It’s led to the capture of an important militant. This is excellent news. It’s also yet another reason why Barack Obama’s administration is better at fighting Jihadism than either George W. Bush’s or Bill Clinton’s.
The Wall Street Journal notes:
“The President’s changes in antiterror policy have never been as dramatic as he or his critics have advertised. His supporters on the left have repeatedly howled when the Justice Department quietly went to court and offered the same legal arguments the Bush Administration made, among them that the President has the power to detain enemy combatants indefinitely without charge. He has also ramped up drone strikes against al Qaeda and Taliban operatives in Pakistan.
However, the Administration has tried to break from its predecessors on several big antiterror issues…”
(Italics mine.)
Maybe I’m crazy, but the italicized portion seems to be implying that this is in keeping with Bush’s policies, when, in fact it is a break from them. “Ramping up” means changing the policy. It’s not as drastic, I admit, but nevertheless Obama and Bush are not the same when it comes to the drone policy. Obama is more aggressive. This probably part of the reason Obama’s track record vs. Jihadism compares favorably with G.W. Bush’s and Clinton’s over their first terms.
…is what the Republicans say the Democrats are.
First of all, why is this news? The Republicans always say that. Second, while his policies seem to be weaker, Obama’s track record against Jihadism compares favorably with George W. Bush’s and Bill Clinton’s after their respective first years in office.
I’ll agree his position on torture seems naive, and his foolish decision not to fire Napolitano immediately after the December 25th failed attack ought to be ridiculed. But these apparent flaws cannot negate his success in objective terms. The arguments against trying terrorists in civilian court are, in my opinion, fairly weak.
As of this moment, the case against Obama himself as weak on terror is basically a joke. Now, the case against the Democrats in Congress, particularly Harry Reid, is a much better one. Reid is a weak person by nature, and his infamous assertion that the Iraq war was “lost” is one that should haunt him.
The Democrats overall philosophy intuitively seems to be weaker, but that is not backed up by the data.
“A restoration, if you will, of the power and authority of the president.”–Dick Cheney, on actions taken in the Bush administration. (Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/books/review/Bazelon-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print)
Progressives, or Liberals, if you prefer, are shocked at the failure of Pelosi and Reid to pass a health-care bill sooner–before the election of Scott Brown all but destroyed the bill’s chances. Some of them are blaming the President. They don’t really expect Congress to be able to do this; they realize they need a strong leader to make Congress pass the thing.
The reason I mentioned Cheney is that the Progressives went on and on in absolute terror and revulsion at his philosophy of executive power. They also claimed that the many disasters that were a hallmark of the Bush years were a result of his ideas. But I have always wondered–even when I quit supporting the Bush administration–if Cheney was right–if Congress was simply ineffective by nature, and a strong executive is needed.
The Obama administration, contrary to what you might hear, has taken a far less extreme position on executive power, and what has it bought them?
Over at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Journalism, Alicia Colon wonders if George W. Bush is the most reviled President ever. She says she hasn’t done enough research yet. I can help her there.
No, he isn’t. Neither is Lincoln, as she speculates. It’s Richard M. Nixon.
Why, you ask? Because he’s almost the picture in the dictionary next to anti-charisma.
As I have discussed here and here, an attempt seems to be going on to subtly revise history so that people forget George W. Bush was President on 9/11.
One question I didn’t address in the earlier posts is: Who is doing it? Now, you might think it’s obviously the Republican party doing it, as part of an effort to rehabilitate the image of Republicans as better at National Defense. This is quite likely, although it seems like it would be simpler to demonize Bush, and claim that his Presidency is not typical of Republican ideology.
But is there any other group that would have an incentive to make this effort?
