Friday, September 11, 2009

Revenge of the Left

The left is the left. I mean the baby-boomer, University of Woodstock left. They can't help it. They are creatures of their emotions--their Western, Christian civilization hating emotions. As such, they are all to predictable to those who know them.

Western Christian civilization culminates in American civilization which, for that reason, they hate. Accordingly, they hate American world power and every arm of it. Think of the discomfort the Clinton people felt at having uniformed military officers in the White House when they moved in back in 1993. Now in 2009, the Obama people go one better: they're making open war on the CIA.

In "Punishing Patriots," Ralph Peters is blunt: "in this administration's hard-left cosmos, the CIA is evil. For that matter, America is evil. Americans need to be punished and forced to face the evil our country has done." Hence, our President travels in foreign lands apologizing for his country the way German Chancellor Angela Merkel apologized for her country's behavior in Poland. This attitude is perfectly consistent with his twenty year discipleship under the pastoral care of Jeremiah Wright.

Fouad Ajami has compared Barack Obama's political style to that of a Third World dictator ("Obama and the Politics of Crowds" and "Obama's Summer of Discontent"). Peters draws his own parallels.

This is the sort of politicized retribution that prevails in backwater countries when regimes change. Our wise tradition has been for new administrations to accept that their predecessors did their best, however disagreeably, and move on. Gerald Ford sacrificed himself to that end, and even Jimmy Carter understood that presidencies are not for domestic revenge.

As ObamaCare, cap and trade, and union "card check" voting will destroy the American economy, this hunt for public enemies in the CIA will throw the door open for al Qaeda to destroy whatever is left of us. "You can't do useful intelligence work on a choke-chain. Yes, the intel community needs oversight and guidance." An editorial in last week's Wall Street Journal sounded a similar alarm over this castration of the faithful dog who patrols our perimeter. "The message that Mr. Holder's criminal probe will send to thousands of men and women is that they had better not do anything remotely controversial on behalf of American safety, even with a lawyer's permission" ("Prosecuting the CIA," August 29, 2009)

The genius of our republic is that its design soberly recognizes the complexity of human nature, and makes prudent account for its moral highs and lows. A wise national security policy does the same, a acknowledges that, "For the rest of us to live in peace, patriots must stand at the edge of darkness where our enemies dwell." For President Obama and the flower child fogies with whose resentments his heart resonates, the darkness is largely within our borders and national security is largely a matter of domestic reform.

By the way, Obama's emotional union with old leftists like Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank helps to explain why he will not tack to the right, as David Brooks and Ed Gillespie have advised him, in response to public opposition and plummeting approval ratings. The other reason is that he wants to be a transformational President. So he will ram through whatever legislation it takes to change the American economy and way of thinking fundamentally, no matter what the political cost.


R.B. Glennie said...

David, here's my take:

If Obama and his men go after the CIA for `enhanced interrogation', it will be the Obama government's Achilles' heel.

Perhaps I am wrong - and I shouldn't predict anything that hasn't already come true (as my hero Marshall McLuhan said).

My reasoning goes like this:

`Enhanced interrogations' are unpopular with the public in Britian and Europe - perhaps even in Canada here.

They are not with the American public - I believe public opinion polling bears this out.

Sure, Americans don't like to think of their military or intelligence officials using rough tactics on prisoners.

But what `prisoners'! These are the people - lest we forget eight years ago today - who mastermined / were involved in / actively cheered on the deliberately targetting of civilians and non-military infrastructure - killing 3,000 people and destroying billions of dollars in property.

Is rough justice not justified when it is clear that these same terrorists wish to kill many more people and destroy even more of American assets?

The hard left, whence Obama originates, believes not. Most others, included even (I bet, in their heart of hearts) moderate `liberals', will say otherwise.

The second thing is this: quite apart from the horror stories that were put out over the last number of years, the actual `enhanced interrogation' techniques have turned out to be pretty tame, at least by any historical standards.

Yet, for this, the Obama government seems bound and determined to shackle all efforts to prevent another 9/11 by subjecting intelligence officers to post-facto prosecution.

So, Obama gonna put CIA officials on trial? They might as well respond, "Go ahead, make my day."

(this leaves out the embarassing facts about `enhanced interrogations', the fact that Nancy Pelosi knew all about them - no one believes she doesn't - and no doubt, there are other facts ready to be leaked as well).

My guess: nothing will come of this `investigation into torture.'

Nothing at all.

David C. Innes said...

Sounds Plausible. I hope you're right.