From Godfather Politics posted on February 12, 2013 by
But what about foreign policy, national security, and war? The New York Times finds itself forced to admit, even though it seems reluctant to do so, that the candidate who ran against Bush did so in order to be Bush, and worse.
“If President Obama tuned in to the past week’s bracing debate on Capitol Hill about terrorism, executive power, secrecy and due process, he might have recognized the arguments his critics were making: He once made some of them himself. Four years into his tenure, the onetime critic of President George W. Bush finds himself cast as a present-day Mr. Bush, justifying the muscular application of force in the defense of the nation while detractors complain that he has sacrificed the country’s core values in the name of security. The debate is not an exact parallel to those of the Bush era, and Mr. Obama can point to ways he has tried to exorcise what he sees as the excesses of the last administration. But in broad terms, the conversation generated by the confirmation hearing of John O. Brennan, his nominee for C.I.A. director, underscored the degree to which Mr. Obama has embraced some of Mr. Bush’s approach to counterterrorism, right down to a secret legal memo authorizing presidential action unfettered by outside forces.”
Hornes contention is that:
First of all, the “ways he has tried to exorcise” Bush’s excesses have all been PR, not substance. Secondly, Obama has gone far beyond Bush. Comparing Bush’s use of drones to Obama’s is like comparing a few hawks hunting for food to the scenes in Alfred Hitchcock’s “The Birds.”
Horne goes on to make a very lucid point that far worse than anything the Bush administration cooked up, the use of unmanned drones used to kill American citizens on a nebulous “kill-list” is far more deadly not to mention WILDLY unconstitutional to this novice onlooker…this is how delusional the NYTimes has become in its pretzeling of acceptable positions for drone strikes against American citizens…
Cited by Horne from the NYT:
“The confluence of these debates suggests the ways Mr. Obama is willing to emulate Mr. Bush and the ways he is not. In effect, Mr. Obama relies on his predecessor’s aggressive approach in one area to avoid Mr. Bush’s even more aggressive approach in others. By emphasizing drone strikes, Mr. Obama need not bother with the tricky issues of detention and interrogation because terrorists tracked down on his watch are generally incinerated from the sky, not captured and questioned.”
Um what?…so the emperor is LESS aggressive than Bush, because instead of capturing and interrogating, they just become…dead…yeah that is WAY more humanitarian and less aggressive…
Horne says that:
The article is filled with this sort of nonsense trying to explain Obama’s support for a man as head of CIA who was formerly a cog in the Bush Administration’s war machine. The writer wants to find some way to still think of Obama and Bush as substantially different on foreign policy and give “Liberals” some way of justifying continued support for him.
Nonsense is correct in my estimation, but then have we come to expect any LESS from democracks, leftists, liberals or useful idiots on the left…I contend no we haven’t. We continue to be in luck, because they continue to spin delusional “nuanced” yarns for us to enjoy…
One last question…no person has EVER won the Nobel peace prize undeservedly before have they???
Read the NYTimes article here: