Scott Spiegel

When conservatives correctly pointed out that one disastrous terrorist attack and another potentially catastrophic but thwarted attack both happened during President Obama’s first term in office, because his agencies overlooked the perpetrators’ jihadist intentions or failed to act on relevant intelligence, liberals responded with an argument that was discredited nearly a decade ago: “But 9/11 happened on George Bush’s watch!”

Obama supporters mocked Rudy Giuliani’s recent claim to George Stephanopolous, “We had no domestic attacks under Bush,” stubbornly avoiding Giuliani’s obvious implication that he was speaking post-9/11.  Until last week, Democrats loved to excoriate Giuliani for making endless references to the terrorist attack that occurred while he was mayor of New York; now they claim he forgets it happened.  Which is it?

Conservatives’ point is that Obama has forgotten the lessons of 9/11, which Bush did not have available to him until, surprisingly—9/11.  The Ft. Hood and Flight 253 attacks happened in the first year of Obama’s administration, and 9/11 happened in the first year of Bush’s administration, but Obama had the example of 9/11 to learn from, and Bush did not.  (Even if you count the thwarted attack by the shoe bomber in December 2001, that bomber tried to strike just months after 9/11, when fully revamped security procedures were not running as smoothly as they are now; also, the bomber used the novel, unprecedented technique of wearing the bomb on his person so that it would not be detected by luggage screeners.)

Obama not only had the example of 9/11, he had seven years in which to witness and debate and vote on the implementation of the policies his predecessor devised that kept the country safe in the years after 9/11.  Obama denounced and campaigned against these tactics every chance he got.  He hasn’t revoked all of the Bush policies—upon assuming the Presidency, he must have received access to hair-raising intelligence that made him realize the suicidal folly of reversing Bush on everything—but he has slackened up enough, rhetorically and policy-wise, that our security standards have slipped and our enemies have become emboldened.

It is not enough to say that Obama has forgotten the lessons of 9/11.  He has actively rejected them.  He has argued that doing the opposite of what Bush did will keep us safer.  We are seeing how well the Obama Doctrine is working out in his first 11 months in office.

Another error in the “Bush-was-bad-so-Obama’s-off-the-hook” argument is that Bush did not do anything to actively facilitate the occurrence of 9/11.  In contrast, the Ft. Hood shootings were aided by the politically correct refusal of the U.S. Army—under Commander-in-Chief Obama—to recognize murderous jihadist sentiments expressed by Major Nidal Hasan openly and repeatedly while in medical school and residency, and the promotion Hasan received despite his poor performance reviews.  The Flight 253 near-attack was made possible by the Obama administration’s failure to act on numerous warnings available to it, such as Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s father having called the U.S. Embassy to report him, Abdulmutallab’s not having a passport or luggage, and his having bought a one-way ticket with cash.

But there’s an even more damning flaw to the contention that Bush should have been able to prevent 9/11, and is therefore as bad as or worse than Obama on national security.  Namely: just what would Bush opponents have preferred that he do in his first eight months in office to prevent terrorist acts, when they now scream bloody murder at the slightest suggestion of profiling at airports, call Bush Big Brother for trying to monitor terrorist communications, and express their clear disapproval of any war Bush started abroad to target Al-Qaeda?  Are liberals implying that they would have been fine with Bush doing all of these things in a pre-9/11 world?  They’re not even fine with The One doing these things in a post-9/11 world.

The left have been digging up examples of localized attacks carried out by truly isolated (not Abdulmutallab-style “isolated”) loonies—such as Bruce Ivins’ anthrax-laced letters to news broadcasters in September 2001, Hesham Hadayet’s shooting of two Israelis at LAX in July 2002, the Beltway sniper attacks in October 2002—as proof that Bush didn’t keep us safe.  Ignore for the moment that when each of these incidents happened, the same people criticized Bush for using these events to “hype” the threat of terrorism to justify extra security measures.  Instead ask: what level of government intervention into our lives would have been necessary to prevent every one of these attacks?  And how likely is it that liberals would have supported Bush’s carrying out such interventions at the time?

 Print This Post

Another one of those seemingly boring, legalistic White House scandals has popped up again—the kind that was legion during the Clinton era.  This one bears scrutiny because of the contrast between the media’s treatment of it and a similar but benign Bush controversy.

In 2006, George W. Bush asked eight U.S. attorneys to resign.  Bush had full discretion to fire the attorneys, who as members of the executive branch served at his pleasure.  He could have removed them for not wearing flag pins if he felt like it.  The mainstream media and Congressional Democrats screamed bloody murder.  Proving that Democrats are more likely to defend evil than Republicans are to defend good, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales sheepishly resigned over his involvement.

In the past week, the Obama administration has discharged two Inspectors General: Gerald Walpin, IG for the Corporation for National and Community Service, which includes AmeriCorps; and Judith Gwynn, IG for the International Trade Commission; and made life miserable for a third, Neil Barofksy, IG for TARP.

Obama fired Walpin in retaliation for his critical report on Obama supporter and Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson’s misuse of funds with nonprofit organization St. Hope Academy.  The agency received $850,000 from AmeriCorps to tutor students, redevelop buildings, and fund arts programs; instead, Johnson used the money to pad salaries, pay employees for personal favors, and bribe constituents to interfere in a local election.  Johnson was barred from receiving federal funds.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office agreed that Johnson could receive federal funds if St. Hope paid back half the grant—which was never going to happen, because St. Hope had gone out of business, though Johnson still gets to receive federal funds.

The ITC fired Gwynn because of a report she issued that an agency employee had taken documents from her that she needed to do her job.

Obama, instead of giving Congress 30 days’ notice regarding Walpin as required, had a staffer contact Walpin at night on his cell phone and tell him he had one hour to resign or be fired.  When Walpin asked why, he was told it was “time to move on” and any connection with the St. Hope affair was a “coincidence.”

Walpin wrote an e-mail explaining that he could not make this decision with such short notice and that he believed his independent judgment was being threatened.  He refused to submit to Obama’s Chicago machine thug tactics.

Walpin quickly contacted Senator Charles Grassley, who wrote a letter to Obama asking why Walpin had been fired, adding: “There have been no negative findings against Mr. Walpin…  [H]e has identified millions of dollars in AmeriCorps funds either wasted outright or spent in violation of established guidelines.”

Obama’s response was to dash off a note to Congress stating that Walpin was to be fired in 30 days and immediately put on suspension, with this non-explanation: “It is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as Inspectors General.  That is no longer the case with regard to this Inspector General.”  Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill insisted that Obama had not provided sufficient reason for the firing—perhaps she had lost “confidence” in him.

The White House then admitted it had lied about the reason for the firing.  In another letter to Congress five days later—this one containing the real reason Obama fired Walpin, honest!—Obama wrote that Walpin was, at one—one—AmeriCorps board meeting “confused, disoriented, and unable to answer questions.”  You might quibble that an executive who offers three different stories in the space of a week is unable to answer questions himself.

Walpin replied that the board kept cutting him off before he could respond.  Walpin’s only recourse would have been to speak over his inquisitors—the result of which no doubt would have been the board declaring him “hostile, belligerent, and unable to withstand criticism.”

Obama’s staff called Walpin’s firing an act of “political courage” because—get this—some people might think it had been politically motivated, but really, it wasn’t!  Obama should get Rod Blagojevich to recite Rudyard Kipling poetry in defense of his bravery.

Here’s the kicker: the law Obama broke, the Inspector General Reform Act, is one he cosponsored last year.  The point of the law was to strengthen the independence of inspectors general and protect them against political firings.  The language of the bill—Obama’s bill, just to remind you—states, “The requirement to notify the Congress in advance of the reasons for the removal should serve to ensure that Inspectors General are not removed for political reasons.”

Bush’s firing of his attorneys, while politically motivated, was within his right; Obama’s firing was illegal (according to the law Obama cosponsored).  So naturally, mainstream newspapers broke the Bush story the second they got a whiff of it and didn’t remove it from their front pages until months later.

Their response to the Walpin firing has been decidedly more tepid.

Five days after the firing, the Washington Post published a blog entry on the controversy.  On the sixth day, it covered the story in print for the first time.

The New York Times ignored the incident for six days.  When it got around to printing a story, it opened with the very balanced headline “White House Defends Inspector General’s Firing” and a picture of diligent AmeriCorps workers assembling chicken coops at the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge.

The only “risk” for potential U.S. attorneys after the Bush “scandal” was that they might not get jobs with an administration that had a different political philosophy.

The risk for potential IGs after Obama’s actions is that they will be removed for investigating organizations with ties to the White House, and thus be unable to serve as watchdogs.  According to Walpin, the effect of this incident “is going to be immense in chilling the responsibility and actions of inspectors general to do their independent investigations.”

But to the mainstream media, this isn’t news—it’s just personnel review.

How did the Republican Party’s approach to dealing with objectionable Supreme Court nominees come to resemble the Democrats’ strategy for the war on terror: scorn anyone who says anything critical of the opposition and settle for second-class citizen status, dhimmitude-style?  Are Republicans trying to balance Obama’s cooption of Bush’s war policy to restore some kind of harmony in the universe?

Over the past week, we’ve been treated by Republicans to a range of subtle and nuanced political stratagems for dealing with the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, including: shut your mouth, don’t speak, zip your lip, don’t make waves, and while you’re at it, don’t say anything.  This, from the party of “hawks” who bravely fought and won the Civil War, the Cold War, and the Battle of Chad.

Let’s examine the reasons offered by Republican turncoats why we should not tender a whisper against the Sotomayor nomination:

It’s mean-spirited. Well, Democrats successfully mobilized before Reagan’s fourth Supreme Court nomination, Robert Bork, savagely vowing to form a “phalanx of opposition” against anyone at all Reagan deigned to choose.  Democrats tried to destroy George W. Bush appointees John Roberts and Samuel Alito but failed only because they lacked the votes (at least they managed to invade Roberts’ family’s privacy and make Samuel Alito’s wife cry!).  The Republicans have not opposed a Supreme Court nominee by a Democratic president since 1968.  I think that at least qualifies as “sporting.”

It’s immature. In the Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan scolds Republicans for not “play[ing] grown-up” and calls those who want to fight against Sotomayor’s nomination “idiots” who refuse to “think” or “dress the part.”  Let’s see: Five members of the Supreme Court have the power to make sweeping, life-or-death decisions that affect hundreds of millions of Americans and countless future generations.  I think raising forceful objections to Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy and temperament comes down more on the adult side than “She has cooties!”

The Republicans will lose independent voters. Republicans have most often converted independent voters and won elections when they have stuck to the party’s principles rather than offering a watered-down version of the Democratic party line, as in November 2008.  So remind me: How will consistently standing up and making a compelling case for their views cause Republicans to lose voters who are looking for a party that can offer consistent, compelling views?

The Republicans will lose political capital. Obama’s political goodwill toward Republicans began and ended with inviting John McCain to the White House for bean dip on Super Bowl night.  Congressional Democrats’ political goodwill toward Republicans has yet to materialize, and never will until Republicans regain both houses and Democrats are on the defensive again.

Sotomayor is not that liberal. Just as Obama is the most leftist president we’ve ever had, Sotomayor would be the most leftist justice on the current Court, even more of a liberal activist than Ginsburg, Breyer, and Stevens, who seem like Daughters of the American Revolution in comparison.

Sotomayor won’t change the balance of power on the Court. Both Souter and Sotomayor are liberal on social issues, but they are not both liberal on economic issues.  Souter is no Steve Forbes, but Sotomayor’s ruling in the shocking Port Chester “eminent domain” private property grab places her ideologically to the left of Marx.

Republicans will lose the Hispanic vote. Putting aside the condescending “voting bloc” mentality this ascribes to Latinos, it should be noted that Democrats weren’t worried about losing Hispanic votes when they opposed Bush’s nomination of Miguel Estrada to the D.C. Court of Appeals in 2002—indeed, they had enough stomach for the fight to wage seven filibusters against bringing him to a vote.  If Republicans are concerned about losing Hispanic votes, I suggest they offer the thoroughly vetted Estrada as their preferred nominee.

Sotomayor has an impressive resume. Newsflash: So do a lot of people!  I would wager that the number of potential nominees who went to top-tier undergraduate and law schools and managed to get a few employers and coworkers to say nice things about them numbers—oh, at least two or three.  Also, Sotomayor’s supporters defend against the charge that a majority of her appeals court decisions were overruled by the Supreme Court by stating that such cases are difficult—yet we are now expected to support her addition to the same team of justices who are capable of correcting the types of rulings she screwed up.  Finally, as Andrew McCarthy points out, Sotomayor’s ravings about the superior decision-making ability of certain races and genders doesn’t even quality her to be on a jury, let alone the Supreme Court.

Her confirmation is inevitable. The Supreme Court will be ruling on the Ricci v. Destefano firefighter discrimination case in June, weeks before Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings.  It is expected that the Court will overturn the decision Sotomayor supported, thus further energizing opponents of legalized racism (i.e., “Americans”).  Republicans should also remind the nation that Obama hasn’t demonstrated the most thorough vetting acumen in his first few months in office, having nominated a “phalanx” (if you will) of tax cheats and ethically challenged miscreants to Cabinet and other posts.

How about this strategy for dealing with the current nominee?  I say that even if Sotomayor’s resume is as long as the phonebook; even if someone makes a persuasive case that she’s not the most liberal justice in the world; even if Republicans are accused of being mean-spirited and immature; even if we lose a few wishy-washy independents, have a few Hispanics look at us askance, and ruffle a few Democratic feathers; and even if it’s not 100% certain that her confirmation can be stopped; the Republican party should fight this nominee kicking and screaming, hammering home the message about her record until her supporters get tired of brushing it under the rug, until we’ve made our point to the American public.

And they say the Republican Party doesn’t have any fighting spirit left.

A couple of months ago, the mainstream media was snickering because a national survey of liberal historians had rated George W. Bush to be among the least successful of all American presidents, mostly on the basis of his conduct in the war against Islamic terrorists.  Given Obama’s adoration by the media, his wholesale reversal of nearly every one of his foreign policy campaign promises, and his Xeroxing of Bush’s war strategy, Bush should reach… oh, about #2 on the presidents’ list by the end of Obama’s tenure.

Candidate Obama wailed for years about Bush’s war in Iraq and promised to remove all troops by March 2009.  The latest plan, which President Obama scrawled on a cocktail napkin at one of his Wednesday night White House soirees, is to remove them by August 2010 and leave up to 50,000 troops in place for security purposes—and if you believe those dates and numbers won’t be extended further as “conditions change on the ground,” you probably voted for Obama.  Admittedly, “Obama lied, kids died” doesn’t have quite the same ring, but I think if Bush had pulled a fast one like this, we would have heard a few more complaints about his mendacity.

Obama formerly countered the spectacularly successful surge in Iraq, claiming that there was no way it could work—then turned around as President and implemented something in Afghanistan that starts with ‘s’ and rhymes with ‘urge’ but is definitely not a surge.

As Senator, Obama rejected special funding measures for U.S. anti-terror military conflicts—then, while president, asked Congress for an additional $83 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; you know, the ones we were fighting all along.  On the campaign trail, Obama whined about the cost of war and swore that funding would not be approved without benchmarks; when Congress’s bill came to a vote, Obama asked that the benchmarks be removed.

Obama once complained that Predator drone air attacks on suspected terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan were killing civilians; as President, he ramped up use of this targeted killing tactic at a higher rate and with more civilian casualties than under Bush.

Obama at one point criticized the Patriot Act, including its provisions allowing warrantless wiretapping and obtaining suspects’ financial, travel, and telecommunications records without their knowledge; now he supports renewing the act.

Obama previously opposed the use of the “state secrets doctrine” to prevent the required disclosure of evidence in court that would harm national security; in several cases stemming from the previous administration’s surveillance and interrogation practices, Obama’s Justice Department has invoked that very doctrine to prevent the disclosure of evidence.

Obama used to resist the practice of rendition, or capturing terrorist suspects and sending them to a third country for interrogation; recently he vowed to continue the practice.

At one time, Obama spoke out against the use of enhanced interrogation techniques on high-level terrorist suspects.  Recently, however, he set up a committee to look into whether CIA interrogators should be allowed looser standards than military interrogators—i.e., he left the door open for these techniques to be used again if he deems necessary.  He rejected the call to establish a Truth Commission into the Bush administration’s interrogation techniques and the prosecution of those who approved or implemented them.  When Nancy Pelosi claimed the CIA lied to her about the use of these techniques, Obama did not publicly support her, and allowed CIA director Leon Panetta to release a memo contradicting her claim.

In the past, Obama contested the practice of detaining terrorist suspects without trial; yet his Justice Department filed a brief claiming that his administration can hold for an indefinite period of time the following: Al Qaeda members, Taliban members, “associated forces,” and anyone who “substantially” supports them, which includes about half of Congress.  Federal judge Reggie Walton slyly mocked the Obama administration’s arguments as drawing “metaphysical distinctions” between his and Bush’s policy that were “of a minimal if not ephemeral character.”

Obama wrung his hands over denial of habeas corpus to terrorists in Guantanamo but has upheld the Bush position on denying habeas corpus regarding detainees’ conditions of confinement in Afghanistan’s Bagram prison, which is sort of a Guantanamo Express.

More recently, Obama revived military tribunals for Gitmo detainees after having called them an “enormous failure” and sworn to end them (the tribunals, not the detainees).

Finally, last week Obama changed his mind and decided he would oppose the release of photos documenting abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib.

It shouldn’t be this way for the former Bush administration.  After seven-and-a-half years of doing the right but unpopular thing, suffering precipitous drops in their approval ratings, and enduring uninformed screaming from every corner of the media about their Nazi-like tendencies, Bush and Cheney shouldn’t be dependent for their legacy on the eleventh-hour conversion of an irresponsible, wet-behind-his-big-ears neophyte who isn’t adult enough to serve as Commander in Chief.  The Bush policies should have been praised all along for keeping us safe, and any candidate who ran headfirst against them should have been defeated in a landslide.

But at least Bush’s “rehabilitation” is happening sooner than we could have hoped—just several months into the subsequent administration.  Any honest commentator must admit that it is happening squarely on the back of the feckless Obama.