Stupid or Treasonous?

A number of news stories broke while our President was vacationing in his alleged birth place of Hawaii. The composite has me asking myself a question: “Is this administration full of idiots, or full of traitors?”

Mind you, I’m merely addressing some of the news since Mr. Obama went on vacation. A full review of his entire record in office, asking this question, would be positively exhausting. And I’m not being paid for this, you know.

The Christmas Day bomber plot raises this question on multiple levels.

Take Janet Napolitano’s statements on the Sunday talk shows immediately afterward. She basically said “the system worked, folks, nothing to consider here.” One could hardly imagine a more stupid response to a complete breakdown in her area of responsibility. (And with two full days to consider it, no less). But, if it were one’s objective to aid and abet the enemy, maybe trying to use your position of authority to lull its victims (you and me) to sleep, hmmmm …. Well, I’m just thinking out loud.

And who decided to give constitutional rights to the pantybomber? And who then let John Brennan go on the Sunday shows to announce our government would be offering a plea bargain to the terrorist? I’ve argued on this blog before how fundamentally stupid it is to fight the terrorists with the law enforcement response. This approach is also a stupid bet on a political level. If, God forbid, one of the pantybomber’s jihadist classmates succeeds in the near future, and it becomes apparent a different approach might have yielded intelligence sooner – well, this administration will own the result completely and forever. I thought these guys were political geniuses? In his 2009 testimony to Congress, Eric Holder gave the administration wiggle room to selectively treat individual terrorists in either the civilian or military systems. The administration could have used that wiggle room to immediately place the pantybomber into military custody and avoid the situation it is now in – in effect rolling the political dice with American lives. But … if one actually sympathized with the enemy … Well, I’m just thinking out loud.

Now, let’s address Obama’s reaction. Did he even look like he cared 300 fellow Americans came within a Dutch artist’s whisker of dying? He looked more annoyed that his vacation had been interrupted – 3 days after the event occurred! Isn't this guy supposed to be the greatest political orator of our time?  He couldn’t summon any righteous anger after three days of preparation for an address to the nation? Talk about a tin political ear. But … if one were deep down kind of disappointed with the botched execution of the pantybomber … Well, I’m just thinking out loud.

How about the White House insisting it will continue to repatriate Yemeni terrorists to Yemen? This is another gem from John Brennan’s mouth. His one word answer was “absolutely” when Chris Wallace asked the question. In light of recent developments - AYKM? For crying out loud, he could at least show the political acumen to dance around the question, instead of instantly inserting his foot. On the one hand, they close the American embassy in Yemen (an admission Yemen is a dangerous place). On the other hand (and at almost the same moment!) they stick to their guns on sending Terrorists back to Yemen (a denial Yemen is a dangerous place). Stupid or treasonous? To be honest, I just can’t tell yet through all of the logical contradictions.

Then there’s the story Newsweek broke as an exclusive today - that Obama (along with Napolitano, Holder, and others) was briefed on intelligence credibly indicating the threat of a Christmas day bombing before Obama went on vacation; and in response he did … nothing. Does he not understand the job? Or is he secretly performing a different job (i.e. Manchurian President)?

Then there’s this little gem the White House tried to bury in the quiet period of Christmas break - [Washington Examiner article - Obama signs executive order subordinating FBI to Interpol]. I haven’t entirely wrapped my head around this one yet. But I have to say the very notion of a President of the United States widening the authority of an extra-national institution on American soil smells like a rotten catfish right off the bat.

The republic has survived incompetent presidents before (see Carter, Jimmy). But I don’t think we’ve ever been given as much cause to actually wonder about a President’s loyalties.

For the moment, I’m holding to the most logical explanation. This administration is full of left-wing ideologues. They came to office really believing the law enforcement response to terrorism can be effective. They came to office really believing everything would be cool if they just said nice things about, and offered concessions to, our adversaries. The real question is whether or not they can learn from recent events, set aside their ideological pride, and admit these assumptions have been dead wrong – before it’s too late. A good start would be a strong profiling program for TSA. Profiling may be PC heresy today – years ago it was just good police work.

A shake up in Congress in November is already practically a foregone conclusion. If this administration sets its mind to an honest assessment of its initial assumptions, and the feedback from the real world, there is a chance for a period of bi-partisan governance beginning in November. The problem is honest assessments are not in the nature of ideologues. Idealogues tend to act reflexively based on their preset assumptions, in ways that make them appear to be stupid (i.e. unresponsive to real world feedback). Therefore, the more likely projection for 2010 is a contentious year of Washington resistance to grass roots feedback, possibly leading to impeachment articles in 2011. If the grassroots uprising succeeds in installing principled patriots into Congress, the next Congress will have almost no choice but to draft articles of impeachment – whether the executive is dangerously stupid or treasonous, it just won't matter.