Dan Balz looks at the White House’s clumsy handling of the debate over terrorist interrogation. Interestingly, there’s no hint – either from Balz’s piece or from other administration officials – that the President’s change of position was intentional. Read the piece and judge for yourself:
The legacy of George W. Bush continued to dog President Obama and his administration yesterday, as Congress divided over creating a panel to investigate the harsh interrogation techniques employed under Bush’s authorization and the White House tried to contain the controversy over the president’s decision to release Justice Department memos justifying and outlining those procedures.
Obama had hoped to put the whole matter behind him, first by banning those interrogation methods early in his presidency and then by releasing the memos last week with the proviso that no CIA official who carried out interrogations should be prosecuted.
Instead, the latest decision has stirred controversy on the right and the left. Obama has drawn sharp criticism from former vice president Richard B. Cheney, former CIA directors and Republican elected officials for releasing the memos. Those critics see softness in the commander in chief. He faces equally strong reaction from the left, where there is a desire to punish Bush administration officials for their actions and to conduct a more thorough investigation of what happened…
Obama apparently thought he could avoid what is now playing out. In the weeks when he was weighing the release of the memos, a vigorous debate took place within his administration. There was, according to a senior official, considerable support among Obama’s advisers for the creation of a 9/11 Commission-style investigation as an alternative to releasing the documents. But the president quashed the concept.
“His concern was that would ratchet the whole thing up,” the official said. “His whole thing is: ‘I banned all this. This chapter is over. What we don’t need now is to become a sort of feeding frenzy where we go back and re-litigate all this.’ “
[snip]
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel contributed to the perception that this was the administration’s position. Speaking on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, he said that neither the CIA officials who carried out the harsh interrogations nor the Justice Department officials who authorized them should be prosecuted. “It’s not a time to use our energy and our time in looking back [in] any sense of anger and retribution,” he said…
When Obama was pressed on this and other questions Tuesday, he said he was not prepared to rule out prosecutions of some of those responsible for setting the policy. What seemed to be off the table Monday was suddenly back on it.
White House officials said the president’s words were not a change in policy, but the headlines and the television commentary said otherwise. Now, Obama finds himself in the middle of a storm that may or may not pass quickly…
White House officials have expressed confidence that a congressionally backed investigation will not come to pass. But they have been drawn into a debate they did not foresee. The president has a full plate, domestically and internationally. He had hoped that, in winning the election and moving quickly to change his predecessor’s policies, he could close the books on Bush’s presidency.
Reading the tea leaves, it doesn’t sound as if the President ever intended to signal that there may be prosecution of Department of Justice employees for doing their jobs. It seems that putting the issue to bed has been the ongoing goal of the White House (if not those in Congress). Holder had left open the possibility of prosecution, but as the Attorney General it’s hard for him to promise to overlook crimes. But before Obama’s surprising change of position on Monday, both Emanuel and Gibbs had been on the same page – and they are more likely to reflect the President’s views than Holder.
I probably shouldn’t point this out, but Obama was answering questions when he went off-message. And when he answers questions, he’s walking a tightrope without a net. And if Obama went off-message because his crutch was missing, that’s not the sort of defense Gibbs and Emanuel would race to offer the press. Rather, they’d probably try to get Holder to say something vague and non-committal, and then they’d sit tight and say nothing more about the subject and hope it went away.
Update: Of course, given what DoJ is saying now, it’s possible that this is just a case of there being no grown ups in the administration. Maybe no one is setting policy.
Moe Lane
Neil Stevens
Steve Maley
Daniel Horowitz
Jake Walker
This demonstrates why questions need to be submitted in advance
bk (Diary) Thursday, April 23rd at 12:56PM EST (link)If he can’t read the answers off a teleprompter all hell breaks loose.
TOTUS must have been in the bathroom
E Pluribus Unum (Diary) Thursday, April 23rd at 1:16PM EST (link)And at such times, Bambi’s mouth runneth over.
Serves him right, and I hope and expect that the right will pound and pound and pound on this until he is forced to take the public stand that there will be no prosecutions at all in this area.
And the left will just crap itself when he does that.
Kill the Terrorists
Protect the Borders
Punch the Hippies h/t IMAO
maybe rambo the vulgar, axlehead and baghdad bob should keep them mouths shut
bobojake (Diary) Thursday, April 23rd at 1:24PM EST (link)They have never been cleared in any way to set policy for the United States of America. They are run and gun campaign managers who are bottom dwellars.
ethics is not one of their forte.
maybe rambo the vulgar, axlehead and baghdad bob should keep them mouths shut
bobojake (Diary) Thursday, April 23rd at 1:24PM EST (link)They have never been cleared in any way to set policy for the United States of America. They are run and gun campaign managers who are bottom dwellars.
ethics is not one of their forte.
He wants to imply that the crimes are real
NotSoBlueStater (Diary) Thursday, April 23rd at 1:31PM EST (link)… but that he’s gonna be a sport and let them go. He cannot afford to look the MoveOn types in the eye and say: Nothing to see here. They want their show trials.
Fascinating.
I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that Balz is right about the reticence. Obama wants to be seen as chomping at the bit to prosecute the evil he replaced.
-
The Conservative creed has never offered a life of ease without effort. Democracy is not for such people. Self-government is for those men and women who have learned to govern themselves. – Margaret Thatcher
My thinking exactly!
azaeroprof (Diary) Thursday, April 23rd at 2:19PM EST (link)I’m looking at one of two scenarios here:
1. He’ll imply guilt without trial, then make himself look ‘above the fray’ by disallowing trials.
2. He’ll SAY he’s against trials, but ‘allow’ Holder to find one or two ‘villains’ whose prosecution they ‘just can’t avoid’. They’ll start a couple ‘minor’ trials, then express ‘shock that there’s gambling going on here’ and be ‘reluctantly forced’ to expand the trial operation.
(Sorry for the liberal – pun intended – use of quotation marks above! But with this administration, you simply cannot believe the actual spoken words!
another example of editorializing news...
DONTREADONME (Diary) Thursday, April 23rd at 2:43PM EST (link)notice
“investigate the harsh interrogation techniques employed under Bush’s authorization and the White House tried to contain the controversy over the president’s decision to release Justice Department memos justifying and outlining those procedures.”
did you see the editorial content in the story? It was the use of “harsh”, that term is descriptive and relays a negative connotation. This is why I can not stand the press. Another example “contain the controversy” this is a controversy who said so, the reporter?
Couldn't He just
gazill Thursday, April 23rd at 2:52PM EST (link)say that these are not going to be pursued. First, He is supposed to be a lawyer, and should understand that providing legal opinion is not a crime, and second, He is supposed to be the President, who could easily tell Holder to lay off (if my basic understanding is accurate). I can buy he “stepped in it,” because without his teleprompter, He would get his name wrong, but i also agree He would do whatever He could to take critical eyes off of Him, and the Bush administration provides fodder for that.
Obama’s America-the paucity of hope
I think you characterized
LibRick (Diary) Thursday, April 23rd at 3:11PM EST (link)the events quite well. Obama bungled this one, big time. He opened the door to a show trial spectacle. I really don’t think he wanted this and he is likely kicking himself for screwing it up.
By the way, I like your own term “without a net” as opposed to the whole “teleprompter” meme. Yeah, I did follow the link. Good writing!
I feel sorry for TOTUS
WarEagle01 (Diary) Thursday, April 23rd at 3:53PM EST (link)Just imagine the hell he’s catching over this fiasco.
“A wise, doughy leg with rich tingly experiences will always reach better conclusions than will a more tanned, muscular leg that hasn’t felt those thrills.” –Chris Matthews’ Leg
“The alternative to the awful extremity of abortion is the indispensable joy of introducing this flawed world to someone who might make it better.”–John Hayward (AKA Dr. Zero)
Look, the President is a busy man
red4ever (Diary) Thursday, April 23rd at 6:07PM EST (link)He’s got a new dog to train, a cover photo to take his shirt off for, dictators to kiss up to, a new book from his buddy Chavez to read. He really doesn’t have time to pay attention to what he actually says to the silly American people.
The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.
Dante
As long as we are cleaning house
clifwest Thursday, April 23rd at 9:16PM EST (link)While the Democrats are determined to keep this issue at the forefront to avoid working to put our nation on a recovery course, why not go all the way? First, I imagine the American people would love to know how the Liberals managed to gain conrrol of our media. Next, we might want to know how organizations like Move On and Acorn are funded, and by whom? Further, while Obama promised transparency, just who is behind the push for this investigation? I, for one, am tired for the constant bickering and in-fighting going on in Congress. This is almost like Nero and the burning of Rome and I am not sure if Obama plays an instrument or not, but while he is fiddling around, our nation might just be burning down around our ears. It seems that the Liberals are doing everything they can to divert the attention of the American people away from the real issues. Whether a terrorist is uncomfortable or not ranks about as low on my priority list as what to do with used toilet paper. If he comes out alive, he is heads up on our people when the terrorists get through them, or have we forgotten? Considering how unfairly President Bush was treated by the Liberal branch of my Party for eight long years for them to show so much compassion for terrorists seems strange, to say the least, and traiterous in my book. I think that the price we are paying now for our ignorance is nothing to what we may wind up paying in the future. You might want to take another long hard look at that picture of Obama that you treasure so much. It may have more substance than the person himself!
I'm guessing this is some sort of accident as well.........
Kenny Solomon (Diary) Thursday, April 23rd at 10:34PM EST (link)US wants Iran hostage suit tossed out.
The Associated Press
The Obama administration has asked a federal judge to throw out a lawsuit against Iran filed by Americans held hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran 30 years ago.
The request comes in a $6.6 billion class-action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Washington. Fifty-two American diplomats and military officials were held captive for more than a year at the end of Jimmy Carter’s presidency by a group of Islamist students who supported the Iranian revolution.
The hostages were released on Jan. 20, 1981, just minutes after Ronald Reagan was sworn in as the new president.