But there’s another aspect to Obama’s West Point commencement address, in which he previews the themes that will be the centerpiece of his National Security Strategy, that’s more problematic. He has a remarkable ability to view al-Qaeda and the challenge it poses in context and exhort the country against hysteria, counterproductive overreaction and unnecessary compromise. But then he engages in — at the very least — unnecessary compromise. For instance:
Al Qaeda and its affiliates are small men on the wrong side of history. They lead no nation. They lead no religion. We need not give in to fear every time a terrorist tries to scare us. We should not discard our freedoms because extremists try to exploit them. We cannot succumb to division because others try to drive us apart. We are the United States of America.
If you could see me right now, you would see a New Yorker waving a miniature American flag and cueing up Springsteen’s “Promised Land.” The president continues, “Extremists want a war between America and Islam, but Muslims are part of our national life, including those who serve in our United States Army.” And I’m waving that flag so hard.
A fundamental part of our strategy for our security has to be America’s support for those universal rights that formed the creed of our founding. And we will promote these values above all by living them — through our fidelity to the rule of law and our Constitution, even when it’s hard; even when we’re being attacked; even when we’re in the midst of war.
And this is what kills me, because it’s so apt a diagnosis and so foreign from what Obama’s presidency is actually pursuing. “Fidelity to the rule of law and our Constitution, even when it’s hard” would cause Attorney General Holder to refuse to create a framework from indefinite detention without charge — perhaps the least American idea there is — rather than assenting to it under pressure from Sen. Graham. There would be no inexplicable expansions of exemptions within Miranda after a 53-hour law-enforcement manhunt immediately produces intelligence cooperation from an American citizen-turned-extremist. And there would most certainly be no assertions of the right to execute an American citizen without due process of law on mere suspicion of involvement with small men on the wrong side of history. Actually, come to think of it, that’s the least American idea there is.
There would be no embrace of the military commissions, and certainly no prosecution under them of someone who as a 15-year old allegedly threw a grenade that killed an American soldier — heinous, but clearly a traditional battlefield act — for a war crime. There would be no calculation that the path to closing down the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay involves embracing the commissions and indefinite detention without charge. There would be no equivocation that the best venue for trying the men responsible for plunging us into this Constitutional dark age is the civilian courts that have proven so successful at dispensing internationally-recognized justice. And there would be no hectoring of the civil liberties community for being naive enough to believe that the Constitutional principles Obama espoused as a candidate — and, every now and then, in speeches like this — are indeed necessary and sufficient to guide us out of that dark age.
Instead, if it’s true that he will promote these values above all by living them, then he is simply not promoting them. I’ll leave it to you to determine if Obama is not promoting them at all or not promoting them as much as I’d like, as I try to be humble enough to remember there is a distinction there. But remember what the argument on offer here is from the president: American values are necessary sources of positive-sum international action, and the promotion of American values begins with our demonstrated fidelity to them. So we are depleting our own stated strength.
Some sunshine patriots wrap themselves in the flag. But it’s just as cynical to wrap yourself in the Constitution.



64 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
Brilliant. Perfect.
It is one thing to question authority, but at a minimum it is necessary to question hypocrisy.
Thank You…
mikey
I’m with mikey. you done good.
Eh. Consider the audience he was talking to. It was a typical graduation speech, directed at a couple thousand proud mommies and daddies (happier than most, considering they didn’t incur the equivalent of a new house’s mortgage to get Junior college-educated and Junior’s debt-free and has a paying job and won’t be moving back into the basement, too) and designed to be the rhetorical equivalent of a birthday blowjob.
That people outside the graduation audience pay attention to what he says is merely a function of his job, and to that audience, his speech was just some more smoke being blown up their behinds. Daily it becomes clearer that Obama’s “change” was really (shorthand for) “plus ca change” – no change at all.
Yeh, some folks inherit star spangled eyes,
ooh, they send you down to war, Lord,
And when you ask them, how much should we give,
oh, they only answer, more, more, more, more.
This is one of Bruce’s most powerful (and anti-Establishment) songs, from one of his most powerful albums.
Ironic juxtaposition against Barry’s pablum.
Typical Obama: a flowery speech to polish his image, while his actions are the opposite.
Well, do tell.
Saudi King slams intelligence leak
“The King of Saudi Arabia has strongly criticized the country’s intelligence officials for disclosing a secret document, which shows Riyadh has links with terrorist activities carried out by al-Qaeda in Iraq.”
LINK.
You may be right but the “Genius’ looked and sounded great, with the proper pauses, all the while playing a game of unexplainable 11 dimensional chess, didn’t he ?
I wish Obama had read the Constitution rather than do an Ed Gein and wrap himself in it.
ouch!
incredibly helpful Spencer. thank you
Yep
“I like seeing Obama fan the spark into a flame.”
No doubt!
And those additional 30,000 troops should help matters, no end.
As personified by this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/22/AR2010052203486_pf.html
Obama is one of the most duplicitous and venal politicians to come along for a very long time, maybe since Nixon.
Terrific essay, Spencer.
Good catch fatster …. your reading habits are extraordinary.
It took a crusty judge in Britain looking at ‘redacted’ intelligence to point out that there is a disconnect between intelligence that would impact ‘national security’ and that which embarrasses a government.
It appears that, not in your country, nor in mine (Canada) have governments managed to wrap their minds about that concept.
As for Saudi – Grand Poobaugh Aziz may have more of a case. He is an absolute ruler in our medieval sense (“Yes, I CAN …cut your head off if I want.”). He and the state are pretty much the same thing. Plato’s ‘benevolent dictatorship’ without the benevolent.
So, Spencer, how long do you think we should keep up the liberation of Afghanistan?
I believe enquiring members of the coalition of the rented would like to know.
Whatever O sez, u can usually count on him to do the opposite. O wrapping himself in the constitution makes me puke. Here’s an interview with someone who protested at the WP gate and has an antiwar ad & petition in a magazine.
And, as seems likely, so would a few american voters.
LMAO! Maybe Obama’s theme song should be “Born in the USA”.
Was just thinking that The Boss has a better understanding of Americans than “the boss.”
Marjah, a tiny hamlet that was the wet run for Khandahar, is a miserable failure. So the latter ought to be interesting.
The fact that Obama can so clearly articulate the Constitution and the laws then ignore them in practice is in my view proof he is a Mountebank/
Also has anyone else noticed that Al Quaeda has dropped out of his vernacular? Now it appears the Taliban is our enemy. While abhorrent in their beliefs, what did they ever do to the US before we invaded their land?
They worked for us. Against the Russians.
LINK.
Not only that, but do you think the Taliban are actually going to come into the U.S. & commit terrorist attacks?
The std talking point of the PTB is that if the Taliban take over Afghanistan, they’ll host AQ again.
From what I read, the Taliban are no longer capable of taking over the entire country and AQ is a shadow of its former self. Not to mention that should the U.S. see that “scary”, though highly unlikely, scenario developing, it can always go back & attack the Taliban or AQ again.
Yep we ran out of enemy and picked our old friends in the Taliban.
they rented out space for the training camps in Afghanistan,…
http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php?option=com_rokzine&view=article&id=92&Itemid=54
also…
Didn’t do them any good, did it?
Didn’t make them either wealthy or powerful.
Didn’t make them a lot of friends and allies.
It did scare good sense out of the US politicians, though. And why they should be so seriously affected is what I’d like to know.
“Wet run”…
Good shot, eCAHN…
And we wonder why they are not rolling out the garlands and wine to thank us for this version of “liberation” of the country.
The Taliban government didn’t do anybody any good, and beside AQ and other groups of misbegotten fundamentalists, the Taliban’s friends and allies were mainly in the governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia
Oh my stars and bars, the image of Ackerman having his nationalist strings pulled by Obama’s pseudo-poetry! You crack me up.
Ah, ain’t that the beauty of using the Bully Pulpit for preaching people to a bloody pulp with myths of American Exceptionalism? Too bad he fucked it up with too much reliance on suspension of disbelief in the face of nationalist symbols and narratives. The power of aesthetic arrest, of getting lost in his over-rehearsed eloquence, is supposed to make you forget to think.
Put down the flag, stop waving it with fanatical religious fervor, and ask yourself, how might these symbols, images, and narratives be pulling my strings by design?
I hope the blatant myth-making in the manufacture of public opinion is becoming more and more obvious. Remember, friends, we’ve been subjected to this kind of strategic domestic disinformation campaign aka “historical engineering,” propaganda, information ops (brought to us in part by APA’s covert efforts, to mechanize and weaponize humanity, the better to predict and control our behavior and events on the world stage) for the better part of a century now.
And doncha just love the headlines saying Obama is repudiating the Bush Doctrine? Pravda would be proud.
Please don’t tell me anyone thinks presidential speeches are innocent of any effort to shape public opinion (as Greenwald so forcefully called out Matt Yglesias for doing recently):
As the old joke goes, familiar to anyone with the least experience with the military mindset: When they want our opinion, they’ll give it to us.
You’re kidding, right?
You don’t recall Reagan’s re-elect campaign starting off using that song, only to have to be told it has a profoundly anti-war (and anti-establishment) message of how Republicans screw over the little guy and then to be reminded they hadn’t licensed it from Bruce?
The campaign dropped it instantly. Maybe you should watch this video from the Born in the USA tour, circa 1984-85.
The conservatives are critical of Obama. The are called racists for this. This must mean the progressives are racist with their critical words.
except for the second premise being pretty stupid, that’s a pretty nifty sillyputtyism.
Last refuge of scoundrels is in patriotism.
Sadly, that is a statement that seems to always be with us. Samuel Johnson said it before Parliament in 1775.
Thank you. I try to make sure my links are to reliable sources, so if you notice one that isn’t, please let me know.
Obama is a (fill in your favorite pejorative). Yup Yup.
“Obama Wraps Himself In The Constitution”
No doubt he’ll continue to shit in it just like his predecessor and all other “good” Republicans. Fucking monster…
Wow.
You really nailed this one, Spencer.
If you phrase this in the form of a question, I’d love to hear the WH or DOD spokesperson’s response.
President Pinocchio says one thing and does another, and this news requires a new post?
As another poster wrote a few days ago:
New boss…
WORSE than the old boss.
Doesn’t anyone who’s paying attention know by now that Obama says one thing, then does another, often 180 degrees from his “mouthings.”
Good post. See Glenn Greenwald’s latest column -
Obama wins the right to detain people with no habeas review
For anyone who doesn’t know – a “Mountebank” means “a charlatan, a fake.”
Hardly. False equivalency.
I was trained in the US Army to throw grenades at the enemy. The kid was throwing a grenade at the enemy. We were not on his side, we were invading his country. A traditional battlefield act, indeed. So why is that heinous?
I agree with everything else.
did the army train you to instruct your little brother to dress in civilian garb and throw grenades?
Only at Lexington and Concord:
As the British force retreated to Boston, the colonists, armed with their own civilian weapons, sniped at their antagonists from behind fences and trees rather than confronting the professionals in formal lines of battle. With such guerilla tactics, the militiamen killed and wounded more British soldiers than British soldiers killed and wounded Americans.
check the minimum age for inclusion in the various militias in the Colonies, Red.
I don’t think 15 makes it.
Who’s talking about the militia? These were colonists, and likely included quite a range of ages.
Did a pretty good job, too.
> Who’s talking about the militia
Macaquerman is, because the quote says “the colonists”. That’s how he rolls.
check comment 50, see battles of Lexington and Concord…. find out who fought against the British…. and how they were organized….
thass what we talkin ’bout
you wuz who talkin about militia. not my fault you didn’t know it, red.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord
The Battles of Lexington and Concord were the first military engagements of the American Revolutionary War.[8][9] They were fought on April 19, 1775, in Middlesex County, Province of Massachusetts Bay, within the towns of Lexington, Concord, Lincoln, Menotomy (present-day Arlington), and Cambridge, near Boston. The battles marked the outbreak of open armed conflict between the Kingdom of Great Britain and its thirteen colonies in the mainland of British North America.
About 700 British Army regulars, under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith, were given secret orders to capture and destroy military supplies that were reportedly stored by the Massachusetts militia at Concord. Through effective intelligence gathering, Patriot colonials had received word weeks before the expedition that their supplies might be at risk and had moved most of them to other locations. They also received details about British plans on the night before the battle and were able to rapidly notify the area militias of the enemy movement.
The first shots were fired just as the sun was rising at Lexington. The militia were outnumbered and fell back, and the regulars proceeded on to Concord, where they searched for the supplies. At the North Bridge in Concord, approximately 500 militiamen fought and defeated three companies of the King’s troops. The outnumbered regulars fell back from the minutemen after a pitched battle in open territory.
More militiamen arrived soon thereafter and inflicted heavy damage on the regulars as they marched back towards Boston. Upon returning to Lexington, Smith’s expedition was rescued by reinforcements under Lieutenant-General Hugh Percy. The combined force, now of about 1,700 men, marched back to Boston under heavy fire in a tactical withdrawal and eventually reached the safety of Charlestown. The accumulated militias blockaded the narrow land accesses to Charlestown and Boston, starting the Siege of Boston.
By the time the British retreat had reached Arlington they were receiving fire from locals (certainly including some too old to serve in the militia and quite possibly some too young as well) and sniper fire from individual houses, in addition to continued pursuit by the organized militia.
Edit: Taking a quick look at your source above, you would have found the information that I just presented had you bothered reading to its end.
I had the same reaction. I’m a guy who allows for a great deal of discrepancy between rhetoric and action. But even my reaction was, ‘This is a fine speech, but the record simply undermines it. Fine words and that’s it.’ That said, words aren’t nothing, and in any case I don’t begrudge the guy trying to make a record of the ideals he aspired to in office and to let historians debate whether he failed them. Right now he’s failing them. But without the statements on the record, there’s nothing to judge him against short of whatever maximal (or less so) expectations we might choose to set.
Obama and his affiliates are small men on the wrong side of history. They defend no constitution. They uphold no rule of law.
bill, I read some of your comments on one or two of the dozens of Rand Paul-related posts. You were logical and intelligent in those comments.
why save this kind of stuff for me?
I admire your persistence and ingenuity, and I’m sure that we can have some good (and lengthy) arguments in future here, … but not if you can’t own up to ever being wrong, even on little stuff such as this.
they’ll be pretty of other chances….
The large majority of the revolutionaries may have been organized members of the militia, but when it came to the retreat (which was the specific subject of the post to which you responded) – especially in Arlington – and in at least one case the deployment of the British reinforcements (though that was not during the retreat) they were joined by others who for whatever reasons were not part of that organized body (certainly by some who were too old or infirm to be; whether by any too young I don’t know – though the British did gratuitously kill a 14-year-old boy in Charlestown at the end of their retreat).
If you’d like a more detailed account, see pp. 119, 139, 141, and 151 (I just performed a quick scan – there may be more) of http://books.google.com/books/download/The_battle_of_April_19__1775.pdf?id=Cv1IIopyP-kC&output=pdf&sig=ACfU3U172iKFW1HTNp8BHC3p78fTMlAAQg&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0
As for why I bothered to correct you here, I’m picky about factual accuracy and being human tend to notice it more from people with whom I’ve started to suspect I may tend to disagree. I offered up references to support my statements about Afghanistan, while you just continued to blow hot air. Had you instead tried to substantiate your own position (and rectified your confusion about why the 1999 U.N. resolution had nothing to do with what I was talking about) then I might have been less inclined to criticize you for your laxity now.
marvelous, bill, marvelous. wonderfully persistent.
you haven’t corrected me, bill. the point being argued was whether the colonists had 15 year-olds fighting.
my contention was that there were none, as the colonial militias didn’t allow for it.
you have, through pointing to the fact that, after the battles and during the retreats, other colonials fired upon the British troops, shown that there’s a possibility of 15s engaged.
unless you can show that 15s actually fought, you haven’t corrected me, but you have shown my point to be not conclusive.
bill, you’re fun and I promise not to argue with you with the degree of laxity that i permitted myself in that previous discussion.
-till next time!
What I corrected was your suggestion that there COULD NOT have been 15-year-olds involved in the fighting (in particular, during the retreat, since that’s the context that you were addressing) because ONLY the militia were fighting and would not have accepted them.
Now that you admit that was not in fact the case (i.e., that other people – including people whom the militia would not accept, e.g., due to their age, as is clear from the reference which I provided – WERE indeed fighting during that phase of the battle), we seem to be in agreement.
Perhaps you just didn’t realize WHAT I was correcting, just as you never managed to wrap your mind around what I was saying about Afghanistan. If you try harder next time to understand what you’re responding to, the discussion may be less prolonged.
Edit: The above was a response to your statement “you haven’t corrected me”, but later you did seem to understand why your argument didn’t hold water (and that it was because of your flawed assumption that ONLY the militia were fighting – which you presented again as fact in comments 54 and 55). If you don’t consider this to be a correction, we must have serious different interpretations of that word – and are likely to have similar problems communicating in the future.
bill, yes you’re absolutely right. you’ve shown that my point being near-certainly correct is only almost near-certainly correct.
until you can demonstrate some further thing to cast additional doubt, I accept that it’s but nearly certain that the battle was fought without 15 year-old years participating, but that in the aftermath of the battle, the level of certitude is not the same.
you seem to be rather insistent that the argument be conducted along your lines and by your rules. in the first discussion, it wasn’t that I failed to understand what you were saying, it was that I thought your point so trivial, and your mode of expression so obnoxious, that I simply didn’t give much of a shit.
this time, our manners are a little better, but you still keep up your insistence on having me adhere to your terms without you observing the same rigor.
I want you to go back to elgallorojo’s comment @50. read it slowly and carefully. show me where it addresses participation by forces other than militiamen.
then consider:
how you expanded and switched.
no more from me on this post.
another time, another topic.
OK:
@50 FIRST mentions “colonists” as having engaged in these “guerilla tactics”, then concludes by noting that the militia engaged in them as well. Not being a mind-reader I don’t KNOW whether this differentiation was by intent or by accident, but I read it as intentional and the fact is that there WERE both groups fighting in this manner during the retreat (and even in at least one other phase, though that was not relevant to this particular discussion).
When you implied (in multiple posts) that ONLY the militia were so engaged that seemed worthy of correction. Once, I even called out the difference to you (as did the original poster), but, just as happened while discussing Afghanistan, either the distinction flew completely over your head or you summarily (and incompetently) dismissed it.
That’s what my entire correction has been about. You don’t seem to accept correction gracefully. That’s no problem for me – just don’t expect to get away with it.