Continuity We Can Believe In, by William Kristol
TNYT, January 12, 2009, page A23
Excerpts:
[...]
And he seems to be going for the no-dramatic-change-in-policy-in-the-White-House alternative as well. Consider Obama’s reaction when George Stephanopoulos played a clip of Dick Cheney counseling Obama not to implement his campaign rhetoric until he’s fully briefed on the details of the Bush administration’s counterterrorism policy.
“I think that was pretty good advice, which is I should know what’s going on before we make judgments and that we shouldn’t be making judgments on the basis of incomplete information or campaign rhetoric. So I’ve got no quibble with that particular quote,” said Obama. Usually, presidents pretend their campaign positions are more than “campaign rhetoric.” Not Obama.
[...]
Obama did note that he differs with Cheney on “some things that we know happened,” including waterboarding. And he did reiterate his pledge to close Guantánamo. But he warned that it was “more difficult than I think a lot of people realize,” explaining that while he was committed to the rule of law, he wasn’t interested “in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up.”
And at one point he returned, unbidden, to the much-maligned vice president, commenting, “I thought that Dick Cheney’s advice was good.”
Perhaps the president-elect was just being polite. Or perhaps he just enjoys torturing (metaphorically!) some of his previously most ardent supporters who want Dick Cheney tried as a war criminal.
In fact, Stephanopoulos asked about that. He pointed to a popular question on Obama’s Web site about whether he’ll appoint a special prosecutor to investigate “the greatest crimes of the Bush administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping.” Obama stipulated that no one should be above the law. But he praised C.I.A. employees, and said he didn’t want them “looking over their shoulders and lawyering.” He took the general view “that when it comes to national security, what we have to focus on is getting things right in the future, as opposed to looking at what we got wrong in the past.”
With respect to the Middle East, Obama didn’t even say we’d gotten much wrong in the past. Asked by Stephanopoulos whether his policy would build on Bush’s or would be a clean break, Obama answered, “if you look not just at the Bush administration, but also what happened under the Clinton administration, you are seeing the general outlines of an approach.” So: No break.
Meanwhile, the Obama transition team’s chief national security spokeswoman, Brooke Anderson, was denying a press report that Obama’s advisers were urging him to initiate low-level or clandestine contacts with Hamas as a prelude to change in policy. Anderson told The Jerusalem Post that the story wasn’t accurate, and reminded one and all that Obama “has repeatedly stated that he believes that Hamas is a terrorist organization dedicated to Israel’s destruction, and that we should not deal with them until they recognize Israel, renounce violence and abide by past agreements.”
On Iran, Obama did say he’d be taking “a new approach,” that “engagement is the place to start” with “a new emphasis on being willing to talk.” But he also reminded Stephanopoulos that the Iranian regime is exporting terrorism through Hamas and Hezbollah and is “pursuing a nuclear weapon that could potentially trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.” He said his willingness to talk would be combined with “clarity about what our bottom lines are” — one of them presumably being, as he’s said before, no Iranian nuclear weapons. And he demonstrated a sense of urgency — “we anticipate that we’re going to have to move swiftly in that area.”
So: After talks with Iran (if they happen) fail to curb Iran’s nuclear program, but (perhaps) impress other nations with our good faith, we’ll presumably get greater international support for sanctions. That will also (unfortunately) fail to deter Iran. “Engagement is the place to start,” Obama said, but it’s not likely to be the place Obama ends. He’ll end up where Bush is — with the choice of using force or acquiescing to the idea of a nuclear Iran.
[...]
Monday, January 12, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
What Obama Could Learn From Cheney, by William McGurn
ReplyDeleteHe sacrificed his popularity to make the tough calls
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123180589890275475.html
With just one week before Barack Obama moves into the Oval Office, he probably isn't thinking "Dick Cheney" when it comes to advice. That may be a missed opportunity. Because in some interesting ways, the outgoing vice president could prove to be the best friend the incoming president has.
No doubt the thought provokes apoplexy among the Daily Kos types who have already had to stomach the retention of Bob Gates at the Pentagon.
These days, after all, Mr. Cheney is a synonym for torture, a punch line on late-night television, and -- as he himself conceded in a CBS interview the other day -- a new Darth Vader. Mr. Obama's own running mate calls Mr. Cheney "the most dangerous vice president" in American history.
Mr. Obama, however, is no fool. Whatever decisions he will make on hot-button issues from Iraq to Guantanamo, he has no intention of allowing another 9/11 to happen on his watch. And that's where Mr. Cheney comes in.
During a lunch last week at the vice presidential residence, Mr. Cheney was frank and far-ranging, in particular about "the measures we've taken to defend the nation." Two days ago, in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, Mr. Obama criticized Mr. Cheney for defending at least one of these measures -- enhanced interrogation.
But Mr. Obama would profit by looking past the caricature of the vice president to consider just two things: why Mr. Cheney has been so unpopular -- and why he was willing to endure this unpopularity.
Most would agree that the demonization of Dick Cheney has its roots in his steadfast defense of three of the most controversial Bush administration policies: enhanced interrogation for terrorists, the detention of terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, and the National Security Agency's surveillance of terrorist communications.
On all these issues, Mr. Cheney could have stayed on the sidelines and cultivated his own reputation. After all, before signing on with George W. Bush, the vice president was a paid-up member of the Beltway establishment, enjoying its good favor and moving comfortably in its circles. All that is now gone. Whatever critics might say about him, he cannot be accused of having cut his conscience to fit the latest fashion.
Some of Mr. Cheney's views have been shaped by what he saw in the 1970s. As a member of President Gerald Ford's senior staff, Mr. Cheney watched the Pike and Church Committee hearings on our intelligence services. He saw decent men and women who had acted with the approval of their political leaders suddenly find themselves standing alone when Congress started asking questions. Lives and careers were ruined, and in crucial ways our intelligence operations were crippled.
This president and this vice president resolved to do things differently. From day one of this war, and in very public ways, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have made it clear that the good people who carry out these sensitive programs have done so with the go-ahead from the White House.
To the left, of course, that is just more reason why they ought to be charged with war crimes and the whole antiterror apparatus scrapped. For his part, Mr. Obama gives mixed signals. On the one hand, he told Mr. Stephanopoulos on Sunday that closing Guantanamo "is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize."
On the other hand, he also refused to rule out prosecutions -- the surest way to send a chill through our intelligence community. He appoints as director of the Central Intelligence Agency a man with zero experience in the area. And he names as his legal adviser on these sensitive issues a woman who seems to have her mind all made up, judging from the title of an article she published in the Boston University Law Review in April: "What's a President to Do? Interpreting the Constitution in the Wake of Bush Administration Abuses."
Soon Mr. Obama will be making the tough calls himself. As he does, he is likely to find that hasty decisions taken in the abstract by other members of his team may in the end serve only to inhibit his ability to act.
That doesn't mean he cannot, or should not, change things. But Mr. Obama would do well to consider the vice president's suggestion that he take the time to "find out exactly what it is we're doing, and why we're doing it, whether or not it's worked, before they start making decisions based on campaign rhetoric to scrap certain things or drop certain approaches, or to agree to limitations on their authority."
Some on the Obama team may see the vice president's remark as a warning shot from a political opponent. Mr. Obama, by contrast, was wise enough to recognize it as "pretty good advice." If he's as smart as we're told he is, he will take it.