Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Osama Bin Laden Round Up Post

Osama bin Laden continues to dominate the news cycle, though the enthusiasm for discussing the goat-molester seems to be fading quickly. Hence, we are now in the end game where political theater and side-issues dominate the discussion. So let’s round up all the remaining issues related to Osama and be done with him.

1. Obama the (In)Action Hero: The Democrats are trying VERY hard to turn this Osama death into the moment that saved Obama’s sinking presidency. In fact, they are calling it Obama’s “Defining Moment.” This is pretty funny since he’s already had “Defining Moments” (1) when he spoke in Denver, (2) when he signed the doomed stimulus, (3) when he passed the disastrous ObamaCare, (4) when he failed at Copenhagen, (5) when he made his decision in Afghanistan to announce that we would fight until we would quit, (6) when he finally got around to asking whose ass to kick in the BP incident, (8) when he passed financial (non)regulation, (9) when he wiped out don’t ask don’t tell, (9) when he gave his meandering and pointless State of the Union speech . . . the trains! the trains!, (9) when he signed the new START missile treaty (yawn), and (10) when he let the British and French invade Libya without even mentioning the fact to Congress. Are you seeing a pattern?

To make this one stick, the Democrats are hailing his bravery for giving an order that was suggested to him by the military (seriously, find the leader in the photo above). In fact, if you think about it, this is a pretty silly “defining moment” as all he did was step out of the way and let the professionals do their job.

In any event, this is a futile effort. Depending on the poll, the bounce he’s gotten from this event is around 0% because all the bounces have been within the margin of error. That’s pretty sad, but it’s not unexpected. How exactly does Obama deserve the credit for this? He did nothing more than say, "duh, ok." And in truth, what credit is there anyway? It’s nice that bin Laden is dead, but it really doesn’t change anything as he hasn’t been relevant to Islamic terrorism for a long time now. That's hardly an event to define a presidency.

2. Afghanistan Is Won? Really?: Several articles appeared yesterday where liberal journalists claimed that the death of Osama meant the end of the road in Afghanistan. Apparently, al Qaeda will now be demoralized and quit. Really? And what planet are you idiots from? The Taliban are not al Qaeda, and as anyone who has read the history of the region knows, the Taliban and al Qaeda barely even get along. Why should the death of the bankrupt Osama bin Laden, who had becoming nothing more than a figurehead, lead them to surrender their own country. . . a country they still largely control despite the best efforts of NATO over the past eleven years? Moreover, al Qaeda isn’t the problem in the rest of the Middle East either. Libya = Qaddafi. . . Egypt = the Muslim Brotherhood. . . Saudi Arabia = Wahhabism. . . Palestine = Hamas. . . Iraq = civil war. . . Syria = the Baathist. . . and everywhere equals Iran. The death of bin Laden is viscerally nice, but changes nothing.

3. Twitter For Dummies: Twitter is fast becoming the tool of choice for idiots to expose themselves. The latest is Pittsburgh Steeler Rashard Mendenhall, who exposed himself as a Truther and condemned the people who were celebrating Osama’s death. He specifically claimed that we are acting prematurely because we only know one side of the whole 9/11 story. . . he apparently forget that bin Laden claimed credit for it.

People are now calling for the Steelers to cut Mendenhall. Others are whining that this would violate both his rights of free speech and his (and Osama’s) right of the presumption of innocence. Sigh. Don’t they teach the basics of the constitution anymore? The right to free speech and right to a presumption of innocence are rights you possess vis-√†-vis the government. . . not the public. We have every right to fire you, demand your termination, ridicule you and conclude that you are guilty as heck. So please stop complaining that the backlash against your stupidity is somehow a violation of your rights.

4. There’s No Moral Equivalence: Many leftists, like Slate magazine are whining about people celebrating bin Laden’s death and they are equating that with Arabs dancing through the streets when the Twin Towers went down. Give me a break. Anyone equating these two is an idiot, and there is no nicer way to say it. To equate a brief outpouring of joy at the death of a tyrant and murderer with a mass (violent) rally reveling in the murder of 3,000 innocent civilians shows that these commentators simply have no moral compass that lets them judge events with any level of reason. What makes this worse is that these idiots actually think they are morally superior, when the truth is they are morally vacant, bereft of the careful debate of thousands of years of human thinking on morality and ethics.

5. No, There’s Nothing Wrong With Killing Osama: Many leftists, especially pacifists like the Germans, are now worrying that the killing of Osama might not have been legal. On the one hand, I love this because the same monster the Democrats have been feeding for a generation is now eating them. On the other hand, I feel like flying to Germany and slapping these purse-carrying Eurotrash effeteists. Again, what makes this all the more annoying is that they think they’re the ones being morally superior. Yet, their sicko views result in tyranny because they argue against good men and women standing up to tyrants. And their views result in all out war because you can’t kill the handful of tyrants at the top who are calling the shots. So how moral is it to advocate policies that lead to the deaths of millions of people to avoid the shooting of a handful of monsters?

6. Stop Worrying About Inflaming Muslims: Finally, stop worrying about angering Muslims. Muslims respect one principle: might makes right. It’s everywhere in their culture. By kowtowing to their feelings, you are simply showing yourselves to be weak. Secondly, Islamic terror groups will lie no matter what you do, so this idea of being cautious to avoid inflaming the Arab street is pointless. This is like refusing to say anything nasty about Hitler for fear of angering other Nazis. It’s stupid. And finally, stop denying yourself the best weapons in the arsenal -- the ability to exploit their superstitions to terrify them if they choose to take up arms. So you'd rather kill them on the battlefield than scare them away from fighting. How does that make sense?

55 comments:

T-Rav said...

Andrew, in the Dems' defense, I will say that this has more right to be claimed as a "Defining Moment" (tm) than most--actually, all--of those prior ones you listed. I'll have to admit, Obama surprised me, and for once in a good way: He had to make a decision and he made the right choice. That said, we shouldn't be fawning over him for doing exactly what every other president (even Carter, I'm guessing) would have done in his place.

Tennessee Jed said...

Don't forget his "defining" speech about the Giffords shooting.

As far as the credit thing, he exposed himself by talking about how "I did this, etc." The one thing I give B.O.credit for is taking the riskier action of a SEAL team vs. a drone.

I agree, we shouldn't be worried about inflaming Muslims. Rather, we should show the photograph. It won't convince anybody of anything, but at least it is on the record. I find it amazing how ABU GARIB had to be shown while this time there is a debate.

Lastly, anyone who is buying the statement that the courier's name wasn't obtained during enhanced interrogation is a dreamer.

StanH said...

Rush has a great picture at his website, a caricature of Barry as John Wayne, very funny. That being said, kudos to “SEAL Team 6” and the president for allowing the mission to take place, but this was the mother of all no-brainers.

Now back to reality. This country has been bent over the fence post since 2006 Pelosi – Reid, and regardless of the great news, with the real economy this $hitty, Barry’s toast. What was it Carville told us, “it’s the economy stupid,”

JG said...

I agree. We cannot go the "paper tiger" route anymore.

I am also ready to put a lot of this to bed. Stupid comments and conversations have not been limited to one side. It's wearing. If I hear one more (well-meaning) Christian tell me it's wrong to be happy an evil, truly evil, man can no longer kill innocent people...well, it's just getting ridiculous.

And the whole retaliations thing...would make sense if terrorists haven't been "retaliating" against something or other the last 30+ years (and really longer, but we'll keep it to one generation). That's been the second most frustrating comment, mostly because it's been the one circulating the military community. We are poor students of history, to say the least.

Writer X said...

Whenever I see the photo with Obama in the Situation Room, I want to put a little bow tie on him and give him a cookie. But after hearing that he took 16 hours to decide whether it was a good idea to get Bin Laden, the photo makes perfect sense.

Kosh said...

I neither have a sense of elation nor saddness that OBL was killed. More a sense of peace, for now. Islamofascists are like the hydra; killed one head but it will grow back.

What concerns me is that this government does not know how to release information. All they had to say was: we had good reason to believe OBL was there, special forces team was sent in to get him, there was a firefight and OBL was killed, his body was retrived to confirm identity, he was buried at sea per Navy custom.

All this other crap that has been stated and leaked is unnecessary and unwanted. It makes you feel like Obama doesn't really know what the hell he is doing. Oh, wait...

T-Rav said...

Crap, I just had a really long and informative post answering Jed's point about the interrogation and the blogger ate it. Jerks.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I certainly give him credit for making the decision, but (1) it's hard to give him a LOT of credit for doing something that every other president would have done with little hesitation -- even Carter. That's like giving him credit for "not being stupid this time." And (2) I don't honestly don't see this as that consequential. In the scheme of things, he's dead, great, but that doesn't change anything on the ground in any of the countries where we are fighting.

AndrewPrice said...

And T-Rav, I certainly wouldn't escalate something like this to being a defining moment of a presidency. If I were President and this was considered my big moment, I know I would feel like a total failure, that's for sure.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I'm sure they just happily volunteered the courier's name once Obama sent them a card with the word "please" written on it. . . but it was an "enhanced" please, with big font! ;-)

I give him credit for giving the order, but as I said to T-Rav, to me, that's like crediting someone with doing their job... if even. . . it's probably more like crediting someone with rubber stamping a decision brought to them by a lawyer or doctor or mechanic.

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, The mother of all no brainers is right. The guys who really deserve the credit are Seal Team 6 who have once again done a masterful job of executing American military/foreign policy with precision and professionalism.

Yep, back to the economy, which is not doing all that well.

LawHawkRFD said...

Speaking of moral equivalence, George W. Bush graciously declined to join Obama at the Ground Zero ceremonies. Whatever his reasons, I am glad that Bush will not give that little pisscher any more stature than is absolutely necessary. After the news conference yesterday where Obama's mouthpiece pooh-poohed the Bush administration's intelligence efforts in tracking down bin Laden, I have credited Obama for the killing as far as I intend to. Obama is still a pro-Muslim, anti-American lowlife. He'll probably be there to take a surreptitious look at the progress on the Ground Zero mosque.

Have I mentioned that I hate Obama?

AndrewPrice said...

JG, People are indeed poor students of history and they're always blinded by the false hope that if they act weak, the other side will stop fighting because they'll see we're not a threat. But this completely misunderstands why people fight or how they will react.

History has shown that weakness only entices an even angrier, more violent response because the other side sees it as confirmation that they are on the right track to win. So the more we act like we're afraid to do the things we need to do and the more we act like we're afraid to admit we're in a war with them, the harder they will push because they will see that as evidence that they can win if they just push a little harder.... not to mention it's hard to respect a coward.

And historically, this has been going on since the Crusades, quite literally. In fact, the Marine Corp anthem should be instructive -- "the shores of Tripoli" is the first time the US got involved in a war over there and it had to do with piracy and terrorism. And they've been blowing up everything they could find since at least the 1920.

I'm also sick of hearing how it's wrong to kill an evil person or be happy that an evil person is dead. The death of evil is something we should be celebrating. When terrorists or tyrants die, we should be elated that their evil has come to an end. By acting morose and being upset at their unhappy ending, all we are doing is telling the world that we no longer recognize what values are worth fighting for and which ones aren't. We are presenting ourselves to the world as seeing everything as morally equivalent and nothing as worth fighting for. That’s not morally superior, it’s morally vacant.

AndrewPrice said...

Writer X, He couldn't possibly look more like the least relevant person in that room. If he disappeared any further into the woodwork, someone would come along and dust him. Seriously, he looks like he's some sort of intern watching the adults work on some project.

I hadn't heard it took him 16 hours. I guess he had to send Biden to get batteries for the Magic 8 Ball?

AndrewPrice said...

Kosh, What's concerned me about how they've released the information is that it appears that they gave the information to a bunch of celebrities before they handed it out to the press, because several celebrities started Tweeting it around the same time, long before the news was made aware. To me, that just shows that these people see this as yet another favor to hand out to their interest groups, not a matter of policy.

And now they're worried about the use of the code name Geromino. WTF? How in the world can they be worried about the political correctness of the code word when the real issue in question is the action itself?

This whole administration has it's priorities entirely backwards.

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, Sorry to hear that. That seems to happen sometimes and I can't explain it. Unfortunately, there is much about Blogger that we have no control over and which seems to work at random at times.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, I was surprised to see that decision given Bush's history of letting other walk all over him, but I'm glad he made that decision. With Team Obama out there pretending that they are so much better than Bush (and having spent 2 years blaming Bush for everything), Bush should not be helping Obama with any photo-ops.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, Rush is reporting that Leon Panetta has confirmed to NBC that they did waterboard some of the detainees to get the information they used.

Writer X said...

Andrew, Magic 8-Ball? That is perfect. :-)

AndrewPrice said...

Writer X, I have the sneaking suspicion a Magic 8 Ball played large in this decision... because I can't see anyone else in this administration who is decisive enough to have made the decision!

Tennessee Jed said...

of course he (Panetta) did. Do these people think we are stupid? I am ready to get back to assessing the performance of "the jobs" president. I love a post from Lawrence Meyers that showed the view of a formal military guy regarding "who deserves credit." Among other things, the guy stated he was prettty sure no credit due to anyone wearing five stars opr a suit, and definitely not anyone who goes on t.v. and starts in with "I did this, and I ordered that."

My earlier comment was meant only to point out Obama chose to send in boots on the ground to a sovereign country. Only possible reason is to be able to confirm the kill. That operation, if it had gone down wrong, could have been Carter-esque. It was a safer play to kill him by drone, but ultimately, one had to realize that was not really a choice because you couldn't prove the result.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, Yeah, ultimately he really had no choice but to send people on the ground because he needed to be able to prove they had killed him -- and that means getting your hands on the body.

Which, by the way, makes this whole issue about whether or not to release the photos all the stupider. The point to getting the body was to prove you had it. So why dump the body and then pretend you're not going to release the photo? If you go that route, you might as well have just bombed the house.

Kosh said...

I am not akin to conspiracy theories but there have been some funny and interesting ones out there:

OBL is found and killed within one week of Obama releasing his birth certificate. What did OBL know?

American Thinker has a section where the timing of this action corresponded with more Wikileaks information about OBL's couriers. This may have forced their hand to act now even though there might not have been absolute proof of him being there.

Could his death be faked and now he is being waterboarded in an undisclosed location? (crossing fingers)

Why wasn't Obama on the phone with the president of Pakistan at about or just after the event. If they truely didn't know we were coming and we attacked a sovereign country...

There are definitely people in the Pakistan government who knew he was there. It wouldn't surprise me either if the some of the same people gave OBL up when his usefullness ran out.

AndrewPrice said...

Kosh, I find it impossible to believe that someone in the Pakistani government didn't know. I don't know if that translates into the government itself knowing, or if it's just rogue elements, but someone knew. Even though I believe it's pretty easy to "disappear" it's not easy to disappear and to still run an active compound as he apparently did.

I like that question about what did OBL know about BO's birth certificate! LOL! :-)

BevfromNYC said...

I agree with everyone. Personally, I am getting really weary of hearing that Obama is the greatest President that will ever live because he said "Yeah, go ahead". Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. And the "I, I, I, me, me, me" stuff is irritating. Everyone is acting as though Obama pulled an "Independence Day" and put on a flack jacket and shot bin Laden himself. Very little credit has gone to THE NAVY SEALS who actually risked their lives.

I will be happy to tell you all about the festivities tomorrow as I watch it out our office window. Should be fun...

patti said...

isn't the genie out of the bottle with offending muslims? i mean the dude is d-e-a-d. can't get much worse than that (excluding his end of life bacon blanket). me thinks barry didn't think this one thru...as per his leftist handbook that states: DO, *then* think (if at all. optional). But not before yelling, RACIST!

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, Apparently, Obama never learned that people don't like to hear others claim credit for everything. . . especially when they don't deserve it.

The more I think about it, he really had no choice but to do this. And now his refusal to release the pictures makes the whole use of the SEAL team seem just gratuitous. If he wasn't interested in proving to the world that he had OBL, when risk their lives -- just drop the bomb.

Good luck with the ceremony tomorrow.

AndrewPrice said...

Patti, I think that genie is long out of the bottle. Anyone who think the release of a death photo will incite them more than the killing itself is a fool. But then, our administration is a collection of fools.

BevfromNYC said...

Of course, Obama's campaign team can time the eventual release of the photos closer to the 2012 election to reopen the press frenzy and remind everyone that Obama got OBL and the glory of it all.

rlaWTX said...

T-Rav: I know the feeling - Blogger doesn't like me either...

As I'm reading through the comments, I award these the best lines so far:
"OBL is found and killed within one week of Obama releasing his birth certificate. What did OBL know?" Kosh

"If I were President and this was considered my big moment, I know I would feel like a total failure, that's for sure." Andrew

"Have I mentioned that I hate Obama?" Lawhawk

I love Commentarama!!!

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, You truly are cynical aren't you? I have no doubt that Obama is only acting for the good of the country and not his re-election . . . . man I could barely type that without my fingers going numb.

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if they suddenly feel the pressure and decide to release the photos right before the election.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, It is a pretty good little community we have here! :-)

I love the "what did OBL know" comments! LOL!

BevfromNYC said...

Kosh - "OBL is found and killed within one week of Obama releasing his birth certificate. What did OBL know?"

Well, you know Obama Sr. did have many wives...naaah.

Kosh said...

A defining moment is just that, a single event that characterizes the person. It can even be a changing moment. For Bush, I think that moment was when he was at ground zero with the blowhorn. Prior to that, he really wasn't a hawk and right after 9/11 seemed a little befuddled on what to do. During that impromptu speech he changed into someone ready to kick-ass.

You can't really have multiple defining moments, although different people can each have an individual defining moment for a specific person.

I think we should each put in our defining moment, the aha I know this person really is, of President Obama.

For me, it was during the primaries when asked about a foreign policy question by a reporter he retorted with "Why can't I just eat my waffle?"

I don't know, maybe because you are running to be PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! Complete, unserious, arrogant a$$hole.

LawHawkRFD said...

Kosh: At least we didn't have to put up with Al Gore telling us that this was a "risky helicopter scheme."

AndrewPrice said...

Kosh, That's a great point, that a defining moment is a moment that defines the principles upon which we will finally choose to live our lives, and that with Presidents, these are most often moments when they suddenly get a clear picture of their mission as President.

I honestly don't know that Obama's had a true defining moment yet because he doesn't seem to stand for anything. He's had lots of little moments that he wants people to believe are his defining moments, but they've all been nothing more than minor blips that he had little to do with except watch as someone else (e.g. Pelosi) does all the work. I just don't know that he's had THAT moment yet. . . he still seems like an empty suit.

If anything, I would say his defining moment was Honduras, when he realized that foreign policy is very hard and people aren't going to jump just because he says jump. I would say that was the moment he really stopped caring about the job and decided he would rather just enjoy the perks of the jobs.

BevfromNYC said...

His defining moment for me was when he first called out a private citizen of the United States of America to ridicule while sitting in the WH. It defined him to me as Orwellian.

And it really really bugs me he doesn't wear a tie! It's the least he can do if he's gonna order the assassination of someone. BTW neither does Ahmahdinajaqet...

LawHawkRFD said...

Kosh: Sorry, I just caught your question on the DOMA post. I did reply, and I hope that clears up the confusion.

T-Rav said...

Okay, even though it's pretty late, I'll try and repeat what I said this morning before blogger screwed me over. There was an excellent analysis about the interrogation thing here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8489866/WikiLeaks-Bin-Ladens-courier-trained-911-hijack-team.html

I was doing my own investigating last night and blowing off finals papers in the process (that's just how much I care), and here's what I came up with on the steps that led up to Sunday.

In 2003 or thereabouts, KSM, after being put through enhanced interrogation, gave up the code name of bin Laden's courier (al-Kuwaiti or something), which may or may not have been confirmed by the "20th hijacker," Muhammed al-Qahtani, a year later under similar methods (which I wouldn't consider torture, personally, but they were legally questionable).

(continued)

T-Rav said...

(continued)

Also around about 2004, our troops in Iraq captured a certain Hassan Ghul, who was fairly high up in the Al-Qaeda command structure. Ghul was apparently taken to a CIA facility in Pakistan and, again under enhanced interrogation, gave up the real name of the courier (because of the circumstances in which it went down, expect the MSM to get VERY quiet about this part of the timeline). With that, our intelligence agencies started tracking down the courier until sometime last year, when he slipped and made a phone call that could be traced; we located him, followed him back to the compound in Abbottabad, and spent the next several months doing surveillance. It was determined that bin Laden was probably hiding there; they went to Obama with the info, he gave the green light, and the rest we know.

Or, to give the media's shorthand version, Obama took office, then reminded everybody that we still hadn't caught this bin Laden guy everyone had forgotten about, they got back on his trail, and voila!

(Blogging machine, you will bow to my will.)

Kosh said...

No, T-Rav, you have it all wrong. Obama felt Osamas presences and single handedly flew to pakistan under the cover of night, slipped into his compound, and tried to reason with him. After the 57th aaaas and 35th umms, OBL killed himself with a single bullet to the head.

Enhanced Interrogation- LOL

There is torture (waterboarding and keeping awake) and then there is torture (like smashing testicles with a hammer and pouring boiling oil down someones throat). The first kind is ethically ok if you are only trying to get information but not trying to get a confession. The second is only done for sadistic purposes.

T-Rav, that was my understanding as well. Also, the arrest of CIA contractor Raymond Davis may also be related as he may have been collecting intel.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I don't like the lack of a tie either. He's the President. Part of his job is to look the part. He fails at that too. Grr.

Yep, calling out the cop was truly a moment that told us that everything he pretended to be during the election was a lie.

T-Rav said...

Kosh, in all honesty, there have been a number of times when I (and others) have been listening to Obama talk and suddenly felt the need to do myself in. (For Exhibit A, go back and read the comments here for the SOTU speech.)

If I remember the Telegraph article correctly, the "interrogation" of al-Qahtani included being forced to wear a woman's bra, being led around on a leash and act like a giant dog, and being subjected to cold temperatures extreme enough that he was hospitalized twice.

I have a couple of thoughts on this:

1. You can't really call something flat-out torture if there are people in West Hollywood who pay to be subjected to it.

2. There's a difference, as you point out, between using this stuff for confessions and using it for information. Even the latter is qualified: Karl Rove was on FNC this morning and pointed out that when you're waterboarding someone, you don't take what they say at face value. (This leads me to believe I've been doing it wrong.) The whole point is to break their spirit and make them willing to talk freely rather than be waterboarded AGAIN--that is, not during. I suspect something similar was the case with the methods here.

As for Davis, there's been a lot of conjecture to that effect and I haven't seen anything definite either way, but it certainly does put that story in a different light, doesn't it?

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, LOL! Yes, you show Blogger who's boss! I'm having a similar struggle at the film site, trying to get the feed to work so that search engines can pick it up. All the code is fine, but for whatever reason, Blogger is resisting me. But I will not surrender!


On your point, it sounds like one would expect -- the military has been working on this for years. They made much more progress than we realized. And to make that progress required them to use all the interrogation weapons in their arsenal. . . . apparently asking nicely just wasn't enough.

I don't expect the MSM to fess up to any of this. They will go with the idea that once Obama engaged himself, the right prisoners just suddenly came forth with the right information and then Obama made his "brave" decision -- now we should think of him as a fierce warrior.

But this won't work because he still doesn't know how to project himself as a leader. Instead, he looks like a hanger-on who is trying to claim credit for other people's deeds.

Moreover, his bravery is false because he really only had one choice. For example, could he really have passed up the chance to get Osama or would that destroy him if it ever leaked out? And blowing Osama up doesn't get Obama the proof he needs to show what he did. Hence, he had only one choice.

I think people get all of that, which is why he's not getting a bounce out of any of this. People are happy that OBL is dead, but this hasn't change their view of anything really.

Kosh said...

Absolutely agree with you T-Rav. Although it is torture, I don't think anything we subject our own troops to can be considered morally wrong in the right situation. It should be used carefully, expertly, and rarely.

Does this mean we can start giving the terrorists coffee colon cleanses? How is wearing women's clothing torture? Unless it was too small? Have I been subjecting my wife to terrible pain and humiliation?!? From now on I will insist she walk around the house braless.

AndrewPrice said...

Kosh and T_Rav, I think those are actually good dividers. There is a huge difference between physical and psychological discomfort to break the will and permanent damage done for no particular purpose except to punish. Moreover, there is a huge difference between seeking to obtain the information to save lives or shorten a war and just doing it for fun. Unfortunately, too many people don't get that point.

I've said before that this is an area that requires careful thought. The left hates any form of discomfort and calls it torture -- which is ridiculous. But too many on the right revel in the idea of just inflicting pain until the guy tells you what you want to know, and they don't grasp the idea that pure torture is counter productive.

This is one of those rare areas where we should be relying on expert advice to determine how best to tread to get the best results.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, I notice that MSNBC's Larry O'Donnell has been singing Obama's praises to an incredible degree the past couple days, to the point of telling Bush-Cheney supporters to take notes because "now we see how it's really done" or something. Sorry, O'Donnell. Points for chutzpah, but there can be only one Miss Precious Perfect, and you, SIR, are no Miss Precious Perfect.

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, It's all part of trying to sustain their belief system in the face of evidence that they've been so incredibly wrong time and again. Everything they believe has come crashing down in failure. . . again. So they either need to admit they are wrong, they need to explain away the failure, or they need to pretend they didn't fail. The first is too dramatic because it calls into question their entire belief system. The second was the weapon of choice for so long, but has now gotten too hard because even they realize they can't keep blaming Bush and unexpected events. That leaves the third -- deny reality. And when people deny reality, they tend to do it big time, not just small time. In other words, if you're going to pretend Obama isn't a failure, why not go all out and pretend he's the greatest success ever.

It's sad, but it's really a pretty standard human defense mechanism.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, as Goebbels liked to say, if you're going to lie anyway, lie big. Not that we should be following his lead on anything, obviously.

Regarding the "blame Bush" line, though, here's a nice little tonic on that from Time:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2069327,00.html

I have a feeling these kids will begin to be referred to by the media as racists or ignorant pawns in 3...2...1...

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, I'm sure there's a propaganda aspect to much of this. But I really think it goes deeper. I really think this is a matter of protecting their entire belief system from the constant assault of reality disproving everything they believe.


Here's your link: LINK

... clearly racism. ;-)

BevfromNYC said...

T-Rav and Andrew - Thanks for posting that link to the Time article. I wouldn't have read it since I banned Time from my life. Out of the mouths of the innocent.
Those of us who lived through 9/11 in living color do have a different perspective. I have never understood the criticism that Bush has taken for those 7 minutes with those kids.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I think the criticism of Bush was just that, it was anger aimed at Bush for "stealing the election" and no matter what he did they were going to criticize him. If he'd left, they would have accused him of needlessly scaring the kids. It's gotcha criticism and it's become far too common in our political discourse. Bush made the right call at the time given the type of emergency in question.

T-Rav said...

My pleasure, Bev. I don't know if their experiences with the President that day are responsible, but those kids seem well on their way to becoming some stand-up young adults.

As for those seven minutes, what I want to know is, if it's fair for liberals to bash Bush for that, is it fair for us to bash Obama for the 16 hours he took to mull over the decision to hit bin Laden's compound?

T-Rav said...

Andrew, I was honestly surprised that Time went ahead and ran the story, given the results they got. I think over time, a lot of people (and this can happen on the Right, too) become so wedded to an ideology that to open it to criticism would mean abandoning their entire way of looking at the world, and that's not something many people can do. But that doesn't excuse the double standards they constantly engage in. You just know if this story had been that the students felt let down by Bush, the editors would have considered putting this on the front page.

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, Time has run some surprising pieces in the past couple years, but not enough. For every fair article, they run about 1000 totally leftwing biased articles. Still, it's interesting when they do run a fair article.

Post a Comment