Obama to Taliban: Let’s talk

By Jennifer J. Foster

From CNN, news that President Obama wants to reach out to moderate Taliban in Afghanistan:

In an interview published in the New York Times this weekend, Obama said some military leaders believe that part of the success in Iraq has come from reaching out to Sunni militants there.

The president said while the situation in Afghanistan is much more complex, there may be some comparable opportunities in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“I don’t want to prejudge the review that’s currently taking place. If you talk to Gen. [David] Petraeus, I think he would argue that part of the success in Iraq involved reaching out to people that we would consider to be Islamic fundamentalists, but who were willing to work with us because they had been completely alienated by the tactics of al Qaeda in Iraq,“ he told the Times.

I wonder if human rights and education for women will be on the talking points list?

But there could be a wrinkle in the diplomatic do-si-do:

Asked if the United States is winning the war in Afghanistan, Obama said “no.“

Given that remark, Gary Berntsen, a former CIA officer who led CIA forces in Afghanistan after 9/11, said Monday that it could be difficult to get members of the Taliban to work with the United States.

“If you keep saying the Taliban are winning, what incentive is there now for individuals who are fighting against us to come over to us,“ he said on CNN’s “American Morning.“

Good question.

Obama must have forgotten the lesson of Afghanistan in the 1980s. Our allilance with Afghan resistence fighters back in the 1980s, which we pursued in the interest of stopping the spread of communism, had unintended consequences.

The world came to know him as Osama bin Laden.

This week’s column—and stem cell research

By Jennifer J. Foster

If you missed my column this weekend in the Opelika-Auburn News, it’s now available online. Read “Sebelius pick shows Obama no moderate on abortion” here.

When I wrote that column, which details all the ways in which President Obama continues to spit in the eye of those who value and seek to defend life in its most vulnerable forms, I had no idea that he would be announcing a reversal of the federal government’s restrictions on stem cell research today.

In his remarks, Obama said that “promoting science ... is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda – and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.“

Hang on a minute.

Isn’t the very purpose of ideology to guide one’s use of facts?

Think about it: In economics, you view economic indicators and potential government intervention through the lens of your economic ideology. If, for example, you are a capitalist, you generally oppose regulation and government intervention. In politics, if you are a liberal, you view government problems and solutions through that lens.

Stem cell research is no different.

President Obama has his own ideology when it comes to stem cell research. What he objects to, then, is not the use of any ideology in guiding scientific research. It’s the use of any ideology that opposes his own.

Here’s more from his remarks this morning:

As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research – and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly.

It is a difficult and delicate balance. Many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research. I understand their concerns, and we must respect their point of view.

But after much discussion, debate and reflection, the proper course has become clear. The majority of Americans – from across the political spectrum, and of all backgrounds and beliefs – have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research. That the potential it offers is great, and with proper guidelines and strict oversight, the perils can be avoided.

So ... those who are morally opposed to stem cell research, though they are “thoughtful and decent people,“ are just plain wrong, Obama says. They diverge from “the proper course”—as articulated by him—which “has become clear.“

This is consistent with what I said in my column. He tries to assuage the pro-life community by throwing them rhetorical bones. But when it comes down to it, President Barack Obama couldn’t care less what those “thoughtful and decent people” think.

See also:

Here are some articles I used as source material in my column this weekend:

“Abortion, not resume, could dominate Sebelius confirmation,“ from CNN.com

“White House set to reverse health care conscience clause,“ from CNN.com

“Obama administration may rescind ‘conscience rule’,“ from the Chicago Tribune

“Could St. Louis lose its Catholic hospitals under new federal abortion legislation?“ from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Finally, here’s a group that has to be less than pleased with the president’s action today ... I wonder if Obama read their “Pro-science & pro-life” position paper before his announcement this morning. But somehow, I doubt that it would have even mattered if he had.