The "Tortured" Defense of Obama's National Security Policy

The Provocateur ^ | 05/24/2009 | Mike Volpe

[fiscon1]

President Obama is really losing the debate over national security. One of the signs is that this is the only defense I have found of his policies, and his speech. Now, I don't read far left blogs like Daily Kos, the Huffington Post, and liberal favorite Salon so I am sure that there are defenses. That said, I have found very few in the so called MSM and since they are his cheering section and acolytes that is really saying something. Another good way to see just how badly the president is losing the debate is how tortured the defense of his policies are by his defenders. This piece, by Ruth Marcus, isn't the most tortured piece but its certainly up there.

First, Marcus lays out the three caricature positions that Obama's critics have accused him of being on national security: 1) a Bush clone 2) a dangerous and naive liberal and 3) a kinder and gentler Bush. Then, she spends the rest of the piece attacking each of these characterizations. By doing so, through the process of elimination, she tries to make the case that in fact President Obama is number 4) Obama inherited a minefield and is attacking it with pragmatism.

[arthurus]

The information obtained by “these techniques” is the problem. Hussein sees the techniques turning good men into traitors to the Cause. Courtroom conviction and imprisonment is much more satisfactory. Critical information isn’t given up and the conversion of convicts in prison will be accelerated and more efficient.