But one excerpt really grates on me (emphasis mine):

As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam – at places like Al-Azhar University – that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

My God, I am sick of hearing of this crap. Throughout history? Can anyone who praises Islam for advancing civilization cite an example less than, say, 600 years old? I’d like to think that citing thousand-year-old examples is a subtle dig that really asks of Islam “How about coming out of the middle ages?” But I don’t think any speaker really means it that way.

Anyway, I started researching the origins of all these things, finding links to histories of these items, then I ran across someone who has already done all this. Looks like we owe ‘em for the pen.

The other thing that bugs me about this stupid praise for an Islamic world that no longer exists is that the same people who wax poetic about Islam’s 1000-year old contributions to civilization compare it to the Christianity of the same time to support their argument that the West has no right to criticize Islam because of Christianity’s own backwardness and evil. We cite a recent beheading in Buffalo, “honor killings” in the “modern” country of Jordan, stoning of gays in Afghanistan, and what do Islamic apologists offer in response? The Crusades. Oh, and George Bush.

UPDATE: Don Surber is on to this bullshit as well, citing Rush.

As for the treatment of terror suspects, Jack Goldsmith has a definitive piece called “The Cheney Fallacy” online at The New Republic. He lists a broad range of policies — Guantánamo, habeas corpus, military commissions, rendition, interrogation and so on. He shows how, in most cases, the Obama policy represents a continuation of or a gradual evolution from the final Bush policy.

What Obama gets, and what President Bush never got, is that other people’s opinions matter. Goldsmith puts it well: “The main difference between the Obama and Bush administrations concerns not the substance of terrorism policy, but rather its packaging. The Bush administration shot itself in the foot time and time again, to the detriment of the legitimacy and efficacy of its policies, by indifference to process and presentation. The Obama administration, by contrast, is intensely focused on these issues.”

Obama has taken many of the same policies Bush ended up with, and he has made them credible to the country and the world. In his speech, Obama explained his decisions in a subtle and coherent way. He admitted that some problems are tough and allow no easy solution. He treated Americans as adults, and will have won their respect.

Do I wish he had been more gracious with and honest about the Bush administration officials whose policies he is benefiting from? Yes. But the bottom line is that Obama has taken a series of moderate and time-tested policy compromises. He has preserved and reformed them intelligently. He has fit them into a persuasive framework. By doing that, he has not made us less safe. He has made us more secure.

The odd thing is that Brooks views this as some sort of triumph, when it’s really an indictment. Not of Obama (whom I’ll get to in a moment), but of anyone who suddenly finds palatable virtually the same policies they condemned under Bush. Those people might as well say Since George Bush didn’t ask nicely, we will squawk, leak, and generally undermine the war on terror, because we’re that petty.

Oddly enough, far lefties and those who supported Bush all along both come out looking good, or at least consistent. Most conservatives I read are rather relieved that Obama has retained as much of Bush policy as he has, and the lefties have enough integrity to bitch about Obama.  Those who look terrible are those who flip-flopped, demonstrating once again the national security blackmail played by Democrats.

Hard as it is to admit, however, Brooks has a point about President Bush’s failure to realize that other’s opinions matter. Bush’s mistake was in thinking that the country would see him doing the right thing and that would be enough. He never adequately defended his policies. That defense would have been necessary in any event, but was even more necessary in light of the shrill attacks that were constantly waged against him.

As for Obama . . . well, as I’ve said before, I hope he was simply lying like crazy on the campaign trail about dismantling Bush security policies. Because the only other alternative is that he was very naive while campaigning and learned he was wrong upon taking office. And having someone that naive as president scares the crap out of me way more than having a liar for a president.

As noted in the title of this post, McCarthy asks Holder, “Do you think I’m an idiot?” But he does it politely (Yid with Lid calls it “diplomatic”):

[I]n light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct. Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government.

A “prudent lawyer would have to hesitate.” Talk about your understatements!  More like, “A lawyer would have to be freakin’ insane to provide an opinion when you have already threatened to prosecute lawyers for providing their opinions.”

Which means, of course, that the lawyers participating are expected to rubber-stamp whatever kid-glove treatment the Obama administration has already decided on:

Nevertheless, it is quite clear—most recently, from your provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany—that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the United States). Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues. I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the American people. Under the circumstances, I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop.

McCarthy makes a number of other great points.  You really should read the whole thing.

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey makes an excellent point at HotAir: 

If the Obama administration wants Andy’s input, they can read his book,Willful Blindness.  If they’re interested in diversity of opinion, they can prove it by making appointments that demonstrate a different policy direction.  “Roundtables” are nothing more than window dressing, and McCarthy rightly rejects this effort to exploit him for a bit of political cover.  He’s obviously more effective staying where he’s at.

Why should we care?

95% of the population is Sunni Muslim. And the legal customs they need to abandon are sharia-based. From Reuters via the NYT:

Mayotte will have to ban polygamy, raise the minimum age of marriage to 18 from 15 years old, and give women equal rights.

The Islamic justice system will be replaced by secular courts, though qadis [religious scholars who act as judges] will retain a consultative role.

95% of a 61% vote among 186,000 people, assuming 1/3 of the population is of voting age, means that roughly 36,000 Muslims voted in favor.  That’s  0.003% — or 3/1000s of 1 percent of the world’s Muslims.

But it’s a start.

In recent days, Obama’s national-security officials have had brainstorming sessions to come up with different ways to describe the U.S. government’s efforts to defeat Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, according to administration sources who asked not to be identified talking about private discussions.

What’s being sought is a more precise phrase that can recast the U.S. government’s counterterrorism fight in ideological as well as military terms. Obama publicly signaled the new approach this week. When asked about the “war on terror” phrase by CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Obama said, “Well you know, I think it is very important for us to recognize that we have a battle or a war against some terrorist organizations … Words matter in this situation because one of the ways we’re going to win this struggle is through the battle of hearts and minds.”

Although partly symbolic, the search for new terror terminology reflects an internal government debate that predates the new administration. Critics have long decried the use of the phrase “war on terror” on the grounds that terrorism is a tactic, not an identifiable enemy. Years ago, State and Defense Department officials tried to move away from the phrase “war on terror,” proposing instead to call it a “Struggle Against Violent Extremism,” or SAVE.

SAVE?  SAVE?  Are you kidding?

In the abstract, I would find it encouraging that Obama is looking for a term that helps identify the enemy, since I feel the “war on terror” phrase lacking in that respect.  But call me skeptical that accurate identification will actually be accomplished in a new name.  The words “Islamic” and “terror” were not put together once during any of the Democratic primary debates, so I’m not hopeful the identification will be any more accurate in whatever alternative the Obama administration comes up with. 

You think we could sneak the word “Islamic,” or at least “Islamist,” in there somewhere?

Related articles by Zemanta

• “War On Terror” No Longer The Phrase That Pays (alan.com)
• We can’t wage a war against a tactic anyway (washingtonmonthly.com)

So to summarize: We’d love to close Guantanamo, but we can’t right now; we’d love to transfer detainees out of Guantanamo, but other countries don’t want them; we’d love to give every detainee a civilian trial, but we don’t have enough evidence; we’d love to release the detainees we can’t charge with crimes, but our intelligence tells us they’re dangerous, so doing so would be irresponsible; and we’d love to stick to the highly civilized, detainee-friendly interrogation practices approved by the Army Field Manual, but every now and then there may be an emergency when something more severe is warranted.

Underneath all the lofty rhetoric, we’re gratified to see that this is change George W. Bush could believe in.

Classic.

1. Some of the passengers from U.S. Airways Flight 1549, about whom Rachel Lucas says, “Really people, you are embarrassing yourselves and you need to shut the cakeholes.”

2. A whole lot of the Muslim world, wallowing in victimhood and hating their benefactors, leading to Obama’s disgusting pandering, in which he adopts the mindset of the “victimized” Muslim world.  Charles Krauthammer:

Is it “new” to acknowledge Muslim interests and show respect to the Muslim world? Obama doesn’t just think so, he said so again to millions in his al-Arabiya interview, insisting on the need to “restore” the “same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago.”

Astonishing. In these most recent 20 years — the alleged winter of our disrespect of the Islamic world — America did not just respect Muslims, it bled for them. It engaged in five military campaigns, every one of which involved — and resulted in — the liberation of a Muslim people: Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.

The two Balkan interventions — as well as the failed 1992-93 Somalia intervention to feed starving African Muslims (43 Americans were killed) — were humanitarian exercises of the highest order, there being no significant U.S. strategic interest at stake. In these 20 years, this nation has done more for suffering and oppressed Muslims than any nation, Muslim or non-Muslim, anywhere on Earth. Why are we apologizing?

Why, indeed?

H/T: The Anchoress.

According to Susan Crawford (that’s not her in the picture), the Bush administration official in charge of deciding which Guantanamo prisoners to bring to trial, the combination of interrogation methods used on Mohammed al-Qahtani, who allegedly would have been the twentieth 9/11 hijacker had he not been denied entry to the country a month before that, amounted to torture.

Crawford, 61, said the combination of the interrogation techniques, their duration and the impact on Qahtani’s health led to her conclusion. “The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent. . . . You think of torture, you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual. This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive. It was that medical impact that pushed me over the edge” to call it torture, she said.

What were these methods?

“For 160 days his only contact was with the interrogators,” said Crawford, who personally reviewed Qahtani’s interrogation records and other military documents. “Forty-eight of 54 consecutive days of 18-to-20-hour interrogations. Standing naked in front of a female agent. Subject to strip searches. And insults to his mother and sister.”

At one point he was threatened with a military working dog named Zeus, according to a military report. Qahtani “was forced to wear a woman’s bra and had a thong placed on his head during the course of his interrogation” and “was told that his mother and sister were whores.” With a leash tied to his chains, he was led around the room “and forced to perform a series of dog tricks,” the report shows.

This is madness.  Yes, I know she said it was the combination of methods, not any one method.  But the only thing I can see in there that even approaches torturre is the consecutive days of lengthy interrogations.

Standing naked?  Insults to his mother and sister?  Women’s underwear?  Are you kidding me?

When the lefty nutcakes were defining panties on the head as torture, I could easily dimisss their hysteria.  Now that an administation official has done so . . . not so easily dismissed.  DrewM at Ace’s has it exactly right when he says “the left has a newly minted hero today.”

And Crawford justifies it based on adverse effects to his health.  In other words, we have an enemy, we know exactly what his mental weaknesses are, so make damned sure you don’t exploit those mental weaknesses.  Because that might just upset him enough that his health is adversely affected.

At this rate, we are going to define lawful interrogation right out of existence.

You know, if the Left was so bothered by things like this, why weren’t they actually screaming for us to invade Iraq for the sole reason to put an end to real torture and political killing?  Under their standards, what was going on inside Iraq under Hussein, far greater in both substance and scope,  was so monstrous, how could they possibly argue that we not take action for that reason alone?  What made the lives of those kids Sean Penn visited in the Iraqi hospital before the war any more important than the lives of the kids already held in his prison for children?  Here’s what weapons inspector Scott Ritter said about that prison, even as he was trying to foment opposition to war with Iraq:

The prison in question is at the General Security Services headquarters, which was inspected by my team in Jan. 1998. It appeared to be a prison for children — toddlers up to pre-adolescents — whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually I’m not going to describe what I saw there because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I’m waging peace.

“Waging peace.”  Really?  I’ll grant you he was lobbying against war.  But waging peace?  The status quo was hardly “peace.”

Bush’s Texas-twang explication that he kept us safe for seven years was laughed at, especially by a suave ex-Harvard Law Review editor Barack Obama on the stump. And then what?

Are we now in February to see no more Patriot Act? At least FISA overturned? Couldn’t we shut down the Gulag Guantanamo by January 25? (as easy as getting out entirely from Iraq by “March 2008” as promised once by Obama?)

Or now are all these once so clear-cut issues “problematic” and “raise concerns”? The irony? Compared to what Lincoln, Wilson, FDR or Truman did during wartime, George Bush was a constitutional purist—and the former all had conventional enemies in wartime, not stealthily [sic] terrorists who entered our shores to murder 3,000 Americans.

There are two points to be made here.

First, if W is genuinely malicious and evil for his supposed disregard of the constitution, and it is a key factor in many liberals denouncing him as our “worst ever” president, shouldn’t we start tearing down Roosevelt, Lincoln and Truman?

Second, liberals never seemed to grasp, and still haven’t, that this is an unconventional war rather than a simple matter of criminal prosecution.  They refuse to acknowledge that this is something we’ve never quite faced before.  Which is why Obama could make his stupid statement that “tiny” countries like Iran and Venezuela don’t pose a threat, as if he had never heard of asymmetric warfare.

Does the current conflict justify any and all measures?  No.  But anyone who thinks that liberals’ complaints have been based on love of certain constitutional provisions rather than taking up whatever weapon is handiest in their quest to demonize George Bush is, I think, fooling themselves.  (I give more benefit of the doubt to libertarian criticisms, though.)

I’d like to take this moment to thank the lefties for screeching about every terror-prevention mesaure taken since 9/11.  I figure it is because of that constant complaining that the Fort Dix Five came to believe that their communications with video conversion technicians was covered by some sort of privilege.

And thank you, Circuit City, for seeking Chapter 11 protection rather than asking for a govenrment handout.