Just the other day, I wrote a little entry about the release of the Lockerbie bomber. In the course of the return commentary, Greg "The Hammer" Dail--frequent contributor to the commentary section of the site, made the following statement about the actions of President Obama:
"This is an outrage and Obama clearly signed off on this one."
I took issue with this statement with the following line of inquiry:
Greg--I'd like to know the source(s) of your charge that "Obama clearly signed off on this one". By "this one", I presume you meant the Scottish authority's decision to let the terrorist go home.
If true, this would be scandalous and sensational. But I've heard the charge nowhere else, and if you're simply making it up or allowing your political feelings to get the best of you in accusing the President of near-treasonous behavior, please retract this scurrilous charge.
Mr. Dail has in fact, done neither. If anything, he has defended his charge with vigor, writing today:
My source are the facts as reported. The Scottish Minister of Justice let this killer go and Obama knew it about it well beforehand, as did PM Brown. Neither lifted a finger to stop it. Therefore they both gave their tacit approval.
Let's take a close look at Mr. Dail's latest statement. I do not know that Mr. Obama knew about the Scottish decision to let the terrorist go--but I think it was highly likely. Mr. Dail seems ready to bet the farm on it, so I'll go along with it. Let's look at the next statement:
"Neither lifted a finger to stop it. Therefore they both gave their tacit approval."
So we've gone from the original charge of "Obama clearly signed off on this one" to a new assertion that Obama "...gave (his) tacit approval." Apparently, the backsliding is beginning. While I don't have the same certainty as Mr. Dail with respect to what went on behind the scenes, here's my crack at a plausible scenario. The Scottish government informed both the Brits and us about this some time ago. Behind the scenes, our diplomats mounted an effort to get them to reconsider. Perhaps there was even personal diplomacy at the Secstate/VP or even Presidential level--but we can't be sure. In the end though, the Scots decided to go through with this, and the Obama Administration decided not to make a big deal over it.
I think the Obama Administration is making a mistake in not making a bigger deal over this, and I think Mr. Dail would agree. But there are also reasons that Obama might not want to make this a bigger deal than it already is. One is our pitiful relationship with Great Britain, a relationship Obama has done nothing but harm since he's been in office.
Mr. Dail then decided to write back, yet again, with the following:
"One more thing, of course this wasn't Obama's decision but without a doubt neither him nor PM Brown tried to stopped it (and the Scots probably wish they had)."
So we've gone from Obama clearly signing off on it, to Obama giving tacit approval to it not being "Obama's decision" but that he did not try to stop it. The slope is getting slipperier, Mr. Dail. But here we get back into what seems to be some special insight Mr. Dail has into the inner workings of the Obama foreign policy machine. His insider knowledge seems particularly odd coming from a guy who doesn't exactly seem to be on the "Obama Team", but who knows, maybe Greg's got a hotline to the Oval I don't know about.
Dail winds up his day's labor in neither sourcing his outlandish charge or retracting it by asking me:
"Is it your view this decision was taken unilaterally by the Scots and Obama and Brown were completely out of the loop?"
No--though I don't have any sources on the inside of the Obama Administration giving me the inside scoop, I can only speculate that there were intense behind the scenes negotiations on this one, and that at the end of the day, Obama decided it wasn't worth going to the mat to embarrass or ridicule the Scottish government over a terror bombing suspect being released into the arms of a government (Libya) that bankrolled the entire operation--but with whom the Bush Administration worked HARD to re-establish relations in its two terms in office.
I hope Mr. Dail was just as incensed with Mr. Bush when his government buried the hatchet with Qaddafi, but somehow I doubt it.
Now--as to Mr. Dail. Tomorrow I will excise his original post and his follow-on responses. I have no desire for this blog to turn into a Conservative MSNBC, and I'm not going to allow baseless, scurrilous charges like he's leveled to sit there and be associated with me.
Mr. Obama is doing more than enough FOR REAL AND ON PURPOSE to create conditions for people like Mr. Dail and myself to call him on his leadership. We simply don't have to make stuff up.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Can we call him "the Yammer" from now on?
If Greg "The Hammer" Dail had said, "In my opinion" would he have been censored?
Yes. I would have done the same thing. I would have asked for his evidence. Presumably he would have answered in the same fashion he has. Then I would have done the same thing.
There should be no mistaking my support for free speech. I absolutely support his, your, or anyone else's right to start your own blog, column, newspaper or magazine to advance whatever agenda is desired.
But this is my blog, and it is ultimately my reputation that is on the line, even for the things others say. This is why I insist on a civil tone, and this is why I insisted on sourcing for Mr. Dail's statement. That it might be simply "opinion" (which it obviously is), does not excuse it. If someone says "in my opinion, all people with IQ's under 100 should be eliminated", the ridiculous nature of the comment is only reinforced by the admission of opinion.
It seems I was wrong. After reading several reputable news sources and just now listening to the Scottish Parliament debate the decision, my assertion earlier this week that Obama had a hand in the release of the Lockerbie terrorist was in error. I apologize.
My thinking at the time was based on the US/British “special relationship”. I could not believe the British government would allow the abrogation of our agreement that this man spend the rest of his life in a Scottish prison, especially after serving only eight years. I didn’t realize that American influence had dropped so precipitously. I’m not surprised just amazed at the speed of the erosion. In politics it is better to be feared than loved, and America is obviously neither.
Again, C.W. you were right on the facts and I was wrong.
Thank you Greg. Manfully done.
Greg - That ratcheting sound you just heard was my respect for you you moving up several notches. It was already pretty high simply because (I believe) you are a Marine, a veteran, a Conservative and, you like wiener dogs.
Now that I’m back in your good graces may I may a small suggestion? I presume you want to be the best Wahoo you can be? In that spirit the next time someone makes an unfounded accusation or an error in fact, let it run its course. There are some fairly bright people who contribute here and they’ll get it sorted soon enough. Granted they are not the titans of political philosophy or the astute observers of the body politic that you and I are, but they’re pretty OK.
Another thing, the idea that your reputation would be sullied by some blogger doesn’t really hold water. Want to see some wild accusations? Go to DailyKos or the Democratic Underground or the Huffington Compost. Then watch as some of the biggest names in American politics break their collective (or collectivist) asses to speak at their conventions.
Well that’s it; all I have to say. No good comes from arguing with the ump and I ain’t Earl Weaver and you ain’t some middle-aged, potbellied, beer-sodden umpire (well...umpire). So let’s leave it at that.
To Mudge: A Marine? You must be joking. The best of 'em couldn't carry a Ranger's jockey strap! Eh...not that I was a Ranger or anything. I was a proud member of the battle harden, rough and tumble, dog-faced Signal Corp. Gee when I say it like that it doesn't sound too bad.
Sorry Greg--though I do again appreciate your retraction, I think you make a couple of fundamental errors.
First, let's say for the sake of argument I do want to be the "best Wahoo I can be". Would it make sense to take advice from others on that, or should I follow my own conscience? I choose the latter.
Second--to some extent, you made my point for me. I'd rather be a 124 reader a day site with some integrity than be one of those mega-sites with none. Yes, those folks get lots of press and yes, they speak at conventions. But they can never get through a Senate confirmation. Yep. I think about that. I think about the possibility that someday a Republican will be back in the White House and my services may be of some use to him or her. You don't think they'll spend every bit of energy they have shuffling through this blog looking for dirt? They won't have the decency to state whether or not it was me who said it--they'll just talk about it as if I did, or they'll say that I provided a forum for it and therefore supported it.
No--the CW is going to be a place where guys like you and me can come and trade ideas in a civil tone with the constant foreknowledge that if we say something factually wrong, or if we make outlandish statements--someone will call us on it.
But it works in both directions. I made a statement a couple of months ago about believing there was correlation between high foreclosure areas and the propensity to vote Democrat. Someone wrote in and called me on it, providing documentation and sourcing. It was about as serious an intellectual beat-down as I've ever had, but there was no place to go, no place to hide. I said, "yep, you're right, I'm wrong, I'm sorry" statement retracted.
I understand completely. When you get that job at NSA, keep me in mind. I have a top secret security clearance. I am a veteran with an honorable discharge (that unfortunate incident with the Italian chick -well she looked like a chick- having been successfully buried). I have only abused drugs sporadically (mostly prescription) and I think I've got that alcohol thing under control. I'm your man!
Post a Comment