The following is an excerpt from OpinionJournal.com’s “Best of the Web” written by the editor, James Taranto.
This Means War
Cognitive dissonance anyone? “Promising to return America to the ‘moral high ground’ in the war on terrorism, President Obama issued three executive orders Thursday to demonstrate a clean break from the Bush administration, including one requiring that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility be closed within a year,” CNN reports.
But in its front-page story on Guantanamo today, the New York Times took a drastically different angle:
The emergence of a former Guantánamo Bay detainee as the deputy leader of Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch has underscored the potential complications in carrying out the executive order President Obama signed Thursday that the detention center be shut down within a year.
So wait, you mean those guys are terrorists after all? Go figure! As the Times explains, Said Ali al-Shihri was released to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and went through a “Saudi rehabilitation program for former jihadists.” Thus rehabilitated, he went to Yemen, where he is believed to have been involved in a September bombing of the U.S. Embassy.
What’s going on here? Having led the campaign against Guantanamo, and having won at least a preliminary victory, the Times is now preparing its readers for the eventuality that the unlawful combatants being held there will not simply be released, or treated as common criminals:
The development came as Republican legislators criticized the plan to close the Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, detention camp in the absence of any measures for dealing with current detainees. But it also helps explain why the new administration wants to move cautiously, taking time to work out a plan to cope with the complications.
Those complications could be extremely dire, in both real and political terms. Whatever President Bush’s shortcomings, his antiterror policies were indisputably successful, inasmuch as there has been no major terror attack on U.S. soil since he instituted them.
When Obama and other Democrats were in the opposition, it was easy to complain about insensitivity to civil liberties, or to engage in cant about how Bush’s policies actually made us less safe. Now that Obama is president, his most important responsibility is to defend the country. If terrorists successfully strike on his watch, headlines like “Bush’s ‘War’ on Terror Comes to Sudden End” (an “analysis” from today’s Washington Post) will come back to haunt Obama, who will be seen as having failed where his predecessor succeeded.
Should this happen, it is possible Obama will end up getting a bum rap. After all, Shihri was released during Bush’s presidency, as were the three score or so other Guantanamo detainees who, according to the Pentagon, have returned to the battlefield. But if Bush’s policies were too lenient, more-lenient policies from Obama are a step in the wrong direction.
We aren’t saying anything that isn’t obvious, and no doubt it is obvious to Obama as well, which is why his executive orders provide for time to study the issues and room for alternative policies. Once the new president has put his mark on antiterror policy, there is nothing he will be able to do to escape blame if there is another successful terrorist attack. Whatever his rhetoric about “moral leadership” and civil liberties, preventing another attack must, and surely will, be his top priority.
For more “Best of the Web” click here and look for the “Best of the Web Today” link in the middle column below “Today’s Columnists.”
