http://danvillesanramon.com/square/print/index.php?i=3&d=&t=4449


Town Square

Three Speeches in One

Original post made by Tom Cushing, Danville, on May 29, 2013

Contrary to press reports, The President gave three foreign policy speeches last week. Granted, they were integrated into one appearance before the National Defense University, but they differed in scope, scale and, to this observer, satisfaction.

This story contains 787 words.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by Al Jayzeera
a resident of San Ramon
on Jun 3, 2013 at 9:50 pm

Me thinks Tom is avoiding the Lois Lerner Turmoil.


Like this comment
Posted by Tom Cushing
a resident of Alamo
on Jun 5, 2013 at 8:27 am

Nah -- I indicated last week in the Comments that I think the IRS thing is a tempest in a teapot, albeit wonderful political theater (with TWO arch-villains, the Prez And the snidely IRS), and yet another diversion from actually doing the country's business. I may have to write about some aspect of it if nothing else emerges, but you may not like it.


Like this comment
Posted by C. R. Mudgeon
a resident of Danville
on Jun 5, 2013 at 11:43 am

There's a lot of disparate issues to comment on in your interesting article, Tom, but to pick just a couple of them:

I suspect that Pres. Obama may still be calling for the closing of Gitmo when he steps down after the 2016 election. It is entirely within his power to close it down anytime he wants to, as it has been for the past 4.5 years. He doesn't like any of the alternatives, though (with good reason, for the most part), and so his strategy will be the same as it has been: call for closing Gitmo, but keep it open.

There is also an interesting dichotomy in his comments regarding drone usage and Gitmo. It is OK to use drones to kill a suspected/believed terrorist (including US-born versions), but not to hold them prisoner. (Both are essentially taking place outside of the US legal system, after all.) (Obviously I'm over-simplifying. But it does occur to me that one reason Obama likes drone strikes so much is that there tend not to be any messy prisoner situations to deal with...)