"We're learning more about the suspect," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address that the White House released on Saturday as the president vacationed in Hawaii.
"We know that he traveled to Yemen, a country grappling with crushing poverty and deadly insurgencies. It appears that he joined an affiliate of al-Qaida, and that this group — al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula — trained him, equipped him with those explosives and directed him to attack that plane headed for America," the president said.
Yep, no doubt about it -- Yemen is a problem. Like Somalia, its neighbor across the Gulf of Aden, it is a failed state where al-Qaida and other similarly situated terrorist organizations operate with impunity.
But did you catch the part about "crushing poverty?" Unless I'm not parsing the President's words correctly, the implication seems to be that "crushing poverty" is one of the keys to producing terrorists. So what do we know about Umar Farouk Abdulmullatab, the guy who tried to blow up the plane? Take it away, Ed Morrissey:
Abdulmutallab lived a life of privilege. His father ran Nigeria’s Central Bank, and he had access to the best education money could buy. Instead, he got sucked into radical Islam and decided to dedicate his life to murdering others, and not out of any sense of hunger for food, but from the hunger of deadly malice that ate at his soul.
Abdulmutallab fits the typical profile of the modern al-Qaida terrorist: scion of a wealthy family, with access to education and financial resources far beyond most of his countrymen. He is a child of privilege. Kinda like Osama bin Laden, actually. Or this guy, another unsuccessful bomber of a different era.
So here are a few questions for the President to consider:
- If "crushing poverty" is a source of grievance, how does blowing up a plane alleviate the suffering of the average Yemeni or Nigerian? Or is it possible that something else is driving the behavior these terrorists?
- Have you read this book? If not, may I recommend it? Or this book, for that matter?
We got lucky with NW Flight 253. But it's worth remembering the words of Branch Rickey: luck is the residue of design. If we want to maximize our luck in the future, we need to stop believing foolishness.
13 comments:
I'm trying to figure out if Obama actually believes it or not. If he does, then he's curiously uninformed to be POTUS. If he doesn't believe it, then he's spinning national defense. As Rich would no doubt point out, he wouldn't be the first. Nevertheless, I'd feel more comfortable if Obama acted competently.
i think obama's gotten by for so long on charm and sweet words, that he's never had to fake it before now.
and he's not doing a good job of faking me out, although he seems to have the left still in a swoon.
Mark,
I can't speak for the President, but I do think you're reading way too much into what POTUS is saying here. You yourself note that Yemen shares much in common with Somalia. I would agree. They are both Middle Eastern countries with little or no oil reserves, scant resources, very little infrastructure and very weak central governments. And I would add Afghanistan to that list, especially between the late 80's and 2002.
I saw this quote before I read your blog and didn't give it a second thought. I took it to mean that the President was highlighting the very obvious point that these very poor Middle Eastern nations are staging grounds for wealthy and educated Jihadists to train and plan attacks because these countries lacked the central authority, intelligence and infrastructure that exists in their own better developed countries (mostly Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt and now Nigeria). I thought this was a pretty well established line of thought and didn't realize it was subject to partisan interpretation. I am also pretty certain the President is aware of the panty bombers' socio-economic background and the similar backgrounds of OBL and most of the 9/11 terrorists.
You guys, your ODS is starting to show.
Rich
Rich,
This is a bit of a chicken/egg argument. What I would argue is that one of the primary reasons places like Yemen and Somalia have such crushing poverty is because of their governments (or lack thereof). And maybe I'm reading too much into Obama's argument. But I've seen enough of this foolish line of thinking from him in the past that I suspect I'm not.
Put it this way -- I wish he'd said something like this:
We know that he traveled to Yemen, a country grappling a weak central government that is struggling to maintain control over its territory. It appears that he joined an affiliate of al-Qaida, which cynically operates in places like Yemen, and that this group — al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula — trained him, equipped him with those explosives and directed him to attack that plane headed for America."
If he'd said that, it would have been clear that he understood cause and effect. Perhaps he does understand it. But it doesn't appear so to me.
And I don't think that's ODS, either.
Rich,
Heh. You just wait. We're crazy and gittin' craaaazzzziiierrrrrr! Before you know it we'll be blaming Obama for all kinds of irrational things like exploding the national debt and bowing to foreign potentates.
You'll know we've gone completely bonkers when we start talking about limited government and the Constitution.
You'll know we've gone completely bonkers when we start talking about limited government and the Constitution.
That's crazy talk, Picklesworth.
"Before you know it we'll be blaming Obama for all kinds of irrational things like exploding the national debt and bowing to foreign potentates."
Could have just as easily read: "Before you know it we'll be blaming Bush for all kinds of irrational things like exploding the national debt and bowing to, kissing and holding hands with foreign potentates." As for "talking about limited government and the Constitution.", Conservatives have been doing a lot of talking about that for years, but little else.
Funny thing is, none of this seemed to be an issue for you guys when the President had an (R) after his name. But now that it's a (D), everything is interpreted in the worst possible light. I wonder why that is?
Rich
Funny thing is, none of this seemed to be an issue for you guys when the President had an (R) after his name. But now that it's a (D), everything is interpreted in the worst possible light. I wonder why that is?
So you're conceding the point.
From the perspective of a blog reader - it's easier to follow the point in a post when other linked information is named, rather than referenced in pronoun-form, like "this guy" and "this book." Much of this comes into play when reading from a PDA device (very often the case for me) and it's just not as convenient to bring up several linked pages that way (what with data loading times operating on a 3G network). Just a suggestion, though - take it or leave it. :)
Hmm. I do realize that would change the tone, however. Other blogs do it too, but argh - just not *my* thing!
So you're conceding the point.
It would appear so, Picklesworth. He's got nuthin' on this one.
Hmm. I do realize that would change the tone, however.
It would, Amanda. But I take your earlier point. I don't have a PDA device and will admit that those sorts of concerns weren't on my radar. Usability is important and it's ever changing, so I'll give your suggestion some thought. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Am I conceding the point that everything Obama does is interpreted by you guys in the worst possible light? Yes, I am. Do I think that if Obama painstakingly explained the obvious in every statement he made, you would accuse him of being an elitist and speaking down ti the American people? Yes, I do. Do I think you are holding the Obama administration to a different standard than you did the last administration? Again, yes, laughably so. Am I bothered by it? No, not really, the desperation and ODS of the Right is ultimately helpful to this Administration.
Lastly, can you guys explain to me if there is some kind of time limit that I am expected to answer back to your responses? I mean this. If there's a protocol I am violating, I want to know. Last week, Gino got his nose out of joint when I hadn't replied to him in under 3 hours, And now you guys are accusing me of failing to answer in under 5 hours. I don't have a PDA or an I Phone and I try not to live on my computer. Don't meran to burst your bubbles, but I am not waiting breathlessly by the computer for your responses.
Regards,
Rich
Am I conceding the point that everything Obama does is interpreted by you guys in the worst possible light? Yes, I am.
Wrong and you know it, good sir. I have praised Obama multiple times in this forum when I have seen fit to do so.
Do I think you are holding the Obama administration to a different standard than you did the last administration?
I'm sure you do, Rich. And you're holding Obama to a far more lenient standard than you did with his predecessor. If our complaints about Obama amount to Obama Derangement System, your complaints about our complaints are even sillier, no?
And let's be clear about something -- our complaints about Obama, especially in the foreign policy realm, are pretty substantive. He's made a series of very conscious decisions to break from the previous administration. And it's not working out so well for him. He still has time to, ahem, recalibrate and I hope that he does. And if he does, I'll be sure to praise him. Just for you. :)
Post a Comment