The blogosphere is abuzz with news about Glenn Beck‘s claim to having macular dystrophy, but the bigger story is being ignored. On his show on Fox on 7/19/10, Beck announced that he hadjust learned about a program to assassinate Americans suspected of being involved in terrorism. He doesn’t lie about everything; however this information is months old as it was covered by MSNBC, including the clip he played of this targeting policy being discussed there. This time, Beck’s outrage did not seem over the top. Beck, the ACLU and critics on MSNBC agree: this is wrong!
What campaign promises?
This President has waged this struggle against Al Qaeda in largely the same manner as the previous Administration. Although “war” is not the best way to conceptualize fighting terrorism, the Administration is still violating the Constitution as if the United States were at war. It has been pointed out in The Glenn Beck Review that war is the reason progressive Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt curtailed liberties, not the progressive government programs and laws designed to protect and help Americans.
That the current Administration has changed the language and described the struggle against the Muslim extremists in different terms than the previous Administration does not hide the facts that the President has abandoned virtually every campaign position he took against the Bush Administration’s un-Constitutional approach to this “oversees contingency operation.” Worse, this assassination strategy, although perhaps helpful in the struggle against our enemies, makes the Bush Administration’s trampling of the Constitution seem tame by comparison. Media Matters for America has documented the extent to which Beck in this segment distorted the President’s language on terrorism, but they have not addressed President Obama’s willingness to assassinate an American citizen without a trial.
Beck expressed confusion about the Administration’s War on Terror that’s not a war on terror, but it’s still sometimes called a war against terrorists. There is a contradiction in place. It’s understandable that the Oval Office has changed Obama’s perspective and understanding of what we’re up against. It probably was conveyed to him within the first few days in details that the public should not know. National security is every American’s business, but that always must involve struggling against knowledge about insecurities without access to that information. President Reagan once pulled a sheet of paper from his inside jacket pocket to “explain” one of his national security issues that he could not share with the public as he put the paper back in the pocket. Will the explanation for this strategy of assassinating Americans suspected of involvement with terrorism, citizens not proven guilty, be a blank piece of paper that Obama tucks away without disclosing its logic?
The President has not explained his changes in thinking to the American people, so Glenn Beck is not the only one confused about Obama continuing many of the Bush tactics and what has been known – by well informed citizens – since February. The CIA is targeting suspected Americans involved in the struggle, the violent jihad, against the U.S.
Two questions beg to be asked. The first one is for President Obama:
Mr. President, why are you crossing this Constitutional line?
The second question is for Glenn Beck:
Mr. Beck, how can you and your supporters think of yourselves as “well informed?”