When President Obama made remarks in front of CIA employees today, he broke his speech into three parts. The first and the third were dedicated to praising their service and sacrifice and aren’t all that interesting to read. But the second section was Obama at his very best.
It would be preferable to watch video of this to see his mastery of delivery. Immediately after he refers to his ‘Amen Corner’ he becomes very emotional. I’m going to make few remarks below.
Second, you need to know that you’ve got my full support. For decades, the American people have counted on you to protect them. I know that I’ve come to personally count on your services; I rely on your reporting and your analysis, which finds its way onto my desk every single day.
And I know you’ve got a tough job. I know there’s no margin for error. And I know there are endless demands for intelligence and there is an urgent necessity to collect and analyze information, and to work seamlessly with other agencies to act on it. And what makes it tougher is when you succeed –- as you so often do — that success usually has to stay secret. So you don’t get credit when things go good, but you sure get some blame when things don’t. Now — (laughter) — I got a “Amen” corner out here. (Laughter.)
What Obama says here is quite true. Our understanding of the CIA is almost defined by our memories of their most glaring failures and abuses, and that creates a distorted picture. Remember that Valerie Wilson was working on Iran and nuclear proliferation in one part of the CIA while people were torturing detainees in another part. We learned about the distortion of WMD evidence from disgusted CIA employees who leaked information. There are many hard-working, dedicated, decent people working at the CIA, and there always has been.
Now, in that context I know that the last few days have been difficult. As I made clear in releasing the OLC memos — as a consequence of a court case that was pending and to which it was very difficult for us to mount an effective legal defense — I acted primarily because of the exceptional circumstances that surrounded these memos; particularly the fact that so much of the information was public, had been publicly acknowledged, the covert nature of the information had been compromised.
I have fought to protect the integrity of classified information in the past, and I will do so in the future. And there is nothing more important than protecting the identities of CIA officers. So I need everybody to be clear: We will protect your identities and your security as you vigorously pursue your missions. I will be as vigorous in protecting you as you are vigorous in protecting the American people.
Obama is reminding the CIA who didn’t protect their identities. He’s also telling them that he will fight against investigations that will disclose the identities of covert officers. There is a subtle message here. He’s not verbalizing it, but he’s sticking his neck out for the CIA and taking a lot of criticism for it. He wants and expects their loyalty in return. He doesn’t want any grumbling about this next part.
Now, I have put an end to the interrogation techniques described in those OLC memos, and I want to be very clear and very blunt. I’ve done so for a simple reason: because I believe that our nation is stronger and more secure when we deploy the full measure of both our power and the power of our values –- including the rule of law. I know I can count on you to do exactly that.
For me, this is the most important part of the speech. He is telling the CIA that he expects them to act nobly for noble purposes. He’s counting on them to carry out their jobs in ways that are consistent with American values. All that bullshit about how the CIA has to be just as dirty as our adversaries is bullshit, and it backfires time and time again.
There have been some conversations that I’ve had with senior folks here at Langley in which I think people have expressed understandable anxiety and concern. So I want to make a point that I just made in the smaller group. I understand that it’s hard when you are asked to protect the American people against people who have no scruples and would willingly and gladly kill innocents. Al Qaeda is not constrained by a constitution. Many of our adversaries are not constrained by a belief in freedom of speech, or representation in court, or rule of law. I’m sure that sometimes it seems as if that means we’re operating with one hand tied behind our back, or that those who would argue for a higher standard are naïve. I understand that. You know, I watch the cable shows once in a while. (Laughter.)
What makes the United States special, and what makes you special, is precisely the fact that we are willing to uphold our values and our ideals even when it’s hard, not just when it’s easy; even when we are afraid and under threat, not just when it’s expedient to do so. That’s what makes us different.
So, yes, you’ve got a harder job. And so do I. And that’s okay, because that’s why we can take such extraordinary pride in being Americans. And over the long term, that is why I believe we will defeat our enemies, because we’re on the better side of history.
He’s flat-out saying that he’s willing to fight with a handicap. He knows it has risks and sometimes puts us at a temporary disadvantage. And that’s okay. This is the most progressive expression of national security values I’ve seen expressed by a U.S. president. It’s totally unapologetic. There’s no conditionality about it. It’s okay to fight this way precisely because fighting this way is what allows us to take pride in being American.
Part of me wants to ask when the hell we ever tried living up to these ideals and what gives us the right to take pride in what has never been attempted? But it’s never too late to start doing the right thing. At least we have these ideals, and if we start living up to them then we’ll have cause for pride.
So don’t be discouraged by what’s happened in the last few weeks. Don’t be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we’ve made some mistakes. That’s how we learn. But the fact that we are willing to acknowledge them and then move forward, that is precisely why I am proud to be President of the United States, and that’s why you should be proud to be members of the CIA. (Applause.)
Acknowledging these mistakes is a step. Most presidents would not have acknowledged them. Most wouldn’t have had the courage to release largely unredacted OLC memos on torture. Obama deserves a ton of credit for that. But he’s moving forward too quickly. We have to atone for these mistakes. The law, both international and domestic, actually demands that we atone for it. Obama gave a tremendous speech that expressed the best aspirations of the American people. But he also demonstrated one of our primary faults. We so want to believe in our own ideals that we’ll try any trick to avoid living with our shortcomings. The CIA should not be feeling proud right now. They should be feeling a deep and abiding shame. It’s not Obama’s job to shame them, and he needs them to function. But he has no business thwarting justice. It’d be nice if everyone would cooperate with Obama’s desire to move forward, but that’s no more likely than it was that the Iraqis would throw flowers and chocolates at our troops. It’s wishful thinking based on an inflated belief in our own innate goodness. We’re not that exceptional.
Good politics breaks down when confronted with cold hard reality. I admire what Obama is trying to do and the style in which he is doing it. But he’s making a mistake to shield people from accountability. We are still going to have to come to terms with what was done in our names. And there are people in the CIA that need to help us atone for our sins. There are people from the Bush administration that have to pay for what they set in motion. It’s not about retribution, it’s about atonement and justice. I wish Obama understood that better.
I love this post, BooMan. Well done. I agree with everything you say, especially re the need for accountability.
During the Nuremburg trials, the U.S. and other nations refused to let lower level people off the hook because they were “just following orders.” Now we’re begging for a double standard, and the world can’t fail to notice.
That said, I do feel Obama is doing the most he can, under the circumstances. To press for prosecutions or to allow them now would really be asking for all out war with the intelligence community, and that’s a battle no president has ever won.
The real message should be that unless and until we the people rise up in vigorous protest, absolution and not accountability will be the way of the world. If you’re okay with that, remain silent. If you’re not okay with that, do more to protest.
Great post, BooMan.
This is the CIA, and while all those nice things about Valerie Plame, et al. are true, this is also the CIA of The Family Jewels, of the Directorate of Operations (gone only in name), of Operation Northwoods.
Me, I think he’s just trying not to get killed.
Actually, Operation Northwoods was dreamed up by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It did envision using the CIA, but the CIA had no part in writing it and it was never accepted.
And agreed, Davis, I think Obama should be interpreted through a filter of “if he chose the Progressive/awesome path, would he just be setting himself up for assassination?”
There’s bigger than big money interests that would remove him if he went all Ron Paul gungho on cleaning up the banking system, for instance.
I rather hope that he does enough good that forces outside of Obama’s control get rolling fast enough, hard enough, to effect real change that “oops” he can’t stop and that won’t get him targeted.
— never mind a black man — doesn’t have the photos of the balcony of the Hotel Lorraine etched in his memory?
great post, Booman. great speech. don’t know what I think about how accountability should be pursued though.
But it really not up to him, is it? Tonight there comes news that Holder might go there, and congress has their roles, too.
I think the politics of this was to reluctantly(?) release the memos, stand behind the people at CIA who acted in good faith(he didn’t say anything about bad actors) and then let the chips fall where they may.
We’ll see.
Great post Boo, but one that surprisingly is more aligned with my world view than what I thought yours was.
Pelosi is still looking for blood and I think he will keep her at bay. OTOH I don’t think that Obama will not be so generous or magnanimous with those at Justice (and not at the CIA, et al) who put together the ridiculous legal arguments that all this crap was OK.
your professed surprise at the apparent closeness of Booman’s basic worldviews to your own put a big grin on my face, especially in light of this recent exchange.
Last but not least: Great post indeed Booman, you are the great champion of thoughtfulness, or as they say in France: Plus reflechi que ca tu meurs… (in English: any more thoughtful than this, your brain’s gonna burst…).
Was anybody else struck by the reception Obama received when they first announced him? It was like watching a campaign stop among party faithful. I wouldn’t have thought the CIA, even the staffers, would show that much enthusiasm even for Bush the Smarter back in his heyday.
As usual, Obama is too smart to accept the Republican framing. He knows that the good people at CIA did not like being “stovepiped” by Addington and treated as a Gestapo by Cheney and he seizes on that.
“I admire what Obama is trying to do and the style in which he is doing it. But he’s making a mistake to shield people from accountability.”
Not what he is doing at all. However, Obama cannot do it for us. If the release of the memos creates a public outcry and sustained pressure on congress to make consequences happen, they will. If the release of the memos only creates some ineffectual carping, Obama will move on to his agenda.
I am waiting to see how carefully parsed that shielding is.
“reasonably believed the orders were legal” I think is the crux of the matter.
There are those who acted in spite of certain knowledge that the orders violated (didn’t just shade but violated) international law. Those folks cannot be said to have reasonably believed the orders to be legal.
The difficulty from the President’s perspective is how to try those who did wrong without having to name those in the CIA who saw that it was wrong. How do you get material witnesses whose identity cannot be compromised during trial. The Constitutional issue that arise when you grant the Constitutionality of secrecy are a real thicket. And the guidance from the Founding Fathers – they conducted secret diplomacy and intelligence gathering with the Constitutional implementation of wink-wink and nod-nod unless it blew up. Actually under necessity but under no real Constitutional authority.
This is excellent, Boo. Thank you.
I am not convinced that Obama is shielding anyway, let alone “thwarting justice.” The account of the state of affairs in today’s front-page NYT article notes that there is an ongoing ethical investigation concerning the lawyers, and that could easily lead to a referral to criminal prosecution. The report also observes that Obama has left open the possibility of prosecuting those who did not act with any kind of purported legal authority.
But most importantly, the article refers to the likelihood of ongoing congressional investigations by different committees. And this is exactly how it should be. An investigation led by Congress, I think, is likely to be more proactive when it comes to dissecting the executive branch. And depending on what comes of those types of investigations, Obama could be led to appointing a special prosecutor.
I’ll also observe that, by letting Congress take the lead here, Obama probably preserves his relationship with the CIA and is able to maintain his veneer of moving forward as a post-partisan. (I don’t think this really has anything to do with partisanship, but many probably would disagree.)
Now, if it turns out that Obama is actively underming investigations, then I would be pretty upset. But so far, I do not think he is doing any such thing.
politically it seems smart right now. but he’s telling the DOJ to exercise prosecutorial discretion on a whole class of people who are responsible for torture, and that’s not his role. At most, he should say that he is recommending that course to Holder, but let the decision remain in Holder’s hands.
I’m not sure we know what he’s telling Holder, to be honest.
I’m uncertain both because I’ve had trouble following the various accounts, and because I assume that there is some private discussion that we’ll never know about.
I wonder if anyone has a running account of all “official statements” made by Obama personally and by named members of the administration speaking openly. Could be useful to sort out what’s actually been said for attribution.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090421/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_interrogation_memos_2
🙂
Thank you. This entry is the most fair and balanced that I have seen. There is a fine line between retribution and atonement, made even more difficult by the continued actions of the former Vice President [and his minions]. Sometimes amends/atonement is admitting mistakes and then changing behavior. There is more than one way for justice to roll – shunning sounds good to me.
I agree 100%! People do need to be held acountable for their conduct. I might add-I thinlk it really should go right up and down the chain of command, as well.
I don’t know if it’s going to-but it should. We have the largest prison population in the world-in the United States. We prosecute both the ring-leaders and the underlngs. No free passes and no exceptions. There are literally more people in this country behind bars, than in any other country in the world.
Regarding torture-investigate-charge-prosecute-convict-and imprison.
No one currently serving time in the US was given a free pass and no one-whether the ringleaders or the underlings-proved to be an exeption, either.
From the White House lawyers to the CIA-no one there should be an exception, either. Throw em’ in jail-it’s where they belong!