Comrade Karla Responds to Obama's WoT Speech

It's been a while since we've heard from the good comrade. Here's what he had to say regarding Obama's latest speech regarding our Overseas Contingency Operations, formerly known as the War on Terror. The article is from the Politico while Comrade Karla's comments are in red italics:

President Barack Obama plans to say in his speech Thursday that the U.S. lost its way in fighting terrorism over the past eight years by failing to trust its institutions and values, according to an administration official.

Actually, I'd say we realized (at first) we had the wrong (or no institutions at all) to handle what we were facing and thus we decided to get back to some reality-based counter-terrorism/warfare methods…but that was all BAD and NAUGHTY we now find out, despite copious legal justification to the countrary.

Obama will also renew his pledge to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, saying he will honor the commitment he made in the first week of his presidency.

Good luck with that…between the rejection of California's spending plans and the attempt to close Gitmo and Princess Nancy's antics, you'd figure he might be getting a clue that all is not well in Democratic ideology-land, certainly not as far as the great unwashed voter goes.

In a remarkable split-screen presentation of opposing worldviews, former Vice President Dick Cheney will speak on the exact same topic moments after Obama finishes. Cheney is appearing at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, where the audience will watch the president on large TV screens.

Figured there was a reason they'd want to preempt Cheney. Interesting how he's emerging as the representative of reality-based foreign policy and security.

Cheney will say: “When President Obama makes wise decisions, he deserves our support. And when he mischaracterizes the national security decisions we made in the Bush years, he deserves an answer.”

Sort of obvious.

Cheney will argue that his intent is not to look backward but will say that a truthful telling of history is necessary to inform our choices going forward. “Though I'm not here to speak for George W. Bush, I am certain that no one wishes the current administration more success in defending the country than we do,” Cheney will say. “What I want to do today is set forth the strategic thinking that drove our policies.”
Both the president and Cheney will rest a good part of their case on effectiveness, with the president saying the last administration’s approach to fighting terror was not effective, and Cheney arguing that those programs are the reason there has been no second Sept. 11.

During his remarks at the National Archives: Obama will say that the Bush administration established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable and alienated the nation from its allies.

Nonsense. It was more like we tried to go back to handling this stuff the WAY we did in the past--I'll admit they didn't do a good job of it, but it wasn't a departure--rather the attempt to shoehorn everything from terrorism to conventional combat into the lawfare template--that my friends, is the "departure." As for alienating allies, hasn't he figure out that a lot of them still don't like us no matter what we do?

Obama will argue that so-called enhanced interrogation techniques such as waterboarding are not the most effective, undermine the rule of law, alienate the U.S. in the world, serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists and increase the will of our enemies to fight us, while decreasing the will of others to work with America.

Oh, do tell. So what is the "more effective" approach? I'm still waiting…and here I was thinking that the jew-hate that is integral to islamofascism had something to do with their extreme worldviews. Silly me, it's only because the US put them in rooms with bugs that they turned to violence.

The president will say that while the nation must ensure that its security measures and our justice system are ready to address the threats of the 21st century, the Obama administration will uphold America’s laws and its values that are the reason we have become the strongest nation in the world and persisted through crises that have threatened our core.

Translation: If we can't shoehorn it into the civilian court system, we'll ignore it.

Obama will say that the paramount responsibility of any president is to keep the American people safe. That is what he thinks about every morning when he wakes up and every night when he goes to sleep. The president believes with every fiber of his being that we cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values.

In the meantime, I'll just undermine that very process if it conflicts with a preestablished ideology.

The president will refer to the setting, saying that the documents in the National Archives — including the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights — are not simply words written into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality and dignity in the world.

What they are not is a license for our enemies to destroy us--I think the founders got that. I think in the past a lot of Ds and Rs got that. I'm not sure the 1970s wing of the Democratic Party really understands that.

Obama will point out that he is providing the resources to take the fight to the extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan who attacked us on Sept. 11; investing in the 21st-century military and intelligence capabilities; re-energizing a global nonproliferation regime and locking down loose nuclear material to deny the world’s most dangerous people access to the world’s deadliest weapons; protecting our borders and increasing our preparedness for any future attack or natural disaster; building new partnerships around the world to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda and its affiliates; and renewing American diplomacy.

Some stuff is good and was already in the works…the counterproliferation thing strikes me as attacking the wrong part of the crocodile at this particular point in time.

Referring back to the opening week of his presidency, Obama will point out that he ordered the closing of the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay. For over seven years, the U.S. has detained hundreds of people at Guantanamo. During that time, the system of Military Commissions at Guantanamo succeeded in convicting only three suspected terrorists.

Not through any failure on the part of the methodology--it was a political decision to fiddle-f*ck around and not get this done, oh and lawsuits that were settled by the USSC and Congressional legislating had SOMETHING to do with this, did it not? I guess we won't mention the nature of the inmates--could be embarrasing.

Obama will contend that the record is clear: Rather than keep Americans safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. Turning to detainees who remain, the president will announce this framework:

And his proof for this is? He has none. It is ideological belief masquerading as fact. I guess letting these guys into the civil courts were they would be acquitted/let out is much, much safer somehow. I also don't get where this endlessly silly belief that if we're just nice to violent jihadists they'll somehow realize the error of their ways and take up pottery or join Mr. Van Driessen's music circle.

--When feasible, try those who have violated American criminal laws in federal courts.

Already do that.

--When necessary, try those who violate the rules of war through Military Commissions.

Were about to do that when this admin c*ck blocked it and then changed its mind.

--When possible, transfer to third countries those detainees who can be safely transferred.

Yeah, that works. I wonder if they've figured out yet why none of those "third countries" want these bozos?