Droning Blind: Reactions to Obama’s Global War on Terror Speech
If you’ll forgive the lazy pun I’ll return to the regularly scheduled links tomorrow. For now, before interest surrounding military and counterterrorism policy dies down completely, I want to focus on some of the more incisive commentaries on the President’s speech last Thursday.
Conor Friedersdorf is skeptically hopeful based on what he heard the President say, even if he thinks it’s utterly ridiculous for the President to assume his own legal framework will limit his successors.
James Fallows applauds the speech for, in his opinion, treating its audience like grown-ups, putting terrorist threats in perspective, and generally turning the page on a decade of war.
Garrett Epps outlines a tale of two Obamas.
Glenn Greenwald demonstrates how people will read into the President’s speech whatever they want, mostly because of its penchant for weaving together contradictory principles and ideas.
Ross Douthat looks at how much better Obama is at selling Bush’s war on terror, mostly because of how well he publicizes his anguish.
Tom Junod notes that the lethal presidency originated in deeds, not words, and we’ll require more than just the latter to undo itself.
Joshua Foust explains how the President attempts to eschew accountability for the policies he enacted and still believes in.
Andrew Bacevich searches for what to call the war that Obama refuses to name.
Jack Goldsmith tries but fails to assess the meaning of secret changes to secret standards.