Trickle-Down Hypocrisy

After the story broke surrounding the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, former President Bush gave an interview to Al Arabiya television. Here is a portion:



Considering our recent discussion surrounding issues of torture and detainee abuse, it certainly puts into context just how deceptive and untruthful the previous administration was. Even after this story broke in 2004 there were people writing about just how absurd it was for the Bush Administration to claim that these were just a "few bad apples". Now you have a situation where, like Bush, you have those who feigned outrage over this "isolated incident" in 2004, lining up to defend these tactics today.

Take Charles Krauthammer on May 14, 2004:

This panic is everywhere and now includes many who have been longtime supporters of the war. The panic is unseemly. The pictures are shocking and the practices appalling. But how do the actions of a few depraved soldiers among 135,000 negate the moral purpose of the entire enterprise — which has not only liberated 25 million people from 25 years of genocidal dictatorship but has included a nationwide reconstruction punctuated by hundreds, thousands, of individual acts of beneficence and kindness by American soldiers?

Krauthammer called these acts "appalling" in 2004 so naturally he would be outraged to see that this was not an isolated incident, but the actual policy of the United States right? From an April 17, 2009 FoxNews Transcript:

BAIER: Charles, let's start with these documents, their release. What does it mean?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: I think it does harm the United States. It gives away a lot of our techniques. And I disagree. I don't see it as a dark chapter in our history at all.

You look at some of these techniques — holding the head, a face slap, or deprivation of sleep. If that is torture, the word has no meaning.

I would concede that one technique, simulated drowning, you could call torture, even though the memos imply that legally it didn't meet that definition. I'm agnostic on the legalism.

BAIER: You're talking about waterboarding?

KRAUTHAMMER: Yes. But let's concede that it's a form of torture. I think it's perfectly reasonable to use it in two cases, that the ticking time bomb, if an innocent is at risk and you've got a terrorist that has information that would save that innocent and isn't speaking. That's an open and shut easy case.

A second case is a high-level Al Qaeda operative, a terrorist, who knows names and places and numbers and plans and safe houses and all that, and by using techniques to get information, you're saving lives.

If I have to weigh on the one hand the numberless and nameless lives saved in America by the use of these techniques, and we had a CIA director who told us that these techniques on these high-level terrorists was extremely effective in giving us information.

If you have to weigh on one hand that the numberless and nameless lives saved, against the 30 seconds or so of terror in the eyes of a terrorist who is suffering this technique, I think the moral choice is easy.

It's not a dark chapter in our history. It is a successful one. We have not had a second attack, and largely because of this.

Here you have a clear case of trickle-down hypocrisy. President Bush and his Administration authorized these techniques, feigned outrage, and isolated blame when exposed 5 years ago. Today, these same players defend these policies all while some members of the media (like Krauthammer) eat it up and spit it back out. "Appalling" in 2004 when the President and his Administration says it is and "necessary" in 2009 because the President's Administration says it was.

American Exceptionalism and the Backlash to Obama's Interview with Al Arabiya

When I heard that President Obama gave an interview to Al Arabiya television the other day, I knew that there was going to be some intense backlash. Before long, bloggers and pundits were outraged that Obama was "apologizing" to the Muslim world for the conduct of America during the so-called "War on Terror". Take Ben Shapiro, columnist for Townhall.com and Worldnetdaily.com, whose latest piece is entitled "The Day America Lost the War on Terror".

As one might imagine, Shapiro starts by claiming that America "lost the War on Terror" on the day that Barack Obama was elected President of the United States, November 4, 2008. Shapiro then goes on to use broad, sweeping, and overly dramatic language to make the point that Obama is making America less safe and that Obama's global agenda will end up killing the idea of Ameircan exceptionalism.

Let's start off with Obama's interview to Al Arabiya to which you can find the video here and the transcript here. The clips of the interview that have been circulating and that many have focused on are as follows:

Now, my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world that the language we use has to be a language of respect. I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries...the largest one, Indonesia. And so what I want to communicate is the
fact that in all my travels throughout the Muslim world, what I've come to understand is that regardless of your faith -- and America is a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers -- regardless of your faith, people all have certain common hopes and common dreams.

And my job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives. My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that. And that I think is going to be an important task.

I think that you're making a very important point. And that is that the language we use matters. And what we need to understand is, is that there are extremist
organizations -- whether Muslim or any other faith in the past -- that will use faith as a justification for violence. We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith's name.And so you will I think see our administration be very clear indistinguishing between organizations like al Qaeda -- that espouse violence, espouse terror and act on it -- and people who may disagree with my administration and certain actions, or may have a particular viewpoint in terms of how their countries should develop. We can have legitimate disagreements but still be respectful. I cannot respect terrorist organizations that would kill innocent civilians and we will hunt them down. But to the broader Muslim world what we are going to be offering is a hand of friendship.

Obama stresses a few different points in these clips:

- Muslims, Christians, Jews, and people of every faith all share in common hopes and dreams.
- The Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who want to live good lives and leave a better world for the next generation.
- Though we (America) have not been perfect and have made mistakes, we are not the enemy of the Muslim people.
- Obama believes that the relationship between the Muslim world and America can be restored.
- Language matters and we cannot "paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith's name.

If you read some of the postings and writings of those who are critical of Obama's approach in this interview, you would get an entirely different feel of what Obama said. I will focus on some points from Ben Shapiro's most recent piece, but the themes he puts forth are similar in many of the critiques that I have been reading.

The following clips are from Shapiro's piece:

In the interview, he demonstrated with the utmost clarity that his understanding is inversely proportional to his arrogance. He started by humbling America before the world. “(A)ll too often the United States starts by dictating,” Obama said, shame for his country dripping from his lips. “So let’s listen.” There was no call for the Muslim world, which has sponsored genocide after genocide, terrorist group upon terrorist group, to listen.

Obama apologized for President Bush’s “Islamic fascism” terminology, equating
Muslim terrorism with nonexistent terrorism by Jews and Christians...There was
no call for the Muslim world to actively fight terrorism—honesty is not the
Obama administration’s policy.

Most sickeningly, Obama openly jettisoned his constitutional role as the caretaker for America’s national interest. Instead, Obama posed himself as an honest broker between America and the Muslim world...He stated that his job is to speak for the Muslim world, defending them from Americans’ negative perceptions...

Shapiro begins by stating his displeasure with Obama "humbling America before the world" due to Obama's comments that we need to communicate and that we are willing to listen and not just dictate. "With shame for his country dripping from his lips," Shapiro quips and then complains that Obama didn't ask the "Muslim world" to listen. Perhaps Mr. Shapiro does not realize that when two countries engage in diplomacy, both sides get a chance to talk and both sides get a chance to listen. This is also characteristic of how a productive conversation takes place. Just because Obama has pledged to listen to other countries does not automatically mean that he won't also make America's voice heard. In fact, Obama specifically says this later in the interview: "We are going to follow through on many of my commitments to do a more effective job of reaching out, listening, as well as speaking to the Muslim world." (emphasis mine).

Shapiro then goes on to chide Obama for "apologizing" for former President Bush's use of the term Islamic fascism, for "equating Muslim terrorism with nonexistent terrorism by Jews and Christians", and for not being honest because he didn't call for the Muslim world to actively fight terrorism. Firstly, Obama never "apologized" for Bush's use of that term, he only explained why he believes it important not to paint any faith with a broad brush. Secondly, the blind eye that Shapiro turns toward terrorism committed by other religions throughout history is alarming. Thirdly, Obama has continually stated in speeches leading up to the election that one of his goals is to work with other nations, Pakistan included, to develop strategies to combat terrorism and their ability to gain access to weapons and funding. And Obama is the one not being honest?

Above it all, what Shapiro finds most sickening, is that Obama sees it as his job to "speak for the Muslim world, defending them from Americans' negative perceptions", and actually, I also find it troubling. I find it troubling that it is even necessary for the President to have to explain to us that the Muslim world is full of exceptional people, not simply terrorists. I find it troubling that this even needs to be addressed and quite indicative of the discourse of the last eight years, that a population need to be dissuaded from believing that an entire group of people do not all harbor ill will toward Americans.

However this is not why Shapiro is troubled. He is troubled that Obama is a "global imperialist" that seeks to not advance the interests of America but of the world. "Not all Muslims are “extraordinary people'," Shapiro writes, "and the interests of suffering Muslims do not always align with American interests."

What Shapiro views as a "global imperialist" is actually a figure who appears to understand that the decisions the United States makes, have a global impact. It is specifically the viewpoint that is advanced by Shapiro, that of advancing American interests at all costs, that has the result of discounting how the rest of the world is affected by such decisions. It is this viewpoint that supports ridding Iraq of a dictator who is a perceived threat to the United States without taking into account the potential blowback of millions of children growing up in a ravaged country with a hatred of those who destroyed their homeland. It is this mindset that fails to see that what may be in the world's interest, is also in America's interests as well. "Global Interest Imperialism dooms American exceptionalism," Shapiro concludes. Perhaps America's greater exceptionalism will come when we realize that our progress as a country, lies in advancing the human interests of the global community.