It’s Bush and Obama on one side, and McCain on the other. When it comes to Russia’s invasion of Georgia, Barack Obama is firmly behind what George W. Bush has been doing. (Which makes sense, because all the President has been doing is talking.) John McCain, on the other hand, advocates isolating Russia in concrete ways, such as kicking it out of the G8.
Obama has couched his support for ineffective policy in lofty talk of a united America front. “There will be a time later for politics. I’m a big believer that when you’re in a crisis, America speaks with one voice,” he said. As if America hasn’t been in a national security crisis for the past seven years. As if during that entire period Obama and the majority of his Democrat buddies haven’t been accusing the President of everything from stupidity, to deception, to treason, to war crimes.
People in Obama’s camp certainly do have time for politics. They’ve labeled McCain’s position “trigger-happy,” and “reckless,” even though McCain has not advocated the pulling of a single trigger, or the loading of one rifle, and the implementation of his plan requires the cooperation of other G8 members. Meanwhile, Obama threatens to “suspend a whole range of international talks.” Of course, any and all threats against Russia have only served as invertebrate provocations for fully realized Putin counter-responses, shaped to match the original threat. NATO warns Moscow that they’ll cut off cooperation with Russia? Putin calls their bluff and severs ties himself. Poland signs on to missile defense? Putin vows to respond with military action. And after assessing this disaster, Obama states “I’m supportive of what George Bush has been doing.”
Keep focusing on honest reallity, JRub. Obama’s approach is to seek PR benefit from a meaningless gesture, while fully intending to use torture “if necessary.” I have a hard time calling this a continuation of the Bush policy, because Bush didn’t engage in the deceptive meaningless gestures.
I’ve changed my mind about Waterboarding. I would waterboard everybody that may have contributed to our financial meltdown:Madoff,Huld,Paulson,all of them. Maybe then, we’d learn the exact mechanics of the Rip-Off.
Mr Dyer, once again you are spot on.
All Obama ever wants is to do garner acceptance. And Panetta? Like wise, I would assume.
Sorry, but I think the good old USA just elected a lame duck for it’s top job.
Does this mean we can make them listen to Celine Dion until they beg for mercy?
Whoever elected this smooth-talking snake-oilman are either has BDS or has billion dollar investment stake on the stimulus package.
Stimulus Package is a ripp-off. It is a payment for pouring millions of dollars at DNC coffer.
Spot on
It’s Orwellian. These guys have no shame. It’s like the U.S. Communists after the Molotov-Rippentrop Pact in 1939, turning the propaganda machine on a dime!
OK , “torture”: let’s just say that The Bushies practiced a kinder, gentler version of torture under UNCAT Art I & the not torture but not so nice stuff under UNCAT Art XVI. “Compassionate Torture” & “Compassionate Quasi Torture”. You know, like Compassionate Conservatism.
Why do I think that a Dem like Obama out of the Chicago ooze will be more concerned with appearance, and less concerned with “human rights” outcomes, than Bush? Maybe it’s because Liberals are always more concerned with the process than the outcome!
The Bushies, the people actually governing & the guy who was the Commander-In-Chief, thought that under the limited circumstances allowed, waterboarding did not constitute “torture” as a legal matter. They were aware of UNCAT Arts I & XVI. They were aware of the Constitution. They were aware of the Left’s delicate feelings, Oh, Oh feeeeelings.
But we now have both houses of Congress & the Presidency controlled by Democrats, most of whom campaigned on express promises of getting rid of “torture” & many of whom are dependent for most of their contributions from those who are opposed to “torture”.
So why can’t they now pass a law which the President can sign or have the President as Commander In Cheif say “revise the Army Torture (OOPS) Manual”, ehich law or manual would specifically say “as used herein, ‘torture’ shall mean any technique which produces answers by prisoners, including, without limitation, waterboarding, sleep deprivation, making prisoners eat infidel food, & telling prisoners that the Koran is all B*lls**t”?
Hint: Can it be that these Hon worthies know that if the Sears Tower or The Statute of Liberty is flattened by a kamikaze attack in which 11 bombers get their 72 virgins but their 12th co-conspirator is still sitting in Gitmo getting fat on all the goodies the PC yentas say he must be fed, they, Congress & The One, might be blamed by the voters for not connecting the dots & preventing such attack?
No, let’s have a BS commission/task force study the problem, a/k/a, kicking the can down the street. And Panetta doing doubletalk, doublespeak , doublethink….
And now, with Election 2008, we shall see, or not see, what techniques of persuasion the new Administration will use to get vital info about, you know, who’s planning to blow up things we like or people we’d miss.
Obama hopes to govern under the wisdom of Petronius: “The world wishes to be deceived. So deceive it.” Appropriately enough, it’s an imperial, not a republican prescription. Under Bush we got “torture.” Under Obama we’ll get pretense and torture – aka “change you can believe in, sucker.” At least we’re still at the stage where higher level functionaries like Panetta will at least admit the truth under questioning.
BTW – JED – thanks again for your submission on the Palin thread, in case you haven’t been back there to view my reply.
Groucho Marx: “Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I have others!”
OOPS “Which” & “Chief”
this is truly an administration committed to the belief that words speak louder than actions
“So what exactly would he ask the president in a ticking-time-bomb situation to do? It really is not clear…”
Oh, you Neo-Con Skum and you’re ticking time-bomb scenario – why not – since we just NEVER know – why not just kill EVERY Muslim? is that too extreme? How about then – in a ticking time-bomb situation, how about we put nails through the terrorists scrotum – would that work? What if water-boarding is NOT enough?
And J-Rube – speaking out the otherside of her crooked mouth, accuses OBAMA of engaging in far mongering…
#2 RCAR
You know that it is against the law to threaten out President, don’t you? You also know that he sued Citibank on behalf of ACORN for not giving enough bad loans, don’t you?
Before we even begin to formulate the questions, we remove all hysterical children from the room.
J. E. Dyer,
A few weeks ago I predicted that Obama’s economic policy would at least provide clarity that would lead to an uptick in consumer confidence. You disagreed. You were right, and I was wrong.
CKM — I did see your response at the Yuval Levin piece, and have added another one of my own. Grazie mille.
You’re so right that the hysterics need to be removed before the serious discussions can begin. The pragmatic alternatives to terrorist torture, if we want to keep the American people safe from future attacks, are:
1. Changing how we live so that everything we do can be monitored and controlled more effectively by our Homeland Security forces. This would entail a long, long list of measures that would start, inevitably, with unapologetic profiling and the closing of madrassas — but would also impinge most inconveniently on the lives of Americans who today say they’d have no problem with those first two measures. This course would seriously jeopardize our civil liberties and our national character.
2. Changing more regimes overseas, until there is simply no more territory left for terrorists to operate freely in or receive succor from.
In a hierarchy of political morality, it was clear that Bush preferred changing regimes overseas to curtailing American civil liberties and torturing terrorists for information. Regime-change more, spy on ourselves less. Execute terrorists abroad more, torture them in our detention facilities less.
But torture is much cheaper than regime-changes and special ops assasinations abroad, and much easier to hide from accountability than heavy-handed domestic monitoring and surveillance. Torture of terrorists for information is a serious moral hazard, precisely for the reasons Obama’s administration is getting a pass on its deceptive and disingenuous handling of the issue.
Obama’s initial actions have demonstrated to me very clearly that I can’t trust him with the handling of this huge question of moral priorities. I don’t want a president who will promise not to torture while crossing his fingers behind his back. I want a president who, on the evidence, would clearly rather do everything other than torture terrorists first — but will not make cheap promises not to.
Inagua — hey, even a blind chicken gets a kernel every now and then.
11: Isn’t the question how far The One will monger?
All this palaver about torture is purest BS, merely another stick used to beat the Doofus from the Lone Star State. It’s no longer a serious issue now that the donkey party is in power. Anybody with ticking-bomb information will be begging for waterboarding in preference to the other means of persuasion on the table if and when the time comes.