| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Zero Not troubled by Wacking Awlaki (the American) |
| 2012-06-17 |
| I put this in Opinion because it is a book review. When President Obama put an American-born radical imam named Anwar al-Awlaki on a list for assassination two years ago, liberal critics howled for 30 - maybe 40 - seconds. Awlaki was a rock-star propagandist for al-Qaeda's arm in Yemen who recruited new followers over the Internet. He posted fiery sermons in idiomatic English and called on all who listened to attack the West. We already know how the story ends. As two Hellfire missiles sealed his fate, he became the most controversial kill of the Obama presidency. Awlaki was a U.S. citizen summarily executed without due process or a day in court. For some of Obama's early supporters, it seemed like deja vu all over again: A president who campaigned on hope and change appeared more like the status quo. For those of us covering the events, there was a general sense that the decision to target Awlaki had been difficult for the White House - like the hit on bin Laden. Now, with the publication of two new books, it appears that we may have had it all wrong and that Obama is more aggressive in his counterterrorism policy than any of us thought he would be. Klaidman reports that the president's focus on Awlaki was so intense, one of his briefers, Gen.James Cartwright, thought that "Obama's rhetoric was starting to sound like George W. Bush's, whom he had briefed on many occasions. 'Do you have everything you need to get this guy?' Obama would ask." What is clear is that the president found Awlaki's American citizenship, in Klaidman's words, "immaterial." Another of Obama's key advisers, a liberal lawyer at the State Department, was a little queasier about the whole killing enterprise, so he went to study the intelligence reports on the radical cleric for himself. Koh spent five hours poring over stacks of intelligence. "There were plans to poison Western water and food supplies with botulinum tox, as well as attack Americans with ricin and cyanide," Klaidman writes. "Koh was shaken when he left the room. Awlaki was not just evil, he was satanic." I thought libs didn't make value judgements? The question, as the election draws near, is how Obama will explain this strategy to the American people. Those who thought he would be weak on national security might be pleasantly surprised. His base might view the administration's secrecy and tactics as a breach of their faith. What is the difference -- legally and morally -- between a sticky bomb the Israelis place on the side of an Iranian scientist's car and a Hellfire missile the United States launches at a car in Yemen from thirty thousand feet in the air. These are all questions the Obama team discusses chiefly in classified briefings, not in public debates.The Obama campaign will need to explain those distinctions in a way that the electorate can understand and potentially embrace. Snicker. Sure. Both authors also seem to have concluded that this president, who promised hope and change, has spent three-and-a-half years trying to balance his liberal ideology with old-fashioned pragmatism. For his supporters, that might be a disappointment. But among those on the fence, it could help him in November. Don't get your hopes up, sweetheart. |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #8 three-and-a-half years trying to balance his liberal ideology with old-fashioned pragmatism It's called a Cold War mentality. Libs have cherished it since the 50s. Keep your casualties low. Death in the alley ways, an 'acceptable level of collateral damage', money and influence channeled to the right people and institutions. Only differences are the assassin now sits in a darkened room with a list, and discretion has been replaced with 'reelection'. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2012-06-17 22:41 |
| #7 Barbara, I have noticed that politics as a conversation topic has become progressively taboo over the last two years, among my democrat booster associates, or has become snippy and defensive. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2012-06-17 21:06 |
| #6 A president who campaigned on hope and change appeared more like the status quo. No! No it isn't. Obama is the first president in the history of the republic to publically call for and carry out the assasination of an US citizen. Not only that, Alawki had not been charged, much less, convicted of any crime. Obama didn't even bother to designate Alawki as an enemy combatant. Status Quo...my Ass! |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2012-06-17 20:47 |
| #5 Ah, there's no hypocrisy in the lust for power. It's all self rationalizing. Well, at least up till the moment they stand at the edge of the large pit dug for them. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2012-06-17 19:42 |
| #4 Easy, swksvolFF - they're hypocrites. Anyway, Obama's awesome.™ |
| Posted by: Barbara 2012-06-17 19:28 |
| #3 Yes, but it is interesting to ponder how O supporters wrap their heads around this action and the leak about him personally selecting targets from a menu-like kill list. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2012-06-17 18:47 |
| #2 An redacted version of the Off of Leg Council decision on this would seem to be an easy thing to get done. |
| Posted by: Lord Garth 2012-06-17 18:42 |
| #1 I'm not troubled by it either. I figure he forfeited his right to due process as an American by moving to a foreign country and acting like an enemy. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2012-06-17 18:12 |