling but disturbingly plausible appendix to the end of a Power Line post by Scott "Big Johnson" Trunk. The post examines the likely effects of trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other high-profile terrorists in civilian court; at the end, Scott wonders why President Barack H. Obama is so determined to try some terrorists in federal court, while others are tried in military commissions. John's addendum follows:

On our radio show yesterday, Andy McCarthy proposed an explanation that amplifies on Scott's last paragraph. He suggested that the Obama administration views KSM et al. as its allies (my paraphrase) in its war against the Bush administration. Obama expects them to make their treatment by the Bush administration, real and imagined, the centerpiece of their defense, with the possible result that Bush, Cheney, and others may be indicted as war criminals by European countries or international courts, thereby satisfying the far left of the Democratic Party, which Obama represents.

This leads me to another Obamic Option question (the fifth):

Assume for sake of argument that some court in Madrid, let's say -- one that declares it has "universal jurisdiction" -- watches the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City, then decides to indict George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Douglas Feith, Alberto Gonzales, Jay Bybee, John Yoo, and of course Karl Rove for "war-crimes" supposedly committed against KSM and other terrorist detainees.

The question is this: Would President Obama agree to extradite all or some of these defendants to Spain for trial? How would the American people react to such an unprecedented decision by the American president?

Our previous Obamic Options offerings were:

1. Obamic Options 001
2. Obamic Options 002: The Limits of Tolerance of Pinkos
3. Another Noble Obamic Musing - Obamic Options 003
4. Could He Ever Bring Himself to Say It? Obamic Options 004

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, November 15, 2009, at the time of 6:02 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

November 9, 2009

Could He Ever Bring Himself to Say It? "No We Can't!"

Just an update to our earlier post, Could He Ever Bring Himself to Say It? Obamic Options 004. I posed the following question:

[W]ould President Barack H. Obama ever admit to the American people that -- contrary to the knee-jerk FBI statement -- such a shooting under these assumptions would almost certainly be an act of "jihadist" terrorism?

But I prefaced that question on five assumptions, four of which (all but he last) were being widely reported at the time; I wrote, "let's assume for sake of argument that the following reports are correct." (I even italicized it.) Here are the assumptions:

1. The main shooter was Major Malik Nadal Hasan (or Nidal Malik Hasan -- I've seen both versions);
2. Hasan was a recent convert to Islam;
3. Hasan was "violently hostile" to the deployment of American forces in Afghanistan and Iraq;
4. That the two persons currently being held in custody are, in fact, collaborators in the massacre.
5. That the two in custody were also recent converts to Islam or radical Moslems.

As it turned out, most of the original assumptions for sake of argument were wrong:

• Yes, it seems pretty solid that Nidal Malik Hasan was the shooter.
• But he was not a recent convert to Islam -- he is a lifelong Moslem who is now a radical Moslem (I don't know whether he has always been radicalized or whether it's a recent event).
• He was certainly "violently hostile" to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
• But the two people briefly held in custody were not collaborators and were released.
• I don't have any information whether they were Moslems, so let's call this unconfirmed.

However, my point not only stands but is bolstered. How? How can my point become stronger when 60% of the underpinning of premises on which it was based has been kicked down?

Should be obvious: Because each discarded assumption has been replaced by even more solid evidence that Hasan's massacre at Fort Hood was not senseless and motive-free, but was in fact an act of putative jihad.

We now know about Hasan's repeated anti-American, anti-infidel outbursts, his justification of suicide bombings, his incomprehension that American Moslems could possibly fight against their "brothers" in Afghanistan and Iraq. We now learn that he posted jihadist messages on the internet, that he had contacts with a radical imam who preached at the mosque that the 9/11 butchers attended, and even that he evidently attempted to contact al-Qaeda.

He was not a recent convert, but he was a radical jihadist. He evidently acted alone when he committed mass murder, but at least two witnesses insist he shouted "Allahu Akhbar" as he did it.

Let's just jack up the question and run the new, more careful reporting under it in place of the discarded assumptions; when you finish tightening the bolts, the same question is even more urgent now than it was four days ago.

And now we appear to have an answer: No; Barack H. Obama cannot bring himself to call this brutish massacre "an act of 'jihadist' terrorism." It simply is not in his nature, nor his best interests -- which do not seem to coincide with the best interests of the United States.

Honesty may be the best policy, but it's not Obama's policy.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, November 9, 2009, at the time of 4:55 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

November 5, 2009

Could He Ever Bring Himself to Say It? Obamic Options 004

Regarding the shooting at Fort Hood; let's assume for sake of argument that the following reports are correct:

• The main shooter was Major Malik Nadal Hasan (or Nidal Malik Hasan -- I've seen both versions);
• Hasan was a recent convert to Islam;
• Hasan was "violently hostile" to the deployment of American forces in Afghanistan and Iraq;
• That the two persons currently being held in custody are, in fact, collaborators in the massacre.

And let's make one final assumption that is admittedly based on nothing more than my speculation about the nature of the shooting:

• That the two in custody were also recent converts to Islam or radical Moslems.

My question is this: In such a case, would President Barack H. Obama ever admit to the American people that -- contrary to the knee-jerk FBI statement -- such a shooting under these assumptions would almost certainly be an act of "jihadist" terrorism?

Or would he insist it was just a trio of motiveless killers, no matter what?

(Maybe he would dub it a man-caused Major disaster, suggest we respond by initiating a domestic contingency operation, and blame George W. Bush.)

Sachi believes Obama would not; that no matter how much evidence emerged, Obama would never say that this was domestic radical-Islamic terrorism. But I'm not entirely sure; he might realize that the disconnect between what he was saying and what the average guy or gal on the street was thinking would be so great that his approval would suffer significantly.

Recall, we made some assumptions up there: First, that all "facts" reported so far hold up, and second, that the accomplices were also Moslem converts or radicals. So everything I'm saying here is conditional.

But given those assumptions, what do you think the One would say?

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, November 5, 2009, at the time of 3:40 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

October 12, 2009

Another Noble Obamic Musing - Obamic Options 003

So now I see that Lanny Davis joins the chorus of lefties chastising us anti-liberals for not leaping to our feet to cheer President Barack H. Obama "winning" the Nobel Peace Prize for -- for -- well, I'll get back to you about that part. David writes:

The strident Republican right filled with Obama-haters shamed themselves - and embarrassed fair-thinking conservatives - with churlish and venomous attacks on the Nobel Prize committee and Mr. Obama. The hypocrisy and irony were apparent. The same conservative partisans who cheered when Chicago lost its bid for the Olympics now booed when a U.S. president won the Nobel Peace Prize.

I suspect that Davis completely understands that what we're angry about is that the award was simply handed to Obama for partisan political reasons, to give him some ammunition to use against Republicans, so he can continue driving the country further and further left with his magic cattle prod. It's a dishonest award... and our American sense of justice and decency trumps any reflexive emotional chauvinism towards our country. Davis even titles his polemic "Obama's Nobel Achievement;" it's no achievement to be given something unearned as a political statement -- or a bribe.

Similarly, we would never cheer an American victory in the Olympics engineered by some cunning interpretation of the rules to disqualify the actual winner, even if he was Chinese or Russian. For God's sake, Davis, aren't you American enough to be embarassed by "winning" unfairly?

Were this an honest Peace Prize award -- when is the last time we had one? -- we would have cheered. Suppose he accepts Gen. Stanley McChrystal's recommendation to fight a counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan; suppose it succeeds. Then if the Norwegians were to award him the Peace Prize for helping bring democracy and peace to that corner of the globe (hah!), yes, I would applaud him. (Though I would wonder how a globe can have "corners.")

But when they just bung it at him after nine months in office, during which he has done nothing to advance either world peace or a foreign policy that benefits the United States of America... Sorry, Lanny Davis, I'm not a mindless partisan automaton, creaking to its hind legs to clap metallic hands whenever the unAmerican Left holds up the sign reading "applesauce."

Davis knows all this, but he bears false witness against us anyway. And why not? Look where he got his training, as Special White House Counsel for Bill Clinton, smearing every witness who truthfully testified about Clinton's many crimes and felonies; Lanny Davis was weened on such polarizing and conscienceless lies.

So I have a new Obamic thought experiment -- this one for both Lanny Davis and the One Himself:

1. Mr. Davis, suppose that the Swedish Academy were to announce in 2010 that Barack Obama has been awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics -- a prize that nobody in the entire world could possibly argue he deserves. Should we stand and cheer that, too? Must we cheer any "honor" bestowed upon the One, even if it is clearly unearned, thus dishonorable?
2. Given that the Obamacle himself expressed grave doubts that he had earned such a prize, then signaled strongly that he would nevertheless accept it... if the Nobel Committee indeed handed him the Nobel in Physics -- would Obama actually accept it?

The answers to these two questions would tell us a lot about not just the Americanness of the Left but its sanity as well. Alas, the questions will never be asked outside this blog; and the principals would refuse to answer them if they were -- which itself tells us much more about the Left than some may realize.

Cross-posted to Hot Air's rogues' gallery...

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, October 12, 2009, at the time of 1:42 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

October 9, 2009

Obamic Options 002: The Limits of Tolerance of Pinkos

Five months ago, in the heady days of Barack H. Obama's spring fling, I noted that he (along with most other liberals) was far more interested in destroying traditional marriage, by foisting same-sex marriage (SSM) on Americans, than he was in extending actual liberty to U.S. servicemen who happen to be gay.

That is, while Obama is wild to enact SSM nationwide, if he can ever figure out how to do it, he nods off when anyone starts talking about repealing the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy (DADT) of President Bill Clinton and actually doing what Clinton and Obama both only talked about -- letting gays serve openly in the military, instead of serving in secret.

Five months later, we have this dramatic and unexpected statement from National Security Advisor Gen. James Jones:

President Obama will focus "at the right time" on how to overturn the "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gays serving openly in the military, his national security adviser said Sunday.

"I don't think it's going to be -- it's not years, but I think it will be teed up appropriately," James L. Jones said.

Like every policy that "earned" Obama his Nobel Peace Prize, this one is a great big ol' fifty-gallon hat, but neither hide nor hoof of any cattle. He talks a really good fight; he's still promising that he'll deliver on this one, any day now:

The Democrat-led Congress is considering repealing the 1993 law. Action isn't expected on the issue until early next year.

Right. Congress is going to take up gays in the military -- in an election year.

Later, Jones clarified the timetable with great precision:

Mr. Jones, appearing on CNN's "State of the Union," said Mr. Obama "has an awful lot on his desk. I know this is an issue that he intends to take on at the appropriate time. And he has already signaled that to the Defense Department. The Defense Department is doing the things it has to do to prepare, but at the right time, I'm sure the president will take it on."

The great thing is that this statement can never be a lie; in fact, it can never even be wrong! If Obama isn't "taking on" DADT, then clearly it's not the "appropriate time." What could be simpler?

So... any bets on whether Barack Obama will have moved to repeal DADT -- by time his 2012 reelection campaign gets underway?

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, October 9, 2009, at the time of 7:38 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

October 3, 2009

Obamic Options 001

The first in a sporatic but unbounded series of questions about how our current president might respond to sundry stimuli, whether plausible or peculiar.

Note that I don't ask these questions to elicit an attack on Barack H. Obama but rather to probe the possibilities -- what might he actually do in each situation, given various constraints?

1. Obama is not suicidal;
2. He may not be particularly bright, but he's certainly not mentally retarded;
3. He is not a Twelver;
4. He is not a James Bond villain;
5. He is not a fatalist;
6. He believes he is a good guy doing right for the world, if not this particular country;
7. He has several aides who are very knowledgeable and skillful in their fields who can make suggestions or help with strategic planning.

Today's question 001:

1. Join Israel's reprisal attacks, or at least aid them;
2. Remain neutral, neither helping nor hindering Israel;
3. Condemn Israel's reprisals, but make no move to stop them physically;
4. Attempt to militarily interdict or even shoot down Israeli jets crossing Iraq to attack Iran;
5. Some other response (specify).

Today's corollary 001a:

For both questions, please be as realistic as possible, taking into account our current capabilities and how Congress, the American people, and the rest of the world might respond, and how that could affect how President Obama responds.

Hope to hear from you soon!

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, October 3, 2009, at the time of 11:06 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved