1. I found it interesting that President Obama called the killing of thirteen soldiers at Fort Hood, by U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan in 2009, an act terrorism. For years, the Army refused to award Purple Hearts to those killed and wounded by Major Hasan, claiming it was “workplace violence,” instead of what it was, a terrorist attack by an Army officer turned al-Qaeda supporter. It wasn’t until April of this year, after Congress passed legislation forcing the issue, that the Army finally awarded the Purple Hearts.
2. Even in a speech as serious as last night’s, and even though he said that “we have to work together to address the challenge,” President Obama couldn’t avoid ripping on those who disagree with him on the tactics we should use in the fight:
“To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.
We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino. I know there are some who reject any gun safety measures. But the fact is that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies – no matter how effective they are – cannot identify every would-be mass shooter, whether that individual is motivated by ISIL or some other hateful ideology. What we can do – and must do – is make it harder for them to kill.”
Was it really necessary to say “[w]hat could possibly be the argument”? Instead of just asserting the obvious correctness of his view, why not try to convince people. And not impugn the motives of those who may disagree by saying there is no argument.
3. While I agree with the President that we should “reject religious tests on who we admit into this country,” I would also say that, while we should not reject people because of who they are, there are situations where we need to admit people because of who they are or what they believe. The genocide going on against Yazidis and Christians in areas of Syria and Iraq controlled by ISIS requires us to take special actions to help these people. We have too often apologized, after the fact, for not have taken action against genocide when it was occurring. This should not be another case of that.
4. When President Obama talked of “working with local forces who are fighting to regain control of their own country,” I wonder if he realized how much he sounded like Richard Nixon explaining his “Vietnamization” policy for ending our involvement in the Vietnam War. And if President Obama remembers, or at least read, how it was Democrats in Congress who refused to let us continue, among other things in that fight, the airstrikes that he is touting in the battle against ISIS.
5. The President said we are going to win “because we are on the right side of history.” Actually, you win because you have the right strategy and you implement it properly. The South was not on the “right side of history,” but they almost won the Civil War. Were those who burned Joan of Arc at the stake or who burned Jan Hus at the stake on the “right side of history? We need more than just some sentence in a speech, saying “we are on the right side of history” to beat ISIS. It is unclear if we have it yet.
6. I assume the President spoke from the Oval Office to emphasize the gravity of the situation and the importance of his message. However, instead of sitting at his desk, as other presidents have one, he put a podium in front of his desk. I assume this was so he could use a teleprompter. He should have tried something else.
Comments