The Obama WMD Dilemma
I'm sure that the Press will never call President Obama on this one, but it seems to me that his Foreign Policy is leading to a couple of problems for him consistency wise here on the home front. For example, when is a W.M.D. not a W.M.D.? Let's ask Obama. First, consider the Christmas Day bomber. He is now facing several charges, one of them involving the use of a weapon of mass destruction. Yet here is what Obama had to say on October 12th of 2004.
The Bush administration could not find a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. WMD are not found in Iraq. And so, it is absolutely true that we have a network of terrorists, but it takes a huge leap of logic to suddenly suggest that that means that we invade Iraq. Saudi Arabia has a whole bunch of terrorists, so have Syria and Iran, and all across the globe. To mount full-scale invasions as a consequence is a bad strategy. It makes more sense for us to focus on those terrorists who are active to try to roll them up where we have evidence that in fact these countries are being used as staging grounds that would potentially cause us eminent harm, and then we go in. The US has to reserve all military options in facing such an imminent threat- but we have to do it wisely.
Let's look at this statement in the light of a reported find from May of the same year.
A senior Bush administration official told Fox News that the sarin gas shell is the second chemical weapon discovered recently.
Two weeks ago, U.S. military units discovered mustard gas that was used as part of an IED. Tests conducted by the Iraqi Survey Group — a U.S. organization searching for weapons of mass destruction — and others concluded the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective."
They believe the mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles for which former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein failed to account when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to then account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas. That, combined with the shells, totaled about 80 tons of unaccounted for mustard gas.
Now, let's give President Obama his due "out" here. The mustard gas was stored improperly, hence ineffective. So perhaps that would render it not to be a WMD. Yet, by that same logic, the bomb carried by the underwear bomber was attached to a defective detonator, rendering it ineffective. Hence, the same logic would disqualify it as well. Remember, he detonated the bomb. Did it cause mass destruction? Absolutely not. He was wearing the thing and he survived.
But this is not President Obama's only inconsistency. I can't put this much better than a few of his own supporters are starting to put it. Yes, intellectual honesty will eventually rear it's head even in places like Talk Left.
Weeks ago, the U.S. was negotiating with the tribes in Yemen, where al-Awlaki is believed to be hiding out, to turn him in. That hasn't happened. What next? Seems to me our officials staged these public leaks to let al-Alwaki know if he doesn't surrender, he's on our hit list.
If true, it means the lofty, principled United States has put out a contract on al-Awlaki, who has not been charged with a crime, who insists his role is inspirational not operational and that he had no knowledge of either the Ft. Hood killings or Abdulmutallab's Christmas Day attack. Yes, he's a recruiter for Jihadists, and a very successful one. He's associated with AQAP. Does that make it okay to give orders to kill him on sight? Sure seems that's the message.
Have we really moved from torture to outright murder of people we regard as suspects, before we even charge them with a crime? How abysmal, first for the victims killed by such a policy, but especially for us as a nation supposedly dedicated to freedom, due process and the rule of law.
Just the other day I was praising some of the lines in Obama's SOTU address, particularly this one: "America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity." Guess it was just a soundbite after all.
Oh yes, this is not just a passing thought. It turns out that the Obama Administration has proposed such an attack.
White House lawyers are mulling the legality of proposed attempts to kill an American citizen, Anwar al Awlaki, who is believed to be part of the leadership of the al Qaeda group in Yemen behind a series of terror strikes, according to two people briefed by U.S. intelligence officials.
And this is not the first offense in this category for President Obama. The ACLU has even weighed in on the matter.
In a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed today, the American Civil Liberties Union asked the government to disclose the legal basis for its use of predator drones to conduct "targeted killings" overseas. In particular, the ACLU seeks to find out when, where and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, and how the United States ensures compliance with international laws relating to extrajudicial killings.
President Obama now faces another tough decision. Will his torture rhetoric directed at the prior administration now back him into a corner? The game is pretty much up at this point. The man who complained of "torture" and "indefinite detention of U.S. Citizens" has now proposed a military action aimed at killing a United States Citizen who has not been charged, let alone convicted of a crime. Does the Chicago street corner rabble rouser now fall victim to the very riot he incited, or does he step forward and face the truth?
It is easy to sit back and and criticize when one isn't faced with these tough decisions. I know, I do it every week for two hours. But in this moment I recognize just how hard the task is to be the elected leader. Far be it from any reasonable person to complain if we off this guy, but oh the precedent it sets if we do. Mr. President, I don't envy you at all in this moment. That having been said, the clock is ticking. What will it be, Sir? Your rhetoric, or our security?
