« "These men deserve to be decorated. They don't deserve to be prosecuted" | Main | Michelle Obama invites radical poet to White House »

Yes, history will be kind to George W. Bush


Notable Republicans from George H. W. Bush to Karl Rove to Condoleezza Rice have all gone on the record defending the Bush Administration's War on Terror policies. 

On the other hand, Democrats argued that those policies were the very essence of the evil and unsophistication that permeated the Bush Administration.  Barack Obama and his liberal confreres spared no effort condemning the Bush Administration as an affront to everything America was supposed to stand for, and wasted no time promising to end its policies post haste if they were given the White House in 2008.

But now that Osama bin Laden has been located and killed, and now that we know beyond all doubt that intelligence extracted from captured terrorists via enhanced interrogation techniques gave us the critical leads that allowed us to find him, some liberals are beginning to rethink their rapacious criticisms of the Bush Administration. 

Listen to Glenn Greenwald, who made a blogging and writing career out of accusing the Bush Administration of every civil rights violation imaginable, argue that Democrats now owe Bush and Cheney an apology --




Yeah ... I hope you were sitting down for that one.  Wow.

I doubt that any Democratic power players will ever own up to the fact that their party was simply gainsaying everything put forth by the Bush Administration in a cheap attempt to score political points and siphon votes.  Nor will they ever admit that when they finally took control of Congress and the White House, they realized that in their zeal to demagogue Republicans, they had failed to formulate a single well thought out alternative to any of the policies they  suddenly inherited.

So fellow conservatives, accept these apologies gracefully, because they are the best we are going to get.  Just remember to snicker a little the next time you see a faded "Bush Lied" bumper sticker.

(h/t Ed Driscoll at Instapundit.com)
Enhanced by Zemanta

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/41550.

Comments (54)

I'm sure Waldo's friends wi... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

I'm sure Waldo's friends will pillory him for this. I'll just get some popcorn and watch.

So fellow conserva... (Below threshold)
Eric:
So fellow conservatives, accept these apologies gracefully, because they are the best we are going to get.

What apologies? All I heard Glenn Greenwald say was that Democrats owed Bush and Cheney an apology because they are now adopting the same policies as Bush and Cheney that they previously derided.

But I didn't hear Glenn Greenwald actually apologize. In fact, to me he struck the middle ground that he had nothing to apologize for since he always opposed those policies and still does.

So I won't hold my breath waiting for any apologies from any Democrats.

There will be a few die har... (Below threshold)
Stan:

There will be a few die hards like Alan Colmnbs and Bob Beckel that will keep that pot boiling, no matter what comes out. Then there are the Huffpo, Media Matters, Kos and the Democrat Underground that will refuse to believe anything that Bush and Cheney ever did was right. Some of those people are right here. Yes folks, our resident trolls.

Glenn Greenwald has been ba... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Glenn Greenwald has been bashing Obama for some time, for example, his post, The vindication of Dick Cheney, in January 2011, that far from reversing the heavy state security executive apparatus and policies of the Bush/Cheney administration, Obama has strengthened them, in some cases such as authorizing more drone attacks and assasinations of Americans, thought to be involved in terrorism.

While were at it, if apologies are going all round, maybe Cheney should apologize to Obama for his blistering attacks in 2009, that president Obama was soft on terror, and increasing the risk to the country, of another terrorist attack.

Fat chance either Obama or Cheney, will apologize to one another.

Are you kidding? Obama woul... (Below threshold)
brian:

Are you kidding? Obama wouldn't even acknowledge that Islamic Fundamentalism played a role in the Fort Hood massacre.

If Barry will humble himsel... (Below threshold)
Sep14:

If Barry will humble himself and apologize for hyper inflating the cost of living, I will in turn seriously consider voting against him in 2012.

While were at it, ... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:
While were at it, if apologies are going all round, maybe Cheney should apologize to Obama for his blistering attacks in 2009, that president Obama was soft on terror, and increasing the risk to the country, of another terrorist attack.

I, for one, would love to see a non sequitur corollary to the Graves Law.

Be that as it may, if Obama has changed (not really), Cheney owes no apology for criticizing him as he was then. If Obama has gotten "hard" on terror, it's only because he was "soft" on terror in the beginning.

While we're at it, Obama had no choice but to order the SEALs raid--it was not brave or bold or smart or decisive. Obama just knew he didn't want to have to say "I didn't order the mission to get OBL because ____________."

No big decision--Obama remains a lightweight.

Steve, are you saying that ... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

Steve, are you saying that all that shut down Gitmo, troops out of Iraq, investigate and prosecute those intelligence officers-stuff was always just window dressing and Obama was always intentionally following the Bush-policy from the first day? If that is what you're saying, and you have the evidence to support that position, then I'd say that Cheney does owe Obama an apology. Short of that, not so much.

While we're at it,... (Below threshold)
Stan:
While we're at it, Obama had no choice but to order the SEALs raid--it was not brave or bold or smart or decisive. Obama just knew he didn't want to have to say "I didn't order the mission to get OBL because ____________."

If Obama hadn't ordered that raid by the SEALs, he would have kissed his re-election to a second term goodbye. That would have been the straw that broke the camel's back as far as the general public would be concerned. As it is, the economy is the factor that will be the downfall of Barry.

While were at i... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

While were at it, if apologies are going all round, maybe Cheney should apologize to Obama for his blistering attacks in 2009, that president Obama was soft on terror, and increasing the risk to the country, of another terrorist attack.

Wrong.

And don't play the bullshit liberal moral equivalence card, either.

Cheney has no need to apologize: he was criticizing Obama's policies of the time (e.g., civilian trials, closing Guantanamo), which are now clearly recognized by all and sundry as having been dunderheaded. Even Obama himself has backed away from them, implicitly admitting that he was dead wrong, and Cheney was absolutely correct in every particular.

Cheney has maintained the same position all along. Being therefore in the right all along, he has no obligation to apologize to someone who was wrong but now admits his error – one Barack Hussein Obama.

If Obama hadn't... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

If Obama hadn't ordered that raid by the SEALs, he would have kissed his re-election to a second term goodbye.

Am I the only one who can just see Hillary waiting with bated breath, but trying to look nonchalant, hoping that Obama would scotch the raid? And who can see Obama hesitate, trying to figure out how to vote "present" and weasel off the hook, then glance over to see Hillary twitching with anticipation? She was probably on a pad, designing the letterhead for her Presidential campaign in case Obama didn't pull the trigger. That did it for Barry, methinks.

The simple fact is Bush did... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

The simple fact is Bush did these things because he believed it was for the good of the country.

BHO has does it for political expediency. if he cold get away with implementing all the changes without endangering his re-election, he would gladly do it.

He still trying to raise taxes.
He after the CIA
Did not try KSM because congress cut off the funding.
If he gets elected in 2012 the EO are going to flow like water over Nigeria falls.

The left knows it which is why they go along with it(they know he does not really mean it )

The far left cries out to make US think he has really changed.
The truth is it is the long game and we need to be ever vigilant .
The far left cries

I have been suprised at how... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

I have been suprised at how much credit Obama has been given for such a 'gutsy' decision to send in 79 Seals including backups. It jut goes to show, how risk-adverse most Presidential decisions are.

They were watching the comopund day and night for eight months, by satellite and they had set up a CIA safe house in the town to monitor the compound. They must have known there were few adult males in it, but many children and women. And Pakistan is a friendly ally, after all we helped to train their forces at a nearby military acedemy. I personally would prefer to go there, in a leafy rich suburb, in a non`fundamentalist town, at night, than parts of Southcentral LA, where I have been mugged before, by a gang, for example.

Why did President Obama capituate so easily to becoming a memeber of the club, or change from the candidate Obama? Greenwald thinks it could have been the considerable pressure and culture of working with of a pemanent miltary security staff and Obama being weak. Frum thinks a little naively in my opinion, if he felt threatened, he could have fired them? I don´t know, that is big question? Obama all his adult life been known for being a conciliator or an opportunist-_why pick a fight with the US military and security establishment- and not a game´changer? What do you think, upset old guy?

Jay"Am I the only ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Jay

"Am I the only one who can just see Hillary waiting with bated breath"

I have been sahying that for over a year. Hillary will be on the ticket. Whether at the top or the bottom, I dont know but she will be there.

personally woul... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

personally would prefer to go there, in a leafy rich suburb, in a non`fundamentalist town, at night, than parts of Southcentral LA, where I have been mugged before, by a gang, for example.

Ah, so you met some Obama supporters up close and personal?

I have been suprised at how much credit Obama has been given for such a 'gutsy' decision to send in 79 Seals including backups. It jut goes to show, how risk-adverse most Presidential decisions are.

What an amazing viewpoint. Seriously, how is it possible for anyone to be so wrong-headed? Do you not understand the risks of this mission? You act as though it was strictly a matter of numbers, and that if they had 78 clowns or fewer, it was a done deal as long as we had the last guy standing.

Let us consider the ways in which this could have gone south:

1. They don't get OBL at all, and we look ridiculous (or would, if the MSM gave him the Republican treatment);
2. A bunch of other people – especially women and children – get killed, either in the firefight or by AQ clowns;
3. The whole mission misfires a la Carter, and AQ crows;
4. Some of the SEALs get captured and put on TV;
5. There's a breach of security and a bunch of SEALs get smoked.
6. Pakistan throws a conniption fit and goes full-on AQ in response (the Bush-Musharraf agreement notwithstanding).

Those are just a few off the top of my head. I give Obama credit for not screwing this up, but the only other option he had was to bomb the shit out of the whole compound, and that guarantees #2, and leaves open #1, or to vote "present," in which case Hillary would've primaried him sure as hell.

So he didn't have a lot of choice, but make no mistake: it was a big risk.

RM, I thought that from the... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

RM, I thought that from the day she took the SecState job, since there was no other reason to give up a safe seat. I expected her to blow it out, resign on principle (re Israel would have been my guess; Obama's vulnerable there, and she could thereby cozy up to the Jewish highrollers - e.g., Burkle - who bankroll Democrat campaigns), and run against Obama. Leaving the Cabinet to primary him makes a lot more splash than doing so from the Senate.

I was just saying that during Obama's 16 hour dithering she was probably hoping to God he would vote "present," and thereby end his political career (not that Hillary would ever betray his confidence!).

Steve, I think the reason h... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

Steve, I think the reason he plays so much golf, has so many parties and those frequent vacation trips is because he's unhappy in the job. He does, however, just loves the perks that come with the job.

Why is he unhappy in his job? My guess is because he's not used to working hard (or at all) and he doesn't feel like he can't be himself. If he could behave as what he truly is, a partisan, far left, Chicago thug politician he'd probably be a lot happier in the job.

Would Hillary be any diffe... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Would Hillary be any different, about being tough with Pakistan, even if she likes to be the one to wear the trousers? From October, 2009

In two Pakistani television interviews recorded Monday but embargoed until her arrival, Clinton repeatedly noted that she has Pakistani friends, that she likes to wear a salwar kameez -- the long, loose shirt and trousers that are the Pakistani national dress -- and that her entire family loves Pakistani food.

She bemoaned the level of "mutual mistrust" and said that she and Obama "deeply regret that there is misunderstanding and that there may not be the kind of relationship we would like to see."

JayIt is obvious t... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Jay

It is obvious that the SecState job wsa a resume enhancer for her.

Steve

I detest Hillary. I detest her policies, morals and her politics. However, there are two things which Hillary has that Obama doesnt.

Both are big, round and made of brass.

Would Hillary b... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Would Hillary be any different, about being tough with Pakistan, even if she likes to be the one to wear the trousers?

Christ, Steve, you shouldn't be allowed to cross the street by yourself.

Hillary maintained she was part Jewish when she ran for the Senate from NY, she said she loves Pakistani crap when in Pakistan, she affects a faux black accent in a black church in the South (this Chicago girl "ain't no ways tahred" – Jesus), hell, if she were at the Playboy Mansion she'd say how much she enjoyed giving blow jobs. She'll say anything that she thinks will promote her aggrandizement.

You're tipping me toward thinking that liberalism is a mental defect, rather than a mental illness or a character defect. Just so you know.

It is obvious t... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

It is obvious that the SecState job wsa a resume enhancer for her.

Yep. Fully agree. The biggest knock on her was lack of foreign policy experience. And while she's done a lousy job, she can put "SecState" on her resume, and gain a platform from which to primary the Messiah.

Guevera (funny comment abou... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Guevera (funny comment about south central LA), I don`t see the military risks were as great, and therefore the corresponding political risks, especailly as it turned out the resistance proved larely illusionary.

The penatagon had launched a drone fron 30 thousand feet, some months back, on some poor sucker they thought looked like bin Laden and it turned out to be a tall ordinary Afghan or Pakistani. He was killed and was perfectly innocent, there ws no negative blowback- It shows where Obama´s head is when he is not concerned about that poor villager, instead a hypothetical Dubai prince being mistaken for bin Laden, which is how he expressed what could go wrong. on 60 minutes.

In this raid, a helicopter crashed and so they couldn´t land on the roof. Very little time was spent exchanging gun fire, maybe 10 seconds; most of the 46 minutes were spent scooping up the hard drives fron the computer, collecting other information and taping the women and children. And what would hve happene if the Pakistani troops had organized themeselfves and encirled them. As Hillary Clinton implied they would have called it, 'a misunderstnding´, phone our boss President Obama the one that is paying you your salary indirectly as well, end of discussion, or t´d you want to be answer to President Zardari the following day, as to why you are granting asylum and illegal entry to bin Laden but not safe passage to America's special forces.

I don´t think the Seals were in any real danger from the Paksitanis, who were warned in advance in a general way unlike if the Somailians or Iranians if they had caught them. Carter´s rescue effort, was a deperate attempt in a desert in Iran, along way from Tehran in fiercely strong anti'American enemy country with many guards it was to be a rescue effort. Pakistan is safer in that region, than in many parts of Iraq or Afghanistan where we have bases.

Steve: please mentally dele... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Steve: please mentally delete from your comment anything based on what you know now.\

That's the difference. Sure, now we know that the SEALs were OK, that the Pakistanis were on board and/or uninformed, that OBL was there, etc.

But the decision maker - Obama - didn't know all of that when he made the decision. If he had, the decision would have been trivial. So I give him credit for making the right decision.

Also, spare a thought for how Republicans get treated vs. Democrats. Your random Pak/Afghan gets smoked by a Dem President, the MSM yawn. If a Republican were President, the NYT, WaPo, CNN, etc. would be messing themselves about this. Remember all the stories about wedding parties getting blown to smithereens? How come wedding parties have been perfectly safe since Jan. 20, 2009?

Bottom line: the President - of either party - has to make critical decisions in a timely fashion based on fragmentary, and often partially inaccurate information. I cut someone in that role a lot of slack. Would that Dems had done the same for Bush.

Michael Laprarie is trying ... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

Michael Laprarie is trying to win a false argument. No one is arguing that useful information is never obtained through torture. The argument has always been that it is not the most effective means to gain information.

I thought everyone could te... (Below threshold)
RicardoVerde:

I thought everyone could tell by now that Obama doesn't want to perform the duties of the president. He just wants to BE the president.

There was nothing in his CV that indicated he had the capability to act as president. I've said this many times before: a man who reaches middle age without ever being in charge of anything, probably shouldn't be in charge of anything.

No one is arguing that u... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

No one is arguing that useful information is never obtained through torture.

Let's catalogue the logical fallacies. Right out of the chute we have the straw man, based upon begging the question. Look up "begging the question," i.e., taking as your premise the conclusion you're trying to reach.

The argument has always been that it is not the most effective means to gain information.

And you're knowledgeable about this, no doubt. So what do you propose, jamming your private parts in their faces? They'd probably rather be waterboarded.

"The argument has always be... (Below threshold)
Sep14:

"The argument has always been that it is not the most effective means to gain information."


What is the most effective way? Small talk with Barry during a round of golf? Please enlighten us.

I think the most effective ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

I think the most effective way is to throw twinkies at them. That is about all we can do now. And Steve thinks that we may have gotten info from OBL if he had been captured.

Jay Guevera, before the eve... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Jay Guevera, before the event, Obama said he thought there was a 55% chance that bin Laden was in the compound. I have heard a miltary official, I have forgotten which one, say 40% chance, so the other option is bomb it to leave a crater. Great if it is bin Laden indeed, you kill him with very little `roof that have done so plus kill lots of women and children. and if you miss he gets way. Obama said it could have been a Dubai prince, so if it is more of castatrophe if a drone attack kills everyone inside..so the raid is the best chance.

The third option is to do nothing and wait until we were surer who is in there?

Or the fourth option to encircle the compound first and then demand Osama bin Laden surrenders, ot ay least releases the women oand children; if not the Paksitanis charge and arrest bin Laden or doesn´t surrenders we will do it ourselves for them. That would have been daring, perhaps too daring but pretty well risk free, and then we would know which side Pakistan is on, while they are now playing presumably a double game. As both Greewald and Frum say Pakistan is the most important arena where the the war on terrorism will be won or lost,because of the presence of al -Queda in Pakistan, not Iraq, not Afgahanistan.

Steve, I'm so glad you're n... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Steve, I'm so glad you're not a decision maker.

But then, you could ask Tina what a more effective means would be. You two could pool your military, intelligence, and strategic skills. While I worked on my Arabic.

I'm shocked, I'm shocked I ... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

I'm shocked, I'm shocked I tell you. Next thing you know Ellerberg, er Greenwald will admit that sometimes Democrats are just a little TOO eager to spend taxpayer money frivolously...

...Nah.

Or the fourth option to ... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Or the fourth option to encircle the compound first and then demand Osama bin Laden surrenders, ot ay least releases the women oand children; if not the Paksitanis charge and arrest bin Laden or doesn´t surrenders we will do it ourselves for them. That would have been daring, perhaps too daring but pretty well risk free

Risk-free? Risk-free?? Are you kidding? It would be a cluster fuck in the making, Waco writ large. Surely you see that.

"That would have been darin... (Below threshold)
Sep14:

"That would have been daring, perhaps too daring but pretty well risk free, an"


Yeah, but think of the box office appeal with a Barry look alike in the lead role storming the compound and saving the day.

History will be kind?... (Below threshold)
Chico:

History will be kind?

More like two chapters in the decline and fall-

Bush plays a role more like Caligula, Nero or Commodus, a flaming f--up who took the country down two flights by his incompetent military and foreign policy, including two huge wars, and introduced despotic practices.

Obama is more like one of the mediocre emperors, Galba, Philip I or somebody nobody ever heard of, who just debased the coinage and vacillated while Rome fell apart.

I just don't get the celebration of Bush's legalization of torture - government torture is a true road to despotism. Terrorists today, drug dealers tomorrow, dissidents the day after that.

There was nothing in his... (Below threshold)
Murgatroyd:

There was nothing in his CV that indicated he had the capability to act as president. I've said this many times before: a man who reaches middle age without ever being in charge of anything, probably shouldn't be in charge of anything.

The first sentence is accurate. The second sentence doesn't apply.

Obama was in charge of something: The Chicago Annenberg Challenge. He managed to piss away $49 million in a program that was supposed to improve Chicago's schools without any visible success. (He was successful in funneling money to his radical friends in the education racket -- sound familiar? -- but that wasn't what he was tasked to do.)

So how's this, instead?

A man who reaches middle age without ever successfully running any kind of organization probably shouldn't be in charge of anything.

retired military,D... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

retired military,

During WWII, how would you rate our intelligence gathering techniques? Would you say our interrogation techniques have grown more or less sophisticated since then?

some idiot-... (Below threshold)
Sep14:

some idiot-


"I just don't get the celebration of Bush's legalization of torture - government torture is a true road to despotism."


Did not know Bush supported abortion?

"Obama is more like one of ... (Below threshold)
Sep14:

"Obama is more like one of the mediocre emperors, Galba, Philip I or somebody nobody ever heard of,"


We wish...


"Obama is more like one of ... (Below threshold)
Sep14:

"Obama is more like one of the mediocre emperors, Galba, Philip I or somebody nobody ever heard of,"

You must be be grading Barribus using some really wickedly curved hockey styx?

lol


Sep14 The hockey ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Sep14

The hockey stick used was the same one for the global warming hoax.

TinaProbably more ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Tina

Probably more sophisitacated but the only thing that the CIA can use is the army field manual.

Oh I see your point

Throwing twinkies isnt in the army field manual so therefore we cant do that.

Hint (for the clueless ones) The Army field manual basically states if they dont want to answer questions they dont have to. No coercion techniques at all.

Good question there Tina S.

Tina"During WWII, ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Tina

"During WWII, how would you rate our intelligence gathering techniques?"

Define intelligence gathering? You mean electronic or humint. Do you mean via questioning, listening, wiretaps, electronic interception, explotation of defectors, spies, photographic interpretation, analysis of enemy movement, etc etc

Tina and Steve<a h... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Tina and Steve

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/10/obama_values_kill_but_dont_waterboard_109802.html

The late al-Qaida founder knows that intelligence officials can't threaten him or try to strong-arm him; they can only read him his Miranda rights.

Yes I am sure that the person who ordered 3000+ deaths and a billion dollars in damage will be spilling his guts after being read his miranda rights.

Tina S does what most liber... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Tina S does what most liberals do when losing the argument; move the goal posts.

GW Bush did an extraordinary job with limited precedence to go by. Except for his wreckless spending towards the end and his embracing the immigration BS, he is stellar. A focused man. A true leader. He lead despite what poll's said or what his opponents said. Not the meally mouthed clown we have in office now. Carter II. ww

WildWillie,Well, 0... (Below threshold)
Rodney Graves Author Profile Page:

WildWillie,

Well, 0bama did manage to avoid his very own Desert One fiasco... Which makes him more militarily competent than James Earl "Dhimmy" Carter, though it pains me to admit it.

Even more painfully, I would have to admit that 0bama took a chance of just such a failure when he authorized the raid that killed ObL.

Then again, he has managed to thoroughly frack up the post op messaging, which was entirely in his court.

Define intelligence gath... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

Define intelligence gathering? You mean electronic or humint. Do you mean via questioning, listening, wiretaps, electronic interception, explotation of defectors, spies, photographic interpretation, analysis of enemy movement, etc etc

The overall effectiveness in gathering intelligence. Were we more competent at it during WWII or througout the Bush administration.

Very broad Tina,yoyu... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Very broad Tina,
yoyu clearly have a point you want to make, so why dont you?

Tina S, try not to set trap... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Tina S, try not to set traps. We're on to you.

Obama did leave a sensitive piece of equipment for the Pakistani's to sell to China.

I also read that Obama was very reluctant and even was out voted to proceed. Because of his huge demonstration of past lack of leadership, I tend to believe it. ww

Tina you asked so... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Tina

you asked so I will answer as I dont have a problem answering questions (unlike Chico and company).

I think that at both times in our history we were able to utilize the effectiveness of the tools we had at hand in order to achieve the goals that were in mind.

In WW2 we didnt have satellite surveillance, we had to rely on almost exclusively on SIGINT and HUMINT sources. SIGINT provided big breakthroughs for example with the codebreaker that we had that which basically gave us German encrypted communications for years.

Today we have the ability to read a date on a quarter from Space and track multitudes of intelligence bits and pieces. At the same time it is generally recognized that feet on the ground and HUMINT are just as valuable as the satelites.

It is extremely difficult to compare the 2 head to head just basically due to scope, abilities and missions being so very different.


TinaI answered you... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Tina

I answered your question so please answer this one.

Why did you ask me the question above?

35.Sorry for the lat... (Below threshold)
RicardoVerde:

35.
Sorry for the late reply, but I stand by my original comment. Obama's position on the Annenberg Challenge was largely if not entirely ceremonial. It was to pad his resume for something bigger in the future. Likewise his position as lecturer at University of Chicago. The hiring committee (board?) didn't want him, but were urged along by some unknown parties.

I used to think he was a "Chauncy Gardener" character, but it's more like the Truman Show combined with Gilligan's Island. I wish it were just a show so we could have a laugh, but mostly it's sad. I would pity the man if he weren't so destructive to the nation.

yoyu clearly have a poin... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

yoyu clearly have a point you want to make, so why dont you?

Our military intelligence was extremely good during WWII and unarguably played a key role in winning the war. Compare that to recenct history in which our intelligence agencies have gotten very little right.

retired military,A... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

retired military,

As you pointed out during WWII we had to rely more heavily on interrogating prisoners than we do today. As a result we developed more sophisticated interrorgation techniques. It wasn't just about inflicting the most pain and discomfort until the prisoner tells you what they want.

I asked you because you know more about military history than most people.

Torture rocks!... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Torture rocks!




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy