good stuff once again Pearce.
Re: GITMO photos
idk pearce. i have a lot of mixed thoughts on the issue. i think that we need to be accountable for anything that we have done that violates human rights if we are holding other countries to the same standard. now, i do feel that the public should not have total access to the information that needs to be dug up, and that should include photos. you are right in the belief that it would endanger our troops.
I wouldn't be so quick to commend Obama on his foreign policy stance, Pearce. His executive order to close Guantanamo Bay was clearly a political move, he's breaking lockstep with Bush only superficially. Obama's foreign policy is very much in line with his predecessor's; Obama's administration would still allow detainees to be tried in front of military tribunals and under his own proposed legislation, President Obama still has the power to order "Advanced Interrogation" techniques such as waterboarding (which, I might add, was only used a handful of times as a means of extracting information out of detainees at Gitmo.) The only difference is that those suspected of terrorism will be interrogated on American soil instead of Cuban soil. To me, it seems as though Obama is more pandering than making any meaningful revisions to foreign policy as it relates to terrorism. He condemns Guantanamo Bay but privately embraces the very principles and practices it employed that have drawn so much public criticism. I happen to believe that the use of these "Advanced Interrogation" techniques is a necessary evil in protecting American interests both at home and abroad, so I do not necessarily disagree with Obama's policy decisions. I do, however, think that it's worth pointing out that Obama's policies embody a "more of the same" approach, to whatever end, and do not in my mind warrant praise.
I like that Pearce can recognize positive aspects of the Obama administration even though he bleeds red. I will read his blog because he can clearly see that the party he doesn't belong to isn't always completely wrong.
PG said...
Thanks so much for commenting y'all. I really appreciate that you took the time to do so.
First, as to Elizabeth's comment, I have a hard time taking anybody seriously, on either side, who is a hard line partisan without exception. It's silly to think that one party is always right on every issue, so I appreciate your recognition of me trying to be more honest and open minded in my assessment of policy decisions. And yes, how ironic that I bleed two different colors depending on the playing field in question.
Andy, you're awesome, thanks for the shout out; it means a lot.
Blaine, I think you offer a very thoughtful assessment of the situation. I agree that, to the extent this admittedly imperfect country has done things in the past that run counter to our ideals and moral principles, we need to look at those actions and commit anew to living up to being the world leader militarily, economically and, as important, morally that we desire and profess to be. Now, whether or not the waterboarding of known terrorist fits into that category is a point of legitimate debate, and there are well meaning, good people on both sides. To the extent is is a case in which we need to make a correction, I agree with you completely that there is a way to do it "behind closed doors" that will accomplish the objective without involving a public that does not need to see all of the evidence and endangering our brave troops who are face to face with the terrorists right now as I exercise my freedom to blog my opinion, whatever it may be.
Hunter, I greatly appreciate your comment and specific assessment of the President's foreign policy. You are right on that his executive order to close Guantanamo was a rash and purely political/symbolic move (which Joe Biden essentially admitted recently... of course he did). It really is remarkable how much Obama's war policy has been "more of the same." I happen to believe that, certainly in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, that is a good thing. On another note, his immigration policy is following in Bush's footsteps as well. I agree that many of his pronouncements have been pandering to the left, which, given the alternative that he actually follow through with them in policy, I can handle. The welcomed surprise was that he did a 180 on some of these pandering policy pronouncements, actually making decisions more along the lines of what I believe to be best for the nation. While ideally he would have understood the real threat this nation faces and the realities of war as a candidate and in the early days of his presidency, I praise him for seeing the light now rather than later and having the courage to essentially admit he was wrong (although I wish he would have a little more courage to actually say it) and change course.
As Elizabeth observed, I like to acknowledge when the "other side" does something positive. It is intellectually dishonest and petty to disagree with someone simply for the sake of disagreeing or because of who they are. I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt and try to see the best of intentions, although they can be hard to see at times. We get nowhere by setting up strawman arguments and caricatures of the other side. Washington and the nation at large will make progress when the two parties work together, when possible without sacrificing core principles, toward policy that will improve life, prosperity and security for all Americans.
No comments:
Post a Comment