How did Obama do at Notre Dame? What message should Obama deliver to Netanyahu?

On Notre Dame: Working in the garden yesterday I remembered that it was almost a year ago that then-candidate Obama spoke to a crowd of 70,000 across the river in downtown Portland during the primaries. I didn’t attend that day, but I could hear the cheers from my back yard rise like a wind of desire–a few miles away, as I say, and across the river. President Obama is the most eloquent president we’ve had–I mean, consistently eloquent–in many a president. No one would claim that either President Bush was an orator–though they had their moments. President Clinton was inconsistent–in the wonkish weeds sometimes, other times, in particular after Oklahoma City, aspiring to be better. Reagan and Kennedy could inspire but Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter not so much. All this shorthand oratory background to say that President Obama could have phoned in a commencement speech and history would have paid no mind. He didn’t. It’s not that the president isn’t a liberal or won’t throw a a partisan elbow or even resist shipping a future adversary off to a Chinese ambassadorship. He is, and he has. But the speech in Indiana was both public and personal in unexpected ways, and in reading it this morning I see it as characteristic of the tone the president hopes to govern by. Unflinchingly respectful. Is it any wonder that, even among those who disagree with his policies, many Americans simply like the man.

As a coda: The truly electrifying speech was given across the country in Merced, California, to a group of graduates mostly immigrants’ children and mostly the first in the families to go to college…by Michele Obama.

On Netanyahu: If something important comes of this meeting we’ll discover it later. Prime Minister Netanyahu will certainly spend time trying to size up President Obama. The president has been underestimated often in his political career, so the prime minister would be wise not to be misread the cues–especially where military action is concerned. Netanyahu’s first term as prime minister was ineffective; he may hope to improve his legacy. If so, they could bode well for Palestinian-Israeli peace efforts. Then again, it may simply be beyond his political imagination to broker a change in the Middle East.

Read more from Politico’s Arena

Subscribe (RSS) to Take 2

Focus on your writing at the Attic Writers’ Workshop

follow david on twitter

Tortured, Part 3

Cesar Conda, Republican strategist, former Romney and Cheney advisor:

On Tuesday morning, September 11, 2001, my domestic policy staff and I were preparing for our weekly 9:00 a.m. policy briefing with Vice President Cheney. It was a brilliant and crisp fall morning. I hardly ever opened the window in my office in the Old Executive Office Building, but I did that day to get some of the fresh fall air circulating, instead of breathing the air being pumped out of the old Carrier window air conditioning unit.

As we were discussing the Social Security “lock-box” and other “important” issues of the day we were going raise with the Vice President, the television in my office was beaming in pictures of what we thought at the time was an unfortunate commuter plane crash somewhere in New York City. It looked like it had accidently crashed on top of one of the World Trade Center buildings.

We continued our meeting, while at the same time keeping a close eye on the television. Minutes later, to our utter shock, we saw the jetliner careen into other tower. We knew that America was under attack. We never met with the Vice President that morning.

Outside my office, there was a lot of commotion, with the Secret Service agents scurrying up and down the marbled hallway of the OEOB. I then heard a low-level rumble or boom in the distance outside my window, which sent chills up my spine. I didn’t know it at the time, but this boom was the sound of the airplane slamming into the Pentagon just across the Potomac river.

I then went out into the hallway of my office, where an OVP staffer told me that one of the Secret Service agents had told him that another airplane was headed toward the White House, and that we should keep away from the windows facing the West Wing. Minutes later, the guards were screaming to everyone to “move” and “run” out of the White House complex.

As staffers were streaming out of the building, I noticed that everyone was looking skyward. It was utter chaos in the streets surrounding the White House, as people were scrambling to leave Washington. As I crossed the Roosevelt Bridge, I saw the thick black column of smoke rising above the Pentagon. I could even smell it. I thought to myself, “How could this happen in America?”

Early the very next morning, September 12, I went back to the White House, this time having to cross two – maybe three – security perimeter check points, instead of the normal one. From what I could tell, every single person in the OVP and the EOP, from secretaries to senior staffers, went back to work that day. We weren’t told to come back. Many people were scared to come back. But we did anyway, because we wanted to be there to do everything we could to help the President and the Vice President help our country in its hour of need.

I tell this story to give others a sense of what it felt like to be in the White House that horrible day, and to give some context of what a dangerous time it was. I’m sure my colleague Brad Blakeman also remembers every single minute of that day, and could tell a similar story. From that day forward, President Bush and his Administration were almost singularly focused on protecting the America from another attack.

The Bush Administration officials directly involved in creating the intelligence and homeland security infrastructure that kept America safe were selfless, dedicated public servants, who did their best to serve the President and their country. They performed their duties with the best of intentions and not for personal gain or self-aggrandizement.

President Barack Obama has now opened the door to prosecuting these former officials for their role in developing the enhanced interrogation techniques. These public servants could be subject to lawsuits, fines, and possible jail time. And to what end? Will this make America safer? Will this convince CIA, DOJ and other officials involved in protecting America to do everything in their power to stop terrorism? Will it this convince the terrorists not to attack America again? Will this really improve America’s image abroad?

• 

  David Biespiel, Poet and writer, Attic Writers Workshop:

  A public inquiry can provide our country catharsis as a house once divided reuniting itself with faith in our shared constitutional values.

Cesar, this is one of the most poignant posts on the Arena that I’ve read, and I appreciate your sharing your story. The pathos it reveals is raw and convincing, and it illustrates your calm, internalized sense of patriotism, which I respect, as you know. I’m responding to your post based on the deliberate generosity of the debates we’ve had on this page in the past.

• But I am not writing to debate any nuance of your personal story, your experience, sacrifice, and values. Not just in D.C, but all across America, we looked skyward, disoriented and perplexed by the pandemonium and turmoil, wrenched from the everyday, and amazed, frightened, shocked, and then, finally, vigilant against what fell out of the sky that September morning eight years ago.

  The next day, too, not just in D.C. but all across America, the good citizens went back to work and life with new vigilance. Even for supporters of rough interrogation methods, the history of post-9/11 interrogation practices has left many Americans anguished, troubled, and disquieted. While some are viscerally supportive of such “harsh tactics,” others are viscerally opposed to the “torture.”

  But the debate is not only semantic. For many Americans, the issue is personal, even intimate. In response to your private story, one of my own: In my home this week, my father–U.S. Navy (retired), who served as an underwater diver in Korea–and I have been discussing the reports in the news about the interrogation procedures.

  My father, a Texan, twice voted for George W. Bush, admires but didn’t vote for President Obama, really doesn’t trust Vice President Biden, and is an enormous admirer of your former boss, Vice President Cheney. You know my politics; the political debates my father and I have had over the decades have been intense, vehement, and impassioned, as you can imagine, but always punctuated with the lighthearted (he says, “Are you sure you’re my son? or I say, “We’re going to have put you out to pasture sooner than planned…”).

  I adore my father; I’m not throwing him under the bus. As often as not, during a one of our political conversations, one of us will notice that it’s 5:30. “Cocktail hour,” says the other, then we repair for drink and move on to talk about dinner. This week, talking together quietly about the difficult interrogation news, I made many of the same points I’ve made on the Arena about the importance of transparency and the rule of law in relation to national safety.

  My father has taken the position that it’s a dangerous world; we have to do what we have to do. “I don’t like it, but these are bad people,” he says. My 16-year-old–a young leftie, I’m sorry to tell you–weighed in by reading Wikipedia’s entry on waterboarding. “Well, that’s not good,” my father said. “But we have to protect ourselves.” When we saw the headline about one “enhanced technique” being used on two suspects 266 times, my father said, “I don’t like that.”

  But, of course, it didn’t change his position. It made him see that his position was related to actual events. It troubled him. “I don’t know what to do,” he said, looking down. Adding, “these are bad people.” He is opposed to torture; he is in favor of protecting the country; he is in favor of rough interrogation practices; and he is opposed to the excessive use of it. As I say, for a patriot like my father, it’s a very complicated and personal issue. I think we’d all benefit–that’s the public’s interest–in learning what is to be learned and doing so now while we’re still directly engaged with the enemy.

  We should define for the future the rules of engagement for interrogating enemy combatants within the framework of the rule of law. We should provide immunity from prosecution all witnesses to any commission examining the post-9/11 interrogation practices (I’ve said more about this in my normal post today). You’ve asked several questions about the efficacy of such a public study. My answers: Will this make America safer? No. We live in dangerous times. Will this convince CIA, DOJ and other officials involved in protecting America to do everything in their power to stop terrorism?

  No. The debate about the usefulness of harsh techniques is ongoing and complex. Will this convince the terrorists not to attack America again? No. Will this really improve America’s image abroad? Yes. We’re a nation of laws and when we have a crisis about those laws, we investigate and re-establish the parameters of the law.

  But may I ask the questions inside out? Will this make America less safe? No. We live in a dangerous world whether we air our domestic battles in public or not.

  Will this convince CIA, DOJ, and other officials involved in protecting America to do nothing in their power to stop terrorism? No. These are professionals who go to work everyday to protect and defend the nation.

  Will this convince terrorists to attack America again? No. Even the death penalty doesn’t prevent aggravated murders.

  Will this impair America’s image abroad? No. It’ll enhance it, be a beacon for other nations, protect our men and women captured in combat, and restore our credibility as a nation that does not torture.

  I won’t soon forget your post today, Cesar. I respect your service. I was just about to send this in when I noticed Brad Blakeman sent in his account. I can’t help but notice the cathartic nature of these two posts, yours and his. They illustrate, for me at least, that an airing of post-9/11 activities will have a similarly cathartic quality for the nation. First an accounting, followed by understanding, then reconciliation. That’s what a public inquiry can provide our country–a house once divided reuniting itself with faith in our shared constitutional values.

• from Politico
• Tortured, Part 2
• Tortured

• Focus on your writing at the Attic Writers’ Workshop

• follow david on twitter

American Conservatism: Dead or Just Sleeping?

And we mean no.

“Partisanship, by the Bye”

“Throughout the fortnight-long Battle of the Stimulus Package—the Capitol Hill confrontation that culminates this week in a signing ceremony for a historically unprecedented piece of legislation that will inject more than three-quarters of a trillion dollars’ worth of adrenaline into America’s fluttering economic heart—one question preoccupied commentators and observers, especially those desperate for relief from the daunting substance of the matter: was President Obama being “bipartisan” enough?” By Hendrick Hertzberg.

from The New Yorker

DB notes:  One message that Republican representatives sent to the electorate on the stimulus vote last week on the subject of relevancy is this: Not so much. Whether dead or just sleeping, 21st century American conservatism can certainly lay claim to being unified in the U.S. House of Representatives.

***

Next on Take 2:  The Oscars.

America: Rebooted

44.

Inauguration Day Special: David Biespiel’s post on Politico’s Arena

I write this as a Texan who grew up in a racially polarized South, and I write not as a Child of the Sixties but as a child during the 60s. Upon taking his oath, President Obama did more than break a vicious racial barrier in American history, he became the physical embodiment of the ideal of American unification.

Private racism is alive and thriving in our country, make no mistake. But if institutional racism can be depicted as a statue in a town square, that statue was pulled down and shattered once and for all today. Obama’s assumption of the presidency indicates not that we have mastered racism but that we have mastered some part of ourselves that has long desired to live wisely and true to our bonds of humanity.

President Obama’s special ability to link our present challenges with those of the past is at the heart of both his oratory and his faith in national unity. That’s where I felt the address crystallized. From the first syllables of the speech, his tone was business-like and he never let up: “For everywhere we look, there is work to be done.” When was the last time this nation was called to act upon such an honest note of self-reflection? The speech was admonitory, but refreshingly candid, too, at times inspiring in its boot-strap philosophy. The concluding conceit of the nation being at the frozen riverside like General Washington’s soldiers during the Revolution was self-defining, the message clear: Let’s cross the river and save our country again. 

Obama’s dismissal of the Bush era was blunt. I was surprised–OK, a wee bit gratified–how starkly he took the Bush administration to the woodshed for its general malpractice over the last eight years. And yet, as a national scold, he didn’t leave out the citizenry either for “our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.” Meanwhile, he indicated to the world that America’s role will now be remade. I didn’t take that stance to be naive though it could be. His admonition to divisive world leaders–”your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy”–struck me as a decisive goal to firmly address the more intractable conflicts in the world.

Finally, full confession: I don’t have a television. So I had to borrow one to watch the ceremony. I was at Bush I’s inaugural and Clinton’s first one, too, when I lived in Washington during those years. This time, out here in the West, when the Obamas arrived at the North Portico at 6 a.m. Pacific time I was still lying under the covers–with a mimosa at hand, at least. On television, one image caught my attention–well, two, because every time Senator Feinstein came to the podium she looked like she was in an MGM musical and about to break into song. But one image caught my attention right before the ceremony began: The Episcopal Bush family giving way to the African-American Obama family. On the one hand, there are the historic racial implications in that image. On the other hand, the generational shift is evident, too. The torch has been passed. A new generation of leaders has been elected to govern, a new generation of leaders who bring two finely-earned attitudes. One, frustration with the collapse of legislative democracy to forestall and reverse the multiple layers of physical and civic decline in our country. Two, a can-do spirit to start shoveling out of the hole. 

That faith seemed evident, as well, in every close-up of the audience on the Mall. As I say, I’ve been in that crowd at other inaugurations, and from this corner of the country it seemed to me as if the entire country marched on Washington to start afresh.

from Politico

 

___________________________________________________________________________________

DB notes: Then conservative blogger Pejman Yousefzadeh disagreed. Here’s the link to the exchange for January 20th, at least. After the 20th, you’ll have to google it with something like “biespiel yousefzadeh obama politico arena” to see where it’s turned up on the Internet.

___________________________________________________________________________________