to see Richard Cohen isn't "missing" the "real" Obama; he just didn't know the "real" Obama.

Richard Cohen wrote an article titled Missing Barack Obama in which he seems genuinely astonished that President Obama is not the same as Candidate Obama. Cohen writes, "Here was a man who knew why he was running for president and knew, also precisely, what he personified...Somehow, though, that moral clarity has been dissipated."

Why does Cohen think Obama's moral clarity has dissipated? Why, it's because Cohen doesn't like Obama's "realpolitik" approach and is shocked that presidential candidates don't always make good on their overly lofty, unattainable campaign rhetoric!

The Obama who was leading a movement of professed political purity is the very same person who as president would not meet with the Dalai Lama, lest he annoy the very sensitive Chinese. He is the same man who bowed to the emperor of Japan when, in my estimation, the president of the United States should bow to no man. He is the same president who in China played the mannequin for the Chinese government, appearing at stage-managed news conference and appearances -- and having his remarks sometimes censored.

The Barack Obama of that Philadelphia speech would not have let his attorney general, Eric Holder, announce the new policy for trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other 9/11 defendants in criminal court, as if this was a mere departmental issue and not one of momentous policy. And the Barack Obama of the speech would have enunciated a principle of law and not an ad hoc system in which some alleged terrorists are tried in civilian courts and some before military tribunals. Where is the principle in that -- what works, works?

Personally, I'm not the least bit surprised that someone who talked about negotiating with Iran without preconditions during the campaign may be too quick to cave in to avoid ruffling China's feathers. But isn't it a little weird that Cohen thought he could discern the "real" Barack Obama based on Obama's campaign speeches?

And just as strangely, Cohen seems genuinely baffled by the difference between Candidate Obama and President Obama, even as he rationally explains how campaigning is completely different than governing.

Of course, there's a difference between campaigning and governing.

There is no reality to campaigning. You want Guantanamo closed, you say you'll close it. You want to close it as president, and all of a sudden it becomes a political crisis that costs you your White House counsel, an experienced and principled man named Gregory Craig. Governing is hard.

Near the end, after he's done waxing philosophic trying to rationalize with himself over why he's unsatisfied with Obama to date, Cohen tosses in a bit of an aside. "Obama's political career has been too brief for us to know his bottom lines by votes cast in any legislative body or decisions made as an administrator. He had little record but lots of rhetoric -- much of it morally stirring and beautifully written."

Well gee Richard, Obama did have the most liberal record in the Senate in 2007, and how does a syndicated columnist who writes about politics end up being surprised that the "real" Obama wasn't the one giving soaring but relatively meaningless rhetoric that would never be implemented once in office. Every candidate does this, and every candidate has to out of political expedience!

No Richard. You're not missing Barack Obama. You simply duped yourself into believing Candidate Obama was "real," ignoring the inconvenient stuff and embracing the rhetoric, even while admitting there's "no reality to campaigning." Sure, it makes you look like an idiot, and it led you to write a column that seems devoid of any logic or structure, but look on the bright side. Millions of Americans are in that same boat with you, so there are plenty of others jumping off the bandwagon.

to find an example of Democrats' chutzpah.

It looks like the Democrats have found some spending to be concerned about. As more and more Democrats become squeamish about Afghanistan, they've decided it's time to get serious about controlling costs.

Gibbs said that the subject of a war tax on the wealthy, proposed by a handful of leading Democrats, has not come up yet in the president's extensive war council meetings. But the idea, though unlikely to pass Congress, is one way for Democrats who are coming to dislike the war in greater numbers to challenge the president to confront the cost of any escalation.

To be fair to Democrats, they also imposed tax raises to help control costs on their pet project, like a cosmetic surgery tax that will pay $5 billion out of $1.8 trillion
$5,000,000,000
__________________________

$1,800,000,000,000
It's worth pointing out that Obama's decision, which is leaning toward 34,000 or so troops, is probably bowing to pressure regarding the costs of the war. But when the Democrats start feeling twinges of guilt about treating the federal government like a limitless credit card, they try to withdraw from the rich (their debit card?)

Still, it's likely the threats are hollow political posturing. We have seen Democrats flex their purse string muscles to try to influence war policy, it was so politically unpopular that they didn't dare try it, despite how unpopular the Iraq war was at the time. At least they threaten to flex SOME muscle once in awhile.

to find the problem in suggesting foreign fighters joined the Iraq war because of Abu Ghraib

In conjunction with my previous post about using America's foreign policy as a justification for terrorism, the ultimate culmination (and baselessness) of the viewpoint was illuminated in a November 2008 Washington Post article written by a former interrogator, who takes at face value foreign detainees' suggestions that they joined the fight because of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Think about how inane this is.  These detainees are arguing with a straight enough face to convince smart people that their sense of morality and justice was so offended by pictures of torture that they joined groups that beheaded and tortured Muslims and Americans alike, and they carried out attacks against innocent Muslim civilians.

The author of the article does not mention (or maybe never considered) that Al Qaeda in Iraq was not exactly a resistance unit.  After all, it was led by a man who was conducting terrorist operations in Jordan by 1999.  These foreign fighters who were so disgusted by pictures of nudity and stress positions joined a group who instructed followers to use torture methods like "blowtorch to the skin" and "eye removal." Oddly enough, these people who were so disturbed by pictures of torture seemed to have an affinity for drawing extremely descriptive torture methods to apply to their own detainees.

 Clearly these people are offended by the torture of Muslims


Incredibly, the author unwittingly contradicts his own argument by listing the actual reasons why these fighters were joining Al Qaeda in Iraq.  Here he attempts to explain how different interrogation techniques improved our standing in Iraq.

We no longer saw our prisoners as the stereotypical al-Qaeda evildoers we had been repeatedly briefed to expect; we saw them as Sunni Iraqis, often family men protecting themselves from Shiite militias and trying to ensure that their fellow Sunnis would still have some access to wealth and power in the new Iraq. Most surprisingly, they turned out to despise al-Qaeda in Iraq as much as they despised us, but Zarqawi and his thugs were willing to provide them with arms and money...It turns out that my team was right to think that many disgruntled Sunnis could be peeled away from Zarqawi. (emphasis mine)

So the author actually believes that the policy of torture at Abu Ghraib led these people to join Al Qaeda in Iraq, despite the fact that they "turned out to despise Al Qaeda in Iraq."  And why would these fighters who joined the fight because of Abu Ghraib turn around and start fighting WITH us against the insurgent groups?  The author never sees the holes in his logic.  Perhaps that's because the author admittedly abhors the Abu Ghraib/Guantanamo policies as being against his "moral fabric" and "inconsistent with American principles."  
In actuality, that paragraph deflates his own argument and better explains how foreign fighters actually came to join the fight. There's no real phenomenon to it.  First, most of the foreign fighters came from Middle Eastern countries like Iran and Syria that are already virulently hostile to the West and have been for decades, living in regions that inculcate anti-Americanism among its youth.  And though they comprise a very small percentage of Muslims worldwide, there are radical Muslims spread across the globe who are inherently and reflexively hostile to the West.  In addition, in lawless war zones, fighters can be bribed and bought.  After all, the Sunni Awakening itself that turned around Iraq consisted of paying Sunni tribal chiefs.  

Abu Ghraib may have been added incentive and motivation for fighters, but it's ludicrous to suggest that Abu Ghraib alone was the casus belli.

to know Christopher Hitchens destroyed the "war on terror" excuse for Hasan

When Major Hasan conducted the Fort Hood massacre, it was one of those relatively rare events where both the important facts of the case were crystal clear (within 24 hours or so) and the suspect's past had a rather long paper trail. Here we had a career Army man shouting Allahu Akbar while mowing down innocent comrades, only months after national agencies were alerted to the fact that this guy took his religion a little too seriously and was contacting a pro-jihadist imam who "spiritually guided" some 9/11 hijackers.

Not surprisingly, many people (especially liberals) were hesitant to reach conclusions centered around Hasan's faith, out of deference to political correctness, which others pointed out was exactly the type of deference that the Army and feds showed in ignoring Hasan's red flags throughout 2009.

But as the always in your face Christopher Hitchens notes, the explanations/excuses made for Hasan began to imply that the real cause of the massacre wasn't a pro-jihadist overly devout Muslim going nuts, it was either the harrowing war tales Hasan heard as part of his job or it was Hasan's (supposedly appropriate) growing level of disgust with America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Nobody has ever bothered trying to explain why others with the same job as Hasan have never snapped on their own comrades. But Hitchens illustrates even more bothersome aspects of liberal reaction to the Hasan case.

to realize the debate over Sarah Palin is 100% "palinsanity" on all sides

 Bring on the hate mail!
Sarah Palin's been getting a lot of attention lately due to the release of her new book, but the truth is she's been getting a lot of attention over the course of the entire year since the end of the 2008 election.  And frankly, right now I care about Sarah Palin about as much as I cared about John Edwards in 2005.  Nobody can deny that running for President has practically become a full time gig 4 years before the next election, but what Sarah Palin says and does now will have absolutely no bearing on her results in the primary season 2+ years from now.

Yet it seems that everyone engaging in debates and discussions about Sarah Palin are ignoring that simple fact and treating every little controversy as the climax of some culture war.  It doesn't take a wonk to break down the ongoing palinsanity coming from all sides.

to consider fears of a terror attack at KSM's trial overblown

Charles Krauthammer is probably the conservative writer I respect most, and I agree with most of what he wrote in his most recent article.  However, Krauthammer briefly pays lip service to an idea being trumpeted by some conservatives, including Rudy Giuliani, that holding a trial in Manhattan invites a terrorist attack.

"Apart from the fact that any such trial will be a security nightmare and a terror threat to New York -- what better propaganda-by-deed than blowing up the courtroom, making KSM a martyr and turning the judge, jury and spectators into fresh victims? -- it will endanger U.S. security."

I'll admit that KSM's trial is an inviting target.  But KSM will not be the first terrorist tried in New York City.  And moreover, New York City itself is what makes an inviting target all on its own.   There have been nine known plots against New York City since 9/11, including two in the last 6 months.

"New York City will remain a terrorist target for many reasons other than the Gitmo Five trial. It is also interesting to note that none of the city’s other high-profile terrorism trials has ever resulted in a retaliatory attack against the city."

Anybody who plans to attack Manhattan during the KSM trial would likely plan to attack Manhattan regardless.

to figure out why people think government is too invasive.

While I pity the fool who actually made it to page 2,045 of the Senate's recently released health care bill, i commend them for pointing out that the bill calls for an excise tax on elective cosmetic surgery.  "Tucked away in Section 9017 on page 2,045 of the 2,074-page Senate health care reform bill is a 5 percent excise tax on elective cosmetic medical procedures...The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the new tax could generate $5.8 billion over the next decade. "  And this attempt to save $6 billion comes from the same people who are trying to slip an additional $215 billion over the same period through Congress by detaching a section from the main healthcare bill and passing it separately.

Tax policy guru Roberton Williams is quoted as saying, "They need money wherever they can find it and this seems like a good place -- unnecessary surgery.  These things are done by choice, not out of medical necessity. Why not tax them?"

Now I don't want to come across as a Johnny Drama whining about a 5% increase on my calf implants, because I find elective cosmetic surgery pointless and vain.  But I think Williams misses the point.  It's not that those surgeries are unnecessary (because they certainly are), but that an attempt to tax something like cosmetic surgery is no more than an effort to legislate morals.  Put simply, the government is telling its citizens what it condones and what it will "punish" via excise taxes. 

In an economy like this, where consumer confidence is extremely low, Congress should be passing legislation that encourages consumer spending, even if it's on things most of us find totally pointless.  And if the government is really looking to save a few billion over the course of the decade, it could do something about the Murtha airport. 

Either way I have a problem with the government passing judgment on different types of spending, because if I want to waste my money on something like Stattracker for my Yahoo Fantasy League, that's my own foolish decision. 

to distinguish KSM's trial from Nuremberg

I have reached my wit's end when it comes to fatuous comparisons of KSM's trial to Nuremberg.  

Margaret Carlson writes, "The fair trial of Mohammed will make a great courtroom drama someday, on par with “Inherit the Wind” and deserving of comparison to the Nuremberg trials."

Michael Smerconish gushes that Senator Specter "was thinking of the Nuremberg trials when he invoked the 'American values' and the 'great many safeguards' the country will extend 'to these blaggards.'"

Do these people realize that Nuremberg came after the war?  Do they think the Allies would have held trials for the likes of Goering during the war?  Churchill himself had to be talked out of supporting summary execution for Nazi officials.  And the Allies weren't exactly reading Axis POWs their Miranda rights.

Now, the comparison would make sense if the war was over, but Holder himself says we are still at war.  That led to a pretty thorough smackdown by Senator Lindsey Graham, who understandably can't figure out why some get military tribunals, why others are getting federal trials, and just what kind of message the Administration is sending to military units still capturing enemy combatants on the battlefield.

Again, I want to give the Administration the benefit of the doubt on how the trial against KSM will proceed, even acknowledging that the deck is stacked.  But I'm skeptical as to how much they thought through the application of their decision to future prisoners.  But in the Administration's defense, as made clear with these other people comparing this to Nuremberg, apparently the Administration isn't the only failing to make that distinction.

to know KSM's trial is a sham no matter how it proceeds.

A lot has been said on both sides of the aisle since Attorney General Holder's decision to give KSM a trial in the Southern District of New York, and most of it has been white noise.  As for the propriety of Holder's decision, I think the most salient article I've read about it was written by George Friedman (and it's so coherent I doubt he's related to Tom).  Friedman succinctly states, "A new variety of warfare has emerged in which treatment as a traditional POW doesn’t apply and criminal law doesn’t work."  Instead of taking sides to task, George Friedman simply points out that the tenets of international law that international law enthusiasts rely on were simply never crafted with 21st century substate terrorist groups in mind.  No surprise there.  Friedman believes that in a perfect world, the wisest thing to do would be to revisit international norms to come up with a new method for dealing with the type of scenario we find ourselves in.  But let's face it, when it comes to the international community, we're far from dealing with a perfect world.

Regardless, Holder has made his decision to pigeonhole Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's case into the framework of a federal trial.  One of the themes I've seen repeated by liberals is that trying KSM in federal court instead of a military commission is "following the rule of law" or "demonstrat[ing] our moral legitimacy."  That would be news to the father of our country, who conducted military commissions during the Revolution and ordered the summary hanging of Benedict Arnold if he was caught.  And that involved state actors in a declared war no less!  But the real irony in Blickstein's insistence that a federal trial is "following the rule of law" is that the United States or the presiding federal judge is going to have to not follow the rule of law to convict KSM.

to see the problem isn't the Democrats' "message."

In conjunction with my previous post about independents' dissatisfaction with the Democrats, I noted that political pundits have been debating whether the election results were based on local or national issues, and whether Democrats need to recalibrate their "message,"

But it doesn't take a wonk to realize the problem has nothing to do with the Democrats' message because the Democrats aren't following their own script.

to realize why independents are "bolting" from the Democrats

After New Jersey and Virginia elected Republicans for governors a few weeks ago, the Administration and Democrats tried to spin those races as being determined by local issues, not national party issues.  Although Obama did campaign for Corzine and said Corzine was "one of the best partners I have in the White House," and that they "work together" (on what exactly I could only imagine), it's more likely that local issues decided New Jersey and Virginia was more of a litmus test for national politics.

Maybe that helped Democrats rationalize the political atmosphere a few weeks ago, but now Democrat officials are starting to get alarmed about independents bolting from them.  The Politico article goes on to quote officials in several states theorizing the reasons behind it, with some citing a faltering economy, some citing spending, and some simply burying their head in the sand and refusing to see a real problem.

But it doesn't take a wonk to understand the public's underlying problems with the Democrats right now.