Krauthammer’s Take
NRO Staff
The Corner
From last night’s “All-Stars.”
On Obama’s speech at the National Archives:
<<< Well, Obama really didn't really want to give this speech. He had to. I mean, he wasn't elected to be a national security president. He is a domestic president, and that's his agenda.
But his hand was forced because there was an open rebellion in Congress over the Guantanamo issue. The senators wanted a decision, and he gave them an essay. The senators wanted a president, and he gave them a professor.
What he did was he outlined the five categories of prisoners in Guantanamo, an interesting exercise that you would expect out of a graduate student, in which you have got those who can be tried in regular courts and those who have to be in military tribunals, and those that will not be taken by allies, as if any allies are taking them, et cetera, et cetera. I mean, a freshman in college could tell you that.
And then he says the fifth category, those whom you cannot try, either because the crimes are committed but the evidence is tainted, or because they have not yet committed a crime but they sure as hell will if released, there are those whom you cannot try and you cannot release. </b>And then he says, "And that's the really difficult issue."
No kidding. I mean, who would have thought that was the problem about these prisoners? Of course everybody knows that.
So what was his answer? He doesn't have an answer. What he says is he is going to work with Congress and work out a framework of detaining these people.
OK, but it's no answer at all. And what you saw in the reaction in the Senate and the House is they were not extremely happy. But all that took a hit and said OK, we're encouraged, and we're waiting on details.
Look, rhetorically, it was a brilliant speech. He got around the issue. He dressed it up as a defender of the constitution and everything that's American. But in essence, it was a punting, and it was essentially obscuring the absence of a decision in a lot of excellent, interesting, but in the end futile rhetoric, I would say. >>>
On the Obama administration’s refusal so far to release the “effectiveness memos:”
<<< Well, this is a really important challenge to the president.
And that, I think, was the heart of the Cheney speech. He spoke almost entirely about interrogations because he has been excoriated about that, and the people who supported him in the administration are having their reputation, their livelihoods, even their freedom threatened as a result of those actions. So he feels he is obligated to rise in defense.
And I thought his speech was strong, decisive, unapologetic, and convincing.
On the issue here, he is saying, look, the administration is making a big deal of its transparency. "If I don't release information, I'll tell you why." So tell us why you're going to release the memos that you know are going to embarrass the Bush administration, and describe unpleasant interrogations.
Why do you not release memos which might show how these interrogations helped save American lives?
And we know from Obama's own director of national intelligence, he has said in writing that these interrogations yielded information of high importance about Al Qaeda. So let's see them.
And I think Republicans ought to focus on this and not on Pelosi resigning. I want to keep her in office twisting slowly in the wind. But this is an issue that Republicans ought to rally on. Release the memos. >>>
corner.nationalreview.com |
