Chicago Republicans

This past month the President showed us another talent of his, something he's really quite good at - distraction.  Magicians refer to distraction as, "misdirecting the audience's attention to perform your secret moves without notice."  While sitting down with Sgt. Crowley, Professor Gates and VP Biden, BO tried his best to focus our attention off the major issues of the day.  Whether it be ObamaCare, a 2nd Stimulus Bill, canceling missile defense development while North Korea launches missiles, offering for the umpteenth time negotiate with Al-Qaeda or anything else on his far-left agenda, he's done his best to have us look this way while he's doing something else that way.

Fortunately, some news outlets are calling him out on the above issues - primarily Fox News and, in fairness, to some extent, CNN and the Washington Post.  While all of the above noted issues are important, I haven't seen much coverage, anywhere, of another issue that seems to have fallen off the radar - the closing of Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.  On January 22, 2009 BO signed an Executive Order to close Guantanamo within one year.

On May 22, 2009, the US Senate effectively halted the President's plan by voting to keep the facility open, indefinitely, and refusing to fund the transfer of any prisoners to the US mainland until the Administration produced a "coherent plan for closing the prison."  Be honest - do you remember hearing about this on any major news outlet?  This was a MAJOR defeat for the President.  Of course, at the time of the vote, the Senate expected the so called Terror Policy Report within a month.

Last week the Administration quietly announced it had not yet completed the plan even though a six-month self-imposed deadline had come and passed.  Administration officials have stated the President granted a six-month extension.  This means the report on how to detain, interrogate and transfer to American or foreign soil suspected terrorists isn't even due, let alone to be implemented, AFTER the deadline BO set Guantanamo's closure.

This should be major news, but it's not "sexy" compared to the outrage over ObamaCare or the ridiculousness of the staged beer event.  A cornerstone of The Apologizer's campaign was the closing of Guantanamo Bay, now, even as President with a Democratic majority in Congress, he can't accomplish it.  We should all be grateful, Obama has stumbled yet again and we may be a lot safer for it.

Sources:

AP sources: Gov't delays terror policy reports

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090721/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_guantanamo

"Senate Nixes Obama's Guantanamo Plan" http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/05/20/obama-guantanamo.html

http://www.magicwhiz.com

A turning point in how I viewed the mainstream (now state run, effectively) media came during the very early 1990s.  I was home sick from work and happened upon C-SPAN, for some reason I watched.  A few days before, the media pulverized V.P. Dan Quayle for not knowing southwestern U.S. geography.  It seemed like he'd just been hammered for spelling potato with an "e" at the end.  Remember that incident?

I'd heard, and been razzed by friends and acquaintances, that our V.P. thought Phoenix was in California.  I soon saw a clip, on the news, where he said (paraphrasing), "I love being in southern California, I just love California.  I grew up in Phoenix."  Fast forward a few days to being home sick.  The Office of the V.P. held a press conference, broadcast on C-SPAN,  to explain this incident.  I wondered how they'd worm their way out of this one.  They simply declared they wanted to set the record straight and then ran the video clip of the now infamous statement.  I watched the same clip as he said (again, paraphrasing), ""I love being in southern California, I just love California.  I grew up in Phoenix, though, most people don't know that."

My jaw dropped and for a moment I forgot about my sore throat, stuffy nose, chills and pounding headache.  Had the media been that deceptive to take a clip and fail to show the last few words just to make him look stupid?  The answer had to be "Yes!".

Fast forward almost two decades to this year's Gridiron Club dinner in D.C.  V.P. Biden filled in for the President and, per Eleanor Clift of Newsweek, declared that a secret bunker under his residence would keep him safe in the event of an attack.  He boasted that's where Cheney went the morning of 9/11.  Ms. Clift reports this on her Newsweek blog.

To be fair, I'll note that the V.P.'s office issued this statement, "What the Vice President described in his comments was not -- as some press reports have suggested -- an underground facility, but rather, an upstairs workspace in the residence."  So, does that mean our V.P. is so stupid he doesn't know the difference between a second floor office and an underground bunker?

How many of you heard this story reported on the news?  I saw it only on Fox News and, obviously, in Newsweek.  Don't get me wrong, revealing the secret, secure location of where the V.P. of the United States would be kept safe during an attack might be considered treason.  However, if the V.P. publicly declares it, I say it is fair game.  Where are the media declarations of how stupid Joe Biden is for doing this or for not knowing the difference?  Dan Quayle misspells a word and then the media deliberately alters, by omission, something he said to make him look foolish but they say almost nothing about revealing the V.P.'s bunker.  Sad, shameful but, sadly, not surprising.

Sources:

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/05/15/shining-light-on-cheney-s-hideaway.aspx

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/05/19/cheney-s-mystery-room.aspx

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/17/oops-biden-reveals-location-secret-vp-bunker/

Voting "present" is like having your cake and eating it, too; you allow things to happen without having to reveal your true position on the matter. Your inaction lets you wait to see if it was the right move. If it works, you didn't vote against it and if it doesn't, you didn't vote for it. Like it or not, President Obama has to address what is going on in Iran and North Korea. His delay in speaking up for freedom and against the violence and ruthless control in Tehran only highlights the fact that what is going on in the world is not what Obama had in his plans. How he has delayed is an insight into his instincts on these matters. The fact that right out of the gate, the greatest man in speechmaking was unable both to posit ourselves as not meddling while simultaneously standing behind those who want freedom tells us that he is not inclined to hold America as a beacon of freedom. He seems reluctant to cast his vote or take a clear position. Only in dribs and drabs and finally yesterday could he bring himself to use the words that have flowed so much more freely from other Presidents' speeches - "those who stand for justice stand on the right side of history". I am not convinced that his heart is behind those words. Given his world tour apologizing for America's role in bringing freedom to and improving the lives of others, how can we expect him to stand up for political self determination, even when it is an issue of national security. His belief that he alone can control the matters of nuclear buildup and stability, in both Iran and North Korea, through diplomacy, persuasion and apologetic politics is finally being questioned. His policies don't seem to have a plan for when that doesn't work and he lacks higher principles to give us confidence in what he might do. When questioned on his plans and principles by those such as Major Garrett of Fox News, we should be troubled by his refusal to answer or to allege that as President he cannot be questioned. There is no doubt that we need to tread carefully when it comes to Iran, that our meddling could disrupt the natural course of revolution or actually be used against the cause of freedom. There is no doubt that our actions regarding vessels carrying arms to North Korea will force our hand prematurely. But my concern is deeper than a question of tone or strategy. I think we now have a right to question our President's commitment to what America really stands for. He is using the current reluctance of this country to enter into another conflict and Iraq-Afghanistan fatigue to excuse himself from making a clear statement against Iran. We have to ask whether he would even under ideal circumstances lend real support to those who desperately want freedom. What lengths would he go to to keep us safe? Is he really a protectionist when it comes to exporting human and political rights? Given tonight's propaganda-fest on healthcare and what he intends to do with the financial industry, does he believe in freedom for Americans?