WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. – A Purdue University cybersecurity expert is skeptical that the new U.S. cybersecurity coordinator will have enough clout to serve as more than a glorified cheerleader with the way the White House has created the position.

Professor Eugene H. Spafford, executive director of the Center for Education and Research in Information Assurance and Security (CERIAS), says the coordinator will probably have no authority over budget and policy, and thus will have difficulty getting the attention of cabinet secretaries, agency heads and CEOs.

President Obama's White House announcement falls short of candidate Obama's campaign promises first made at a town hall meeting at Purdue last year.

President Obama announced the creation of the position last Friday when releasing an administration report on national infrastructure and cybersecurity. Spafford says the president did well to highlight some of the major problems involved. However, Spafford said, President Obama’s White House announcement falls short of candidate Obama’s campaign promises first made at a town hall meeting at Purdue last year.

“The president said that the appointee will have ‘regular access’ to him. That is not the same as an adviser. And this is a difference that can mean a lot in Washington circles,” Spafford said.

Spafford compared the position to a largely ineffectual position in the Bush administration in 2001. He fears the failure to announce an appointment indicates the White House may be having a difficult time filling the new position appropriately. He also has expressed concern that economic advisers will have veto authority over the new position.

“The risk to our nation’s cybersecurity is not going to go away with a continuation of minimal investment and wishful thinking,” Spafford said. “Given the current stress in the economy, I don’t expect any meaningful actions to be approved that cost anything; we will still have the mindset that ‘cheapest must be best’ or ‘it can wait a little longer.’ That will simply make the problems more expensive and difficult to fix in later years.”

Spafford has worked with government, law enforcement, corporate, and academic officials including two U.S. presidents, the FBI, departments of Justice and Energy, the U.S. Air Force, Microsoft, Intel, Unisys, and the National Science Foundation. He is the 2009 recipient of the Computing Research Association’s Distinguished Service Award “for his long and effective leadership on issues of computer security and policy, professional responsibility, and the Internet.” He has testified before Congress many times on cybersecurity and has been a source for the major U.S. television networks and media outlets such as The New York Times and Washington Post.

In his address to the joint session of Congress, President Obama said that “We cannot shun the negotiating table” in conducting our foreign policy. He’s previously elaborated that “if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.” And Iran’s president Ahmedinijad tentatively welcomes “talks based on mutual respect and in a fair atmosphere.”

The shared idea, evidently, is that our conflict with Iran stems largely from a past failure to use so-called diplomacy to settle disputes. Alluding to George W. Bush’s supposedly tough policy, Obama has said he wants to restore “the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years” ago.

Really? Thirty years ago this November, followers of Ayatollah Khomeini, who spearheaded Iran’s Islamic revolution, stormed the U.S. embassy in Teheran and took the personnel hostage. President Carter gently admonished Iran, but ruled out military retaliation. Instead his advisors spent months dreaming up schemes to bribe Iran into releasing the hostages–while bending over backward to enable the regime to save face. In the end Khomeini’s Islamist theocracy collected a handsome payoff for its aggression, and concluded, rightly, that if attacked, America would crumple to its knees.

Was Obama thinking of the 1980s? In April 1983 Iran’s jihadist proxies in Lebanon rammed a truck bomb into the U.S. Embassy in Beirut; the Reagan administration responded by doing nothing. Months later, encouraged by Washington’s inaction, Teheran issued a kill order–via its ambassador in Syria–to its allied groups in Beirut. Early one morning, an Islamist suicide bomber set off a massive explosion at the barracks where U.S. marines were sleeping and killed 241 of them.

Reagan spouted hot air about not backing down–and soon after ordered the U.S. troops to bug out. The jihadists wanted America out, they slaughtered our troops, and we caved in and gave them what they wanted.

Osama bin Laden, like jihadists in Iran and elsewhere, viewed our response to the Beirut bombings as further proof that their ideologically driven war was a viable cause. And so, inspired by Iranian aggression, the anti-American jihad kept ramping up.

Maybe Obama meant the fabled halcyon days of the 1990s, when President Clinton tried to mend fences with Iran?

In 1996 a team of jihadists–financed and trained by Teheran–blew up the Khobar Towers building in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American servicemen. Clinton’s administration learned that Iran was behind the attacks. But Washington brushed aside any notion of retaliating against Iran, in order to facilitate a “reconciliation” with that murderous regime. In an eerie parallel with today, Iran expressed its openness to U.S. groveling–an opportunity Clinton seized.

So, Clinton attended a speech by Iran’s leader at the U.N.; the administration also permitted the sale of much-needed aircraft parts to Iran, among other sweeteners. Granted the cover of respectability, Iran was emboldened to continue fomenting Islamist aggression and avidly pursue its then-embryonic nuclear program.

Obama’s appeasing diplomacy re-enacts the disastrous policy of the past. Our policymakers evaded Iran’s character as an enemy, and by rewarding its aggression with bribes and conciliation, they encouraged a spiral of further attacks.

No. Bush was no exception to this trend. After 9/11 his administration invited Iran–the leading sponsor of Islamist terrorism–to join an anti-terrorism coalition(!). Talk of an axis of evil was quickly abandoned, and Washington backed the European scheme to bribe Iran to halt its nuclear program. By late last year, there was talk of opening a U.S. Special Interests Section (a step down from an embassy) in Iran. Meanwhile Bush’s welfare mission in Iraq negated U.S. security and left Iran untouched to grow more powerful and resolute.

A genuinely new, rational policy toward Iran would turn away from the last 30 years and begin by facing up to Teheran’s ongoing proxy war against us.

Elan Journo is a fellow at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, focusing on foreign policy. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.”

WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. — The connections between presidents Barack Obama and Abraham Lincoln define Obama’s image today, but these associations also influence how Lincoln will continue to be remembered, says a Purdue University historian.

“Lincoln, who was born 200 years ago on Feb. 12, is known as a great speechwriter, thinker and consensus builder,” says Caroline E. Janney, an assistant professor of history who studies Civil War memorials and remembrance. “While people are watching how Obama is following Lincoln, many may not realize that today’s president is shaping the way we remember the 16th president. Memory is always crafted by its contemporary context.”

Janney says one type of memory is called the collective memory. Collective memory refers to the ways in which different groups reconstruct the past by adapting historical facts to fit the present. When individuals look to the past, or their perceived sense of past, they often create a sense of community. For example, white southerners may still look to their region’s Confederate history to create a common bond, while those from Illinois may refer to themselves as from the “land of Lincoln.” They use the past to create a community among people in the present.

Using historical facts to fill in the needs of the present in reconstructing the past creates a collective memory. For example, how people from the North and South remember Lincoln differs, and those differences, when expressed in each region’s monuments and memorials, create a sense of community for those who share a common past, she says.

“Obama has consciously constructed his connections to Lincoln from announcing his campaign in Springfield to using Lincoln’s Bible during the inauguration,” Janney says. “Obama and his staff are hoping to use the nation’s collective memory to set the tone for this administration.

“The way Lincoln’s image is used will affect how we remember Lincoln. In the celebration of his 200th birthday, it will be interesting to see what celebrations focus on and what images from 2009 will carry forward.”

Another type of memory is contested memory. Historians agree that memory isn’t something that just happens, but it’s creating something by determining what should be omitted or included in the historical record.

“Two prominent ways Lincoln is remembered are as the great emancipator and as a rugged frontiersman who was a self-made man,” she says. “But these perceptions are contested. Some historians argue that slaves emancipated themselves and Lincoln was not the key force in their freedom. Others try to dispel the image of him as frontiersman who educated himself because he was part of a middle-class family and he married a woman from a slave-holding family.”

Who contests these characteristics depends on the time and the group, Janney says.

“People are going to remember different things during different points of history,” Janney says. “Even if this year was not the 200th anniversary, national healing is still important because our nation has been so polarized in recent years. Of course, this is nothing like the 1860s, but it’s always helpful to look at the past to see what we can learn from it.”

Janney is writing about the memory of Lincoln in an upcoming Civil War series that will be published by the University of North Carolina Press to mark the 150th anniversary of the war. She also is author of the book “Burying the Dead but Not the Past: Ladies’ Memorial Associations and the Lost Cause.”

NEWTOWN, Conn. — The Obama campaign in Indiana, on September 27, unlawfully obtained and made unauthorized use of a proprietary media list belonging to the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) – the trade association for the firearms industry. Sen. Obama used this list to e-mail a press release (http://www.nssf.org/share/PDF/100808-003.pdf) concerning National Hunting and Fishing Day.

Earlier today, NSSF sent a “cease and desist” letter (http://www.nssf.org/share/PDF/100808-001.pdf) to the Obama campaign demanding that they immediately stop any further unauthorized misuse of its proprietary media list.

The list contains the names and addresses of members of the media that attended the NSSF Shooting Hunting and Outdoor Trade Show (SHOT Show) – the world’s largest firearms trade show and the 23rd largest trade show of any kind in North America.

The list can only be obtained from NSSF and its use is tightly controlled by NSSF (http://www.nssf.org/share/PDF/100808-002.pdf). Neither the Obama campaign, nor its operations in Indiana, obtained any rights from NSSF to use the list.

NSSF’s letter also demands that the Obama campaign destroy all copies of the list, identify how they obtained the list and pay monetary damages to NSSF for its misappropriation and unauthorized use of the association’s intellectual property. NSSF demanded an immediate response from the Obama campaign and has threatened to file a lawsuit against the campaign if its demands are not met.

“NSSF will not sit idly by while its legal rights are harmed, particularly for partisan political gain,” said NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane.

NSSF is also encouraging sportsmen and gun-owners to visit the NSSF Voter Education Web-site (http://www.nssf.org/VoterEd/) and educate themselves about the candidates’ records and positions on issues important to them in this election.

WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. — Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama’s Wednesday (July 16) visit to Purdue University will require traffic rerouting on campus.

Sen. Barack Obama will visit Purdue for a roundtable discussion on national security.

Some areas near the Purdue Memorial Union will be shut down for security purposes, said Purdue police Capt. Tim Potts. The service drive just north of the Union will be closed to pedestrian and vehicle traffic. The left lane of Grant Street between State Street and Northwestern Avenue will be closed to create parking space for media satellite trucks. Visitors to campus for the event are encouraged to use the Grant Street Parking Garage.

The Purdue Students for Barack Obama chapter is sponsoring Obama’s visit as part of an invitation-only roundtable discussion on national security.

Obama is scheduled to arrive at the Purdue Airport around 10:30 a.m. and then proceed to the Purdue Memorial Union North Ballroom where the summit will take place from noon to 2 p.m. Topics for the discussion, “Confronting 21st Century Threats,” will include issues related to nuclear nonproliferation, bioterrorism, cybersecurity and emerging national security threats.

The Students for Barack Obama chapter, which has about 150 active members, helped arrange the visit, said organization Vice President Ashley Rozier.

“By choosing to visit Purdue, Sen. Obama shows that he and his campaign are really taking Indiana seriously,” she said. “The topics of the discussion are very relevant to the community, state, nation and world.”

According to a news release on the Obama campaign Web site, Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh and former Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn will take part in the national security discussion. The panel also will include two experts on biosecurity, Tara O’Toole of Center for Bio Security at the University of Pittsburgh and Dr. David Relman of Stanford University Medical School, and cybersecurity experts Paul Kurtz, a former senior member on the National Security Council and Homeland Security Council, and Alan Wade, former chief information officer for the CIA.