The following article titled “Presidential Poison” appears in today’s WSJ:
Mark down the date. Tuesday, April 21, 2009, is the moment that any chance of a new era of bipartisan respect in Washington ended. By inviting the prosecution of Bush officials for their antiterror legal advice, President Obama has injected a poison into our politics that he and the country will live to regret.
Policy disputes, often bitter, are the stuff of democratic politics. Elections settle those battles, at least for a time, and Mr. Obama’s victory in November has given him the right to change policies on interrogations, Guantanamo, or anything on which he can muster enough support. But at least until now, the U.S. political system has avoided the spectacle of a new Administration prosecuting its predecessor for policy disagreements. This is what happens in Argentina, Malaysia or Peru, countries where the law is treated merely as an extension of political power.
If this analogy seems excessive, consider how Mr. Obama has framed the issue. He has absolved CIA operatives of any legal jeopardy, no doubt because his intelligence advisers told him how damaging that would be to CIA morale when Mr. Obama needs the agency to protect the country. But he has pointedly invited investigations against Republican legal advisers who offered their best advice at the request of CIA officials.
“Your intelligence indicates that there is currently a level of ‘chatter’ equal to that which preceded the September 11 attacks,” wrote Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, in his August 1, 2002 memo. “In light of the information you believe [detainee Abu] Zubaydah has and the high level of threat you believe now exists, you wish to move the interrogations into what you have described as an ‘increased pressure phase.'”
So the CIA requests a legal review at a moment of heightened danger, the Justice Department obliges with an exceedingly detailed analysis of the law and interrogation practices — and, seven years later, Mr. Obama says only the legal advisers who are no longer in government should be investigated. The political convenience of this distinction for Mr. Obama betrays its basic injustice. And by the way, everyone agrees that senior officials, including President Bush, approved these interrogations. Is this President going to put his predecessor in the dock too?
Mr. Obama seemed to understand the peril of such an exercise when he said, before his inauguration, that he wanted to “look forward” and beyond the antiterror debates of the Bush years. As recently as Sunday, Rahm Emanuel said no prosecutions were contemplated and now is not a time for “anger and retribution.” Two days later the President disavowed his own chief of staff. Yet nothing had changed except that Mr. Obama’s decision last week to release the interrogation memos unleashed a revenge lust on the political left that he refuses to resist.
Just as with the AIG bonuses, he is trying to co-opt his left-wing base by playing to it — only to encourage it more. Within hours of Mr. Obama’s Tuesday comments, Senator Carl Levin piled on with his own accusatory Intelligence Committee report. The demands for a “special counsel” at Justice and a Congressional show trial are louder than ever, and both Europe’s left and the U.N. are signaling their desire to file their own charges against former U.S. officials.
Those officials won’t be the only ones who suffer if all of this goes forward. Congress will face questions about what the Members knew and when, especially Nancy Pelosi when she was on the House Intelligence Committee in 2002. The Speaker now says she remembers hearing about waterboarding, though not that it would actually be used. Does anyone believe that? Porter Goss, her GOP counterpart at the time, says he knew exactly what he was hearing and that, if anything, Ms. Pelosi worried the CIA wasn’t doing enough to stop another attack. By all means, put her under oath.
Mr. Obama may think he can soar above all of this, but he’ll soon learn otherwise. The Beltway’s political energy will focus more on the spectacle of revenge, and less on his agenda. The CIA will have its reputation smeared, and its agents second-guessing themselves. And if there is another terror attack against Americans, Mr. Obama will have set himself up for the argument that his campaign against the Bush policies is partly to blame.
Above all, the exercise will only embitter Republicans, including the moderates and national-security hawks Mr. Obama may need in the next four years. As patriotic officials who acted in good faith are indicted, smeared, impeached from judgeships or stripped of their academic tenure, the partisan anger and backlash will grow. And speaking of which, when will the GOP Members of Congress begin to denounce this partisan scapegoating? Senior Republicans like Mitch McConnell, Richard Lugar, John McCain, Orrin Hatch, Pat Roberts and Arlen Specter have hardly been profiles in courage.
Mr. Obama is more popular than his policies, due in part to his personal charm and his seeming goodwill. By indulging his party’s desire to criminalize policy advice, he has unleashed furies that will haunt his Presidency.
(LINK to Wall Street Journal)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
20 Responses
This is scary stuff
This is the typical modus operandi of revolutionaries. Take over the government and then destroy all vestiges of the opposition. I would suggest that the AG investigate WACO to be fair.
I like to call Obama “The Undertaker.”
The role that has been ordained for him is to bury America.
Any one who is foolish enough to think this Muslim is any less patient than his brother Osama in destroying the life we have grown to love, is just that, a fool! He will create a goverment that dictates his policies while protecting only our enemies.
YWN’s headline doesn’t make sense. If the WSJ’s slamming Obama, then it’s an editorial, not an op-ed; and if it’s an op-ed, then it’s the op-ed writer, not the WSJ, who’s doing the slammin’. In this case, it appears to be the former, WSJ’s official editorial opinion, and not the latter, an individual’s opinion (typically disclaimed by the newspaper) in an article placed opposite the paper’s editorial column (hence “op-ed”).
i dont understand, if bush and his lackeys are guilty of crimes, they should be proscuted to the fullest extent of the law. the court system will find out that the bush admin was the most corrupt in history!
#5..SO WHAT DO YOU PLAN TO DO?MOVE ? WHERE TO?
An OP-ED does not represent the position of the newspaper. For that you have to look at the EDITORIALS. While this piece could easily be an editorial based on the usual editorial policy of the WSJ, it is incorrect to say the “WSJ
does anything via an OP-ED.
The WSJ makes a point of keeping its owners views limited to the editorial page. The OP-ED represents a wide range of opinions from all sides of the political spectrum, and its NEWS coverage is totally independent and often at odds with the editorial page.
How much more damage will he inflict before he’s impeached? How could one individual get away with so much. G-t zoll rachmanus hubbin.
P.S. He still hasn’t produced his birth certificate.
#7.. i think you microchips ( brain cells) are corrupt. i can name quite a few administations who were really corrupt way back..
Well, then when the Republicans get back in, they could make it illegal to have been President during 2009-2012 and then have Obama indicted. So there!
akuperma, you wrote that “The OP-ED represents a wide range of opinions from all sides of the political spectrum, and its NEWS coverage is totally independent and often at odds with the editorial page.”
That may be true of newspapers in general, but not the WSJ. Their news coverage is unbiased, but most of its regular columnists (except for Thomas Frank) reflect the same political views as the editorial board (ie, Rupert Murdoch). Even the guest columnists are generally conservative; the notable exception is an occasional editorial about Darfur or some other issue Murdoch doesn’t care about. Occasionally WSJ will run an opposing view, but then will rebut it another editorial that day or very soon after.
I don’t understand. how dare someone do Waterboating on such wonderfull people? we should do anything to stop these bad people from hurting these lovely people, who want to kill us. after all they have a legal right to try killing us. we need to free them and help them. however the bush people, we need to lock them up. waterboat them untill they tell us why they went into war with Iraq.
2,
An op-ed, which you OBVIOUSLY dont know the meaning of, is not an opinion which goes against the norm of the paper, but rather it is an opinion of someone else who is a guest to that paper.
7,
Lemme spell this out for you! I am 1000% sure yet I have no proof that Obama is linked tightly with Blago in Ilinois and if Blago ever starts singing, Obama will turn colors!
Blago is holding something back and he is wakko enough to spill the beans.
#19..and where do you take it that slander is not allowed legabay a ‘nochri’? what slander is beklall shayech here, if he is not a citizen is it loshon hora? by the way when it comes to loshen hora against ehrliche yidden, not like assimilated minded guys like you, youre all for i,t so dont be ‘frum’ all of a sudden.
21, I AM AGAINST OBAMA! I AM AGAINST SOCIALISTS! I AM AGAINST PEOPLE WHO ARE KILLING THIS COUNTRY! Shall I continue?
Stop getting caught up in the nice teleprompted speeches and realize he is what he is and what he is doing to the country. This happened about 75 years ago and the results werent too good, v’hamayvin yovin!
Charlie Hall – Motzi Shem RA?? you obama defenders, Eiriv Rav, Kusim,Misoininim, Korach Veadosa. you would have initially greeted the Nazis.
The title is incorrect, it is indeed an editorial and not an Op-Ed.
Obama is obviously an Arab because he says one thing in public and then does the opposite.
#20 is directed to #18