Is Obama a War Criminal?

 

Like many other auditors, Howie Carr of The Boston Herald was perplexed after he listened to Barack Obama’s televised address on Wednesday night. He cannot understand, any more than can you or I, how the President can deny that ISIS — the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria — is Islamic. He could have added that it was also rather odd that the President of the United States denied that ISIS is a state. “What,” we might ask, “does a state do that ISIS does not now do?” And Carr was no less nonplussed when Secretary of State John Kerry denied that we were going to war against ISIS, resorted to euphemism, and asserted that what we are about to become engaged in is “a very important counter-terrorism operation.”

“Does that,” Carr asks, “make it … a police action? Will we have to destroy the village in order to save it?”

It’s all very confusing. When George W. Bush considered invading Iraq without a declaration of war, the Democrats wanted to try him for war crimes in The Hague. When Obama does the same thing … crickets.

Which raises another question: Where exactly is the anti-war movement?

Have you see a single “No Blood for Oil” sign in Cambridge?

To paraphrase the John Kerry of 2004: “Can I get me a candlelight vigil here?”

Whatever happened to Cindy Sheehan? Where is Code Pink? I haven’t seen an “EndLESS War” bumper sticker in years, since 2009 to be exact.

The anti-war movement is MIA as this war, er, counter­terrorism operation, begins. Back when Bush was waging war, dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Now it’s “racism.” If you speak truth to power in the Obama era, they call it hate speech. The IRS will audit you.

Obama’s media sycophants described his prime-time speech as “nuanced.” I’d call it ragtime.

I thought the moonbats didn’t want the U.S. “going it alone.” You hear that phrase on the networks now about as often as you hear the words “full employment.”

And why is the president so outraged about a couple of beheadings? When a Muslim terrorist yelling “Allahu akbar!” murdered 13 servicemen at Fort Hood, Obama shrugged it off as “workplace violence.”

Now Obama’s suddenly “all wee-wee’ed up” about non-Muslim Muslims murdering Americans.

Flag-draped coffins at Dover AFB are no longer a feature of the nightly news. Remember Wolf Blitzer’s nightly trumpeting of Bush’s plummeting approval ratings?

Now the polls are so bleak for the Kenyan Katastrophe, CNN doesn’t even mention them anymore. . . .

Can I get me a “War Is Not the Answer” bumper sticker here? Not in Cambridge I can’t.

I quote Carr at length because his latest column is a tour de force. To be fair, however, Obama has attracted some criticism from the left. On Friday, Bruce Ackerman did write in The New York Times the following: “President Obama’s declaration of war against the terrorist group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria marks a decisive break in the American constitutional tradition. Nothing attempted by his predecessor, George W. Bush, remotely compares in imperial hubris.” And, in making his point, Ackerman rightly pointed out that Bush twice sought and got Congressional authorization for what he did when he initiated — let’s not kid ourselves — wars . . . in Afghanistan and Iraq.

There is, of course, this difference between George W. Bush and Barack Obama. The former invaded Afghanistan and Iraq on a calculation (right or wrong) that upsetting and reordering the status quo in those countries would make the United States more secure. The latter announced — and I emphasize the speech act because this President systematically confuses word with deed — that we would be bombing ISIS on a calculation that such an announcement might help his party in the November election.

Barack Obama really does have a strategy. But it has nothing to do with the security of the United States and its citizens. His aim, as he put it late in the presidential contest in 2008, is “to fundamentally change America.” That is why he called his administration The New Foundation. He has always regarded international affairs as a distraction from the revolution he wants to carry out here at home, and he has done abroad what he has done — killing Osama bin Laden, firing missiles at suspected adherents of Al Q’aeda, and the like — chiefly in order to fend off such distractions. He is not called No-Drama Obama for nothing.

But when the leaders of ISIS had James Foley and Steven Sotloff beheaded, they made of themselves a distraction that could not be ignored; and the speech delivered Wednesday night was a desperate attempt to fend it off and to rally the American people behind the President . . . and his party.

In thinking about all of this, we should not engage in tomfoolery. The United States has no military strategy in the Middle East. The men in uniform told the President that, in the absence of American boots on the ground, the situation was hopeless; and, mindful of the trouble that putting boots on the ground would cause him domestically, above all within his own party, he rejected their advice. What we saw on Wednesday night was another of Obama’s gestures. What we saw was a pose carefully calculated — executed by a poseur unexcelled.

So the question in my title is, in fact, legitimate. Is killing people via bombing strikes a war crime if it serves no larger strategic purpose, if it is a feckless act apt only to enrage against us those Sunnis who desperately fear the Shia, if it is a cynical maneuver aimed solely at improving the President’s standing in the polls? It is, after all, one thing to seek victory and another to engage in aimless mayhem.

Consider this. Why did the President not seek Congressional authorization? There is no question that Congress would have voted to approve military operations in Iraq and Syria. But, had the President asked for authorization, there would have been a problem. There is a faction in the Democratic Party — the faction that made Barack Obama, rather than Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Presidential nominee in 2008. Its most resolute members would have voted against the resolution; and the party split, which would have been bitter, would have further depressed Democratic turnout in November. With this President, domestic political calculations trump everything else.

Mark my words. We as a nation are in for further embarrassment. The chief reason why the Framers gave us a unitary presidency rather than a committee was that they recognized the need in foreign affairs for secrecy, vigor, and dispatch. What they did not foresee was that someday, in a fit of mad self-indulgence, we would elect and then re-elect a President who — in his hostility to the regime they established — would subordinate his handling of international affairs to his personal goal of destroying what they had built.

All of this is apt to end in tears — and not just for you and me. For short-term expedients — such as the half-hearted program outlined in Wednesday night’s speech — rarely, if ever, produce anything but further trouble. The war in Iraq and Syria really is a war of Barack Obama’s making. Had he kept a body of troops in Iraq to encourage Maliki to honor the arrangements he had worked out with the Kurds and the Sunni, Al Q’aeda in an even more malevolent form would not have made a comeback. Had he vigorously backed the secular reformers in Syria, Bashar al-Assad would have been ousted some time ago, and ISIS would never have secured a foothold. His fecklessness in the past is now, however, going to be compounded by his fecklessness in the present. We — and he — are bound to suffer further humiliation.

The President no doubt supposes that he will be able to extricate himself from the consequences of his folly by further speech-making. He is adept with his tongue, and our servile media will doglike come to the man’s aid. But, in this regard, Barack Obama is like the little boy who cried, “Wolf!” The time is coming when only the most slavish and shameless of his partisans will pay him heed.

There are 41 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  1. Thatcher

    Yes.

    • #1
    • September 12, 2014 at 4:41 pm
    • Like
  2. Member

    So the question in my title is, in fact, legitimate. Is killing people via bombing strikes a war crime if it serves no larger strategic purpose, if it is a feckless act apt only to enrage against us those Sunnis who desperately fear the Shia, if it is a cynical maneuver aimed solely at improving the President’s standing in the polls? 

    Michael Ledeen has a somewhat different view of the President’s apparent fecklessness, though I suppose he might agree with you about the President’s actions being a war crime, and he has a rather good source. The whole thing is worth reading, but here is the money quote: They DO have a strategy, but they prefer to appear indecisive. That’s because the strategy would likely provoke even greater criticism than the false confession of endless dithering.

    The actual strategy is detente first, and then a full alliance with Iran throughout the Middle East and North Africa. It has been on display since before the beginning of the Obama administration. During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Mr. Obama used a secret back channel to Tehran to assure the mullahs that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic, and that they would be very happy with his policies. The secret channel was Ambassador William G. Miller, who served in Iran during the shah’s rule, as chief of staff for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as ambassador to Ukraine. Ambassador Miller has confirmed to me his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign.

    • #2
    • September 12, 2014 at 5:32 pm
    • Like
  3. Member

    The Ledeen passage should have been italicized–sorry. After “money quote” it is all Ledeen. Was not able to edit.

    • #3
    • September 12, 2014 at 5:49 pm
    • Like
  4. Member

     What they did not foresee was that someday, in a fit of mad self-indulgence, we would elect and then re-elect a President who — in his hostility to the regime they established — would subordinate his handling of international affairs to his personal goal of destroying what they had built.

    Maybe, but they did take the precaution of making the Vice President the guy who came in second. Too bad about the twelfth amendment. I like to imagine Mitt Romney ensconced in Washington, where he could make a little trouble for the President, and serving as President of the Senate, where he could make a little trouble for Harry Reid.

    • #4
    • September 12, 2014 at 5:51 pm
    • Like
  5. Member

    Paul A. Rahe:

    The time is coming when only the most slavish and shameless of his partisans will pay him heed.

    I submit that time has long passed.

    • #5
    • September 12, 2014 at 5:55 pm
    • Like
  6. Member

    Is the Vietnam vibe I’m feeling for real, or just media spin? To wit:

    No “boots on the ground,” just “military advisers.”
    Air strikes in a neighboring country where insurgents take refuge.
    Trying to shore up a military that’s already proven itself incapable of defending the country against insurgents.
    Active involvement in selection of the leaders of an already unpopular government.
    An attenuated threat to national security, insofar as ISIS has yet to take any direct action against the U.S. (Albeit less attenuated than the domino theory.)
    A strategy devised by the “best and the brightest” (although in this case, just one man).
    No explicit Congressional authorization.

    I’m tempting to ask if we haven’t learned anything from Vietnam, but this reminds me that I’ve never formed final conclusions of what we were supposed to have learned. But I fear we’re making the same mistakes, or worse.

    Another irony is that Scott Simon interviewed Henry Kissinger on NPR last weekend, and mentioned that they would receive tons of hate mail from listeners for giving air time to a man involved in bombing Vietnamese forces in Cambodia. These critics will never see the parallel Obama bombing ISIS in Syria.

    • #6
    • September 12, 2014 at 5:58 pm
    • Like
  7. Inactive

    Paul A. Rahe:The time is coming when only the most slavish and shameless of his partisans will pay him heed.

    When Obama leaves office, he’ll be an allrightnik’s allrightnik. A member of the 0.01%. He’ll live someplace very nice, have the most awesome 24×7 security taxpayer money can buy. He’ll come out every so often to collect enormous speakers fees. Michelle will decamp with the girls and we’ll have another Bill & Hillary scenario. Life will be good. What does he care?

    Two jokers in the deck

    1. A true catastrophe (EMP over the BosWash corridor for example) before his clock runs out on 1/20/17

    2. A BushVGore in 2017 making it necessary for Obama to suspend the Constitution “temporarily”

    • #7
    • September 12, 2014 at 6:09 pm
    • Like
  8. Contributor
    Paul A. Rahe Post author

    These are excellent comments. I hope that other readers of the piece read them. For the record, I share Michael Ledeen’s fears.

    • #8
    • September 13, 2014 at 6:58 am
    • Like
  9. Inactive

    The debate rages on: Who is the real Barack Obama? So much has come to light over the past six years, yet somehow the puzzle still won’t fit. That in itself suggests there are pieces to this enigma still missing. And here I must stop abruptly lest I wander into the land of conspiracy. I will state for the record that whether the answer resides in malice or incompetence will be less a matter of debate than a general recognition that the cleanup will be a vast undertaking indeed.

    • #9
    • September 13, 2014 at 7:35 am
    • Like
  10. Contributor
    Paul A. Rahe Post author

    The Mugwump:The debate rages on: Who is the real Barack Obama? So much has come to light over the past six years, yet somehow the puzzle still won’t fit. That in itself suggests there are pieces to this enigma still missing. And here I must stop abruptly lest I wander into the land of conspiracy. I will state for the record that whether the answer resides in malice or incompetence will be less a matter of debate than a general recognition that the cleanup will be a vast undertaking indeed.

    Vast, indeed.

    • #10
    • September 13, 2014 at 7:42 am
    • Like
  11. Member

    I think the Dunning-Kruger effect explains this (Cornell University, 1999). This study showed an inverse proportionality between confidence and competence. Surprisingly, incompetent people are often overly confident about their abilities.

    Barack Obama is demonstrably the least competent POTUS in modern history. But he lacks no confidence in his abilities.

    So – I hesitate to label a brash, incompetent boob a war criminal.

    • #11
    • September 13, 2014 at 8:31 am
    • Like
  12. Inactive

    Paul A. Rahe

    Now Obama’s suddenly “all wee-wee’ed up” about non-Muslim Muslims murdering Americans.

    You know professor, that is probably the best we can expect from our boy-king. Some say that is an exaggeration, because in reality Obama is a toddler-king and we will have to change his dippers.

    • #12
    • September 13, 2014 at 9:49 am
    • Like
  13. Member

    jetstream:Paul A. Rahe

    Now Obama’s suddenly “all wee-wee’ed up” about non-Muslim Muslims murdering Americans.

    You know professor, that is probably the best we can expect from our boy-king. Some say that is an exaggeration, because in reality Obama is a toddler-king and we will have to change his dippers.

    And yet he has defeated the Republican party in two elections.

    • #13
    • September 13, 2014 at 1:19 pm
    • Like
  14. Thatcher

    Another example that EVERYTHING is a political calculation to Obama. I would argue that politically the riskiest thing for Bush to have done was invade Iraq. Agree or disagree with what was done, it seems obvious that Bush made many decisions based on what he believed was the right thing for the country’s security. Name me one thing Obama has done with the same motivation…..

    • #14
    • September 13, 2014 at 4:02 pm
    • Like
  15. Thatcher

    As for the missing anti-war protesters, my favorite Sept 11th tweet was by J.R. Salzman: “If you marched in anti-war protests under Bush, and are silent now, do an Iraq vet a favor and punch yourself in the face.”

    • #15
    • September 13, 2014 at 4:05 pm
    • Like
  16. Thatcher

    Concretevol:As for the missing anti-war protesters, my favorite Sept 11th tweet was by J.R. Salzman: “If you marched in anti-war protests under Bush, and are silent now, do an Iraq vet a favor and punch yourself in the face.”

    This is fantastic. I wish I had written it.

    • #16
    • September 13, 2014 at 6:16 pm
    • Like
  17. Thatcher

    Chris Campion:

    Concretevol:As for the missing anti-war protesters, my favorite Sept 11th tweet was by J.R. Salzman: “If you marched in anti-war protests under Bush, and are silent now, do an Iraq vet a favor and punch yourself in the face.”

    This is fantastic. I wish I had written it.

    Just reading it made my day!

    • #17
    • September 13, 2014 at 7:07 pm
    • Like
  18. Thatcher

    billy:

    jetstream:Paul A. Rahe

    Now Obama’s suddenly “all wee-wee’ed up” about non-Muslim Muslims murdering Americans.

    You know professor, that is probably the best we can expect from our boy-king. Some say that is an exaggeration, because in reality Obama is a toddler-king and we will have to change his dippers.

    And yet he has defeated the Republican party in two elections.

    Which is why this country is in such dire straits. We have a so-called “opposition party” that is afraid to actually oppose.

    • #18
    • September 13, 2014 at 7:13 pm
    • Like
  19. Member

    You got that right. The GOP is spineless.

    • #19
    • September 13, 2014 at 7:31 pm
    • Like
  20. Thatcher

    Paul,

    We are finally learning, everything he does is just pure grasping extreme left wing politics. This speech was a political stop loss. He was bleeding poll numbers and the mid-term is coming. There is finally a small number of journalists who on a daily basis will put Josh Earnest’s feet to the fire. Unfortunately, fox doesn’t have the IQ to report this correctly and NRO’s audience is brilliant but small. Breitbart has been covering things very well and maybe this is why they are resorting to the IRS audit. We need to push back and defend Breitbart.

    Paul I know this might bother you but our most likely ally in the next 52 days is Gd. Yes Gd will not allow Obama’s lies to hold. Events in the world will overtake him. We will win the election.

    Have faith.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #20
    • September 13, 2014 at 8:04 pm
    • Like
  21. Inactive

    Songwriter:You got that right.The GOP is spineless.

    You don’t need a spine to be a successful parasite. You just need a mouth and tentacles adept at collecting the scraps. New GOP motto: philosophic principles are for losers. And gosh darn it, Vern, there’s a heap ‘o cash to be made as a perennial loser.

    • #21
    • September 13, 2014 at 9:03 pm
    • Like
  22. Member

    @James Gawron-”

    Paul I know this might bother you but our most likely ally in the next 52 days is Gd. Yes Gd will not allow Obama’s lies to hold. Events in the world will overtake him. We will win the election.

    Have faith.”

    I hope so, but the Repubs aren’t even trying to stand for anything, even popular ideas such as allowing people to opt out of Obamacare. So even if they win the Senate, they will lack a mandate, so Obama will denounce them as a ‘do-nothing Congress,’ and Hillary, Cuomo or Warren will make that a campaign theme.

    • #22
    • September 14, 2014 at 2:14 am
    • Like
  23. Member

    @James Gawron-”Paul I know this might bother you but our most likely ally in the next 52 days is Gd. Yes Gd will not allow Obama’s lies to hold. Events in the world will overtake him. We will win the election.

    Have faith.”

    I hope so, but the Repubs aren’t even trying to stand for anything, even popular ideas such as allowing people to opt out of Obamacare. So even if they win the Senate, they will lack a mandate, so Obama will denounce them as a ‘do-nothing Congress,’ and Hillary, Cuomo or Warren will make that a campaign theme.

    • #23
    • September 14, 2014 at 2:16 am
    • Like
  24. Member

    Our son is a Marine in EOD. I didn’t fear his two deployments to Afghanistan because I thought highly of his command and knew how strongly he believes in his missions. He is fiercely protective of the guys who find the bombs they are called up to destroy. I never felt that he was cannon fodder. He will deploy again in 2015 – somewhere – and I dread it throughout my body. The people making decisions about his life and mission have no soul and think nothing about abandoning the people they purport to lead.
    I believe strongly that Obama and his cohorts are functioning on a level of such dysfunction that labels like war criminal do not fit well because they suggest action in a rational system. He and his cadre are not rational and we seem unable to accept the barbarity of our enemies at face value. The drive to totalitarian power is not new and never ends without aggressive response. Obama and his supporters will not go away nicely. I fear for our son.

    • #24
    • September 14, 2014 at 5:32 am
    • Like
  25. Thatcher

    TeamAmerica:@James Gawron-”Paul I know this might bother you but our most likely ally in the next 52 days is Gd. Yes Gd will not allow Obama’s lies to hold. Events in the world will overtake him. We will win the election.

    Have faith.”

    I hope so, but the Repubs aren’t even trying to stand for anything, even popular ideas such as allowing people to opt out of Obamacare. So even if they win the Senate, they will lack a mandate, so Obama will denounce them as a ‘do-nothing Congress,’ and Hillary, Cuomo or Warren will make that a campaign theme.

    TAmerica,

    If Harry Reid finally slips on a banana peel in front of everybody just the laugh alone will do the country good. I think loss of control of the Senate will do much more than that. Without Reid’s reign of terror many senior Democratic Senators will jump ship.

    I’m not predicting anything but it would be a whole new ballgame.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #25
    • September 14, 2014 at 7:02 am
    • Like
  26. Inactive

    I struggle here. Going to war is a serious business. A friend of mine sent me an E Mail criticizing Obama for his handling of this and suggesting that it was timed to distract us from all of the other Obama messes we are dealing with. This friend is very rational and very smart but I disagreed with him.

    My response to his E Mail was that all I wanted was to see this thing done well. I think Obama is a disaster but I hope against hope that he will prosecute this well because of the lives involved and the devastating consequences of doing it poorly.

    That said…there is a point to be made here that for all of the criticism leveled at Bush for his handling of Iraq, when you hold Obama to the same standards he holds up poorly. If Bush is a war criminal then so is Obama…plain and simple.

    But let’s not dwell on this. War…even if you don’t call it that…is serious business. We risk sounding petty if we take our eye off the main point here.

    We need to do this well and be successful. Those who are looking for an opportunity to criticize Obama will get ample opportunities over the next couple of years. Legitimate opportunities.

    • #26
    • September 14, 2014 at 7:21 am
    • Like
  27. Inactive

    GWB an angel and Obama a devil, sorry I am not buying it. I think GWB tends to view himself as a member of a family that rightfully is part of an “American Aristocracy”; and that he therefore has a duty and privilege of serving others and this service must be as some sort of wise leader and that anything less would be below the dignity of the family. Obama on the other hand tends to view himself as a member of an oppressed minority whose time has arrived and it is his duty to transform a flawed society. He, like Bush, must assume the role of wise leader and that anything less would be below his, not his families, dignity. I don’t know which I find more distasteful, but I have come to view both as little more than incompetent buffoons. Bush was asleep prior to 9/11 and after that managed to get another 4K Americans killed and 30K Americans wounded by terrorists. Obama may well surpass these numbers. At this point I would settle for competence and frankly don’t care if the person who delivers it is wearing a white or black hat.

    • #27
    • September 14, 2014 at 7:46 am
    • Like
  28. Inactive

    I think the reason Obama does not want a declaration of war is because he wants the ability to get out. When it is a war he has to promote, wage, and prosecute that he is solely responsible for, there is no going back except to achieve the final objectives. So Obama wants to strike ISIS because he knows the political pressure is so bad that he has to. I don’t think Obama wants to do anything about the fact that two of our citizens have been beheaded by this group. He would prefer to let Holder try to arrest these guys for these beheadings. The problem is that ISIS is taking mass swaths of territory in a region that he claimed he withdrew and ended the war in responsibly. So he is between a rock and a hard place. He is completely anti-war but is being forced to do something about ISIS. So he wants the ability to look like he is doing something and having the authority to take a stand or look like he is taking a stand for political purposes without actually taking a stand. This is like his drone policy. He withdraws our presence and real diplomacy and alliance building in the region, and ups remote control drones so he can be a neo-isoloationist without looking like one. He would prefer to do nothing in the Middle East but he can not do nothing. The question now is whether he can be pushed into committing and take responsibility for a full blown war. He is going to try to get away with doing nothing while looking like he is doing something for the next two years. I don’t think he can make it. I think he will be pushed into a full blown prosecution of a war against ISIS. When airstrikes turn out to be not viable by themselves and other countries pull back because they see no progress being made, he will have to explain it and do more. So this is a real pickle he and the country is in.

    • #28
    • September 14, 2014 at 9:46 am
    • Like
  29. Contributor
    Paul A. Rahe Post author

    TheChuckSteak:I think the reason Obama does not want a declaration of war is because he wants the ability to get out. When it is a war he has to promote, wage, and prosecute that he is solely responsible for, there is no going back except to achieve the final objectives. So Obama wants to strike ISIS because he knows the political pressure is so bad that he has to. I don’t think Obama wants to do anything about the fact that two of our citizens have been beheaded by this group. He would prefer to let Holder try to arrest these guys for these beheadings. The problem is that ISIS is taking mass swaths of territory in a region that he claimed he withdrew and ended the war in responsibly. So he is between a rock and a hard place. He is completely anti-war but is being forced to do something about ISIS. So he wants the ability to look like he is doing something and having the authority to take a stand or look like he is taking a stand for political purposes without actually taking a stand. This is like his drone policy. He withdraws our presence and real diplomacy and alliance building in the region, and ups remote control drones so he can be a neo-isoloationist without looking like one. He would prefer to do nothing in the Middle East but he can not do nothing. The question now is whether he can be pushed into committing and take responsibility for a full blown war. He is going to try to get away with doing nothing while looking like he is doing something for the next two years. I don’t think he can make it. I think he will be pushed into a full blown prosecution of a war against ISIS. When airstrikes turn out to be not viable by themselves and other countries pull back because they see no progress being made, he will have to explain it and do more. So this is a real pickle he and the country is in.

    I agree entirely. Obama’s aim is to fend off what he regards as a distraction. Like his original statement on the IRS scandal, his recent speech was an empty and cynical gesture.

    • #29
    • September 14, 2014 at 10:05 am
    • Like
  30. Contributor
    Paul A. Rahe Post author

    liberal jim:GWB an angel and Obama a devil, sorry I am not buying it. I think GWB tends to view himself as a member of a family that rightfully is part of an “American Aristocracy”; and that he therefore has a duty and privilege of serving others and this service must be as some sort of wise leader and that anything less would be below the dignity of the family. Obama on the other hand tends to view himself as a member of an oppressed minority whose time has arrived and it is his duty to transform a flawed society. He, like Bush, must assume the role of wise leader and that anything less would be below his, not his families, dignity. I don’t know which I find more distasteful, but I have come to view both as little more than incompetent buffoons. Bush was asleep prior to 9/11 and after that managed to get another 4K Americans killed and 30K Americans wounded by terrorists. Obama may well surpass these numbers. At this point I would settle for competence and frankly don’t care if the person who delivers it is wearing a white or black hat.

    Whether, in your anger at GWB, you know it or not, your description of the man confers on him high praise. We need wise statesman dedicated to public service, and Bush did indeed have the country’s long-term interests in mind. Whether he was sufficiently prudent and wise can be debated. This country may no longer have the staying power to accomplish what he had in mind. BHO inherited a victory and turned it into defeat. Having sown the wind, he is now inheriting a whirlwind.

    • #30
    • September 14, 2014 at 10:11 am
    • Like
  1. 1
  2. 2