Tuesday, May 31, 2011

O'Reilly and Krauthammer: Palin Doesn't Know Enough About the World and History

Tonight on the O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly and Charles Krauthammer seemed to agree that Sarah Palin doesn't know enough about the world and history to be a good presidential candidate.

But it turns out they are the ones who seem to come up short.

When Krauthammer claimed that Palin had tweeted about him being "hoity-toity", O'Reilly didn't remember enough of his own recent interview history (December 2010) to correct the misstatement. Palin used the phrase not on Twitter, but in an interview with O'Reilly in which O'Reilly asked about those who criticized her Sarah Palin's Alaska series and hobnobbing with people like Kate Gosselin as not "presidential".

Also, Dr. Krauthammer opined that Palin would probably not run because "she has a future. Why would you jeopardize it by running now and losing?" Huh? Does the clearly brilliant Dr. Krauthammer remember Ronald Reagan? Richard Nixon?

Reagan didn't "jeopardize" his future by losing the 1976 Republican primary--against the incumbent Republican president no less. Not even in the sense that it was arguable that he hurt the party and its candidates by entering into a campaign against President Gerald Ford who was subsequently beaten by Jimmy Carter. This not only meant loss of the presidency for Republicans but downscale national and state positions as well.

Then there's Richard Nixon. He didn't just lose a primary campaign, he lost the 1960 presidential election. But that didn't make him unelectable. He came back to win the presidency twice--in 1968 and 1972.

One wonders why Krauthammer is not cognizant of these clear facts from recent (50+ years and 30+ years ago) political history.

A Palin run, far from being a one-time shot, is more like a no lose proposition. If she runs and wins, she wins. If she runs and loses, she learns valuable lessons to mount a future winning campaign just as Reagan and Nixon did.

Oregon Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts Honor Veterans

Thanks to the Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts who honor our veterans every Memorial Day by placing a flag at national cemetery grave sites where millions of veterans are buried all across the nation. This photo is at Willamette National Cemetery where over 100,000 vets are buried.

Go here to search for a gravesite locator for your honored, deceased veteran.

Monday, May 30, 2011

Mitch Daniels Could Have Beaten Obama But Not the Press

Mitch Daniels when asked if he thought he could have beaten Barack Obama in 2012:
"'Yes, I think so,' Daniels said Sunday on ABC's 'This Week,' adding, 'I mean, no one can know.'
But, he's got four daughters. And everyone knows what the press has done to Sarah Palin's daughters, not to mention her handicapped son.
"'We've got young women, three of them married not too long,' Daniels said, referring to his four daughters. 'They're looking forward to building lives, starting families and this was just a disruption that they were very, very leery of, and who wouldn't understand that?'

"When asked if those sentiments are a result of the current political environment, Daniels, who served in the administrations of former Presidents George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, said "If it weren't for the cheap shots and the, you know, personal unfairness that would, that would come with it, there's also just the inevitable loss of privacy, the security, all of that."
[emphasis added]
So much for the you-need-to-play-nice-with-the-press-as-Reagan-did in order to win. Mitch Daniels didn't get in the presidential primary race because he knew that no amount of sweetness toward the mainstream media would shield his family.

Rush Limbaugh nailed it. Either you have the courage to withstand withering, personal and family attacks if you're a Republican and trust to outlive the media lies, or you sit down--as George Will's main man, Governor Mitch Daniels, sat down. This is a national shame--a media shame.

Some conservative pundits, like the Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin, blame Palin for chiding the "lamestream" press. But, where is the serious criticism about the state of a national press that scares a capable political leader from entering the presidential primary because he knows the severe trashing his family will receive? Where are the conservative journalists decrying this as a severe body blow to our democracy?

Does Governor Palin have to do it all?

Sunday, May 29, 2011

Rush: Let's Ask the MSM Who Conservatives Should Pick in 2012

Rush Limbaugh on letting the media destroy Sarah Palin.
"You know, folks, we've already tried that route, now that I think about it. Calling the media, get Andrea Mitchell in here, we'll go and get Paul Krugman or Thomas Friedman, somebody in the New York Times, we'll get Chris Matthews in here, who else could we get? Take your pick, somebody from the Washington Post, go get Chris Cillizza, 'Who do you guys want? Who is it that we could nominate that you'll be the nicest to?' We've already done that. We've tried and that didn't work, either. We tried that 2008 with John McCain. See where that got us.
. . .
"I just can't get past this: 'Rush, the media has destroyed her. There's no hope. She's damaged goods, and average, ordinary people who are not even paying attention yet still think she's an absolute goof. We don't have a prayer. We gotta move on.' It just grates on me to acknowledge that kind of defeat. You may think it's just acknowledging reality, but it's defeat. 'Cause I was always under the impression here that one of our objectives is to not let the media do this to us.

"Now, I know that a lot of people think that they're the only ones who know what the media has done to Sarah Palin. But odds are if Vinny from Queens sees that the media has launched this search-and-destroy mission on her, a lot of other people probably have, too. At some point the media smear of anybody peaks. They either get 'em out of office or they don't. In Nixon's case, he was gone. But Palin is enjoying life. She's got this bus tour. That's why I said on Greta's show last night, 'Palin has learned to throw it right back at 'em.' You've heard the old adage, the best revenge is success. She's earning a good living. She's living life as she chooses, where she chooses. They are as angry that they haven't forced her into an insane asylum as anything else.

"At some point, folks, the smear of Palin has to peak. The smear of anybody has to peak. And the more people see her in relation to what they've heard from the media, the odds are more and more people are gonna realize they've been lied to. It's like when people meet me in person. Some of them are genuinely shocked. They're expecting me to be whatever they've heard the media portray me as. So at some point people are gonna realize the media has been lying about her. And I'm not making the case for it, because I don't know whether she's running. I'm not endorsing anybody right now. Vinny's not the first guy to say it, but when I hear people say, 'The media's destroyed her, Rush, we gotta move on,' it just bothers me. I thought that's what we're trying to prevent here along with many other things."
[emphasis added]
It's what happened both with Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 and George W. Bush in 2004 (and in the last year or so). The media lie was strong, but did not prevail.

H/T Josh Painter

Palin Makes the Media March to Her Drummer

Time's Jay Newton-Small:
Where does she go next? North –her staff will say nothing more. Political reporters have fanned out from Antietam to Gettysburg on Sunday afternoon in anticipation of her next potential stop. Congratulations, Sarah Palin, you have turned the Washington press corps into a bunch of paparazzi stalking your every move.

As Palin moves up the East Coast, ending her trip in politically important New Hampshire, the press seems poised to follow. I would say Palin’s goal is to torture the “lame stream media,” but there may be more going through her mind. In many ways, it’s a smart ploy. The frustration and time spent looking for Palin, only to have her say next to nothing, is driving the press wild. Even if it yields few stories, Palin still controls her own message by blogging the trip herself, and forcing everyone to check her website to see what she’s saying and where she’s going.
[emphasis added]
Too funny.

Palin and Bikers Honor Vets

Governor Palin:
There’s no better way to see D.C. than on the back of a Harley! My family may be used to snowmachines more so than motorcycles (though you couldn’t tell it with Todd driving a hog today with Piper on the back and with Bristol riding on the back of another bike). But whether you’re riding the open road or the frozen tundra, you’re celebrating a free spirit. What could be more American than that?

Today’s Rolling Thunder rally in DC is all about freedom. And it’s about duty and loyalty and service. The message heard loud and clear through the roar of tens of thousands of bike engines declared, “We will never forget our heroes left behind!” Truly, our POWs and MIAs honored today are America’s real heroes.

In addition to drawing special attention to POWs and MIAs, Rolling Thunder works to help all veterans, active duty service men and women, and military families in so many ways. Riding with these patriots today reinforced that we must do all we can to remind all Americans that we owe our freedom to our vets and to those missing and to those who made the ultimate sacrifice to make this the greatest country on earth. They deserve our debt of gratitude. It’s not the politician or the reporter who makes us free; it is the veteran.

One man who clearly understands this is Rep. Allen West, who was there today to honor our military. I really appreciated meeting him. Thank you for spending your day with the troops, Lt. Colonel West!
Meeting with Blue Star and Gold Star mothers this afternoon puts much into perspective. These beautiful families sacrifice so much for our freedom. This is what Memorial Day weekend is all about. Many of us this weekend are firing up the grill and enjoying time with our loved ones. Remember that we’re able to do that because someone else’s loved one is willing to lay it all on the line to defend our freedom. Someone is willing to re-deploy again and again far from home. Someone is willing to endure the blistering heat of Iraq’s deserts or the brutal cold of Afghanistan’s mountains. Someone is willing to put his or her own life on hold to make sure we’re safe. We never hear them complain, do we? And we never hear their families complain either. That’s what duty and service means. And Rolling Thunder’s commitment to them is what loyalty means.

I’m thankful Rolling Thunder keeps the mission of honoring our vets alive! For in doing so, they remind us what is good and free and worthy in America. So roll on, Rolling Thunder! Like Martin Luther King, Jr. said about the great struggle for civil rights, “we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream...”

Let’s roll on to honor our vets, to secure our blessings of liberty, and to fundamentally restore our proud America!

Friday, May 20, 2011

Palin, Obama and Netanyahu

Photos say a lot:

Looks like 2012 will be "game on" with support for and friendship with Israel being another major difference.

Monday, May 16, 2011

America's Elite Losing Moral Compass and Democracy

How do children learn honesty, kindness, self-sacrifice? Not by jettisoning religious training. How else week in and week out are children helped to personally apply even basic morality like the Ten Commandments?

When I lived abroad I noticed a big change when the economy worsened. The kids begging on the streets would say "thank you" for donations. That meant that a sector of society which trained their children in basic politeness was in deep economic distress. In normal times, children begging in the streets were from deeply disfunctional families and had not been trained to say "thank you".

It takes a lot of repetition and training for children to learn even perfunctory language like "please" and "thank you". How much more to learn basic morality and practice painful things like telling the truth and turning away from temptation.

But that basic, repetitive moral training isn't done in public schools anymore. Most children no longer get religious training from churches and synagogues. And it isn't done in most homes.

How many parents, even those who are religiously committed, take the time to talk to their children once a week, or even once a month, about the importance of truth telling, not taking things that aren't yours, or the need to show mercy and forgive those who have wronged you? A once a year talk when a child is caught lying or stealing isn't going to do it. Without daily or weekly family "devotions", only an institution with a core curriculum based on moral teachings bangs that message home consistently enough to have a real impact.

The political theory of the founders of American democracy required some means to instill morality and tame strong human passions that under other governmental forms were kept in check by top down governmental power or tyranny. Our Founders saw the necessary discipline and character development coming from a people with deep religious commitment. The Founders “created a country that . . . relies on faith as an indispensable support.” (Sarah Palin, America by Heart, p. 183)

America's elites, in giving up religious commitment and training, have also given up a moral and democratic society.

James Russell Mead weighs in;
"The religion gap between the elite and the rest of the country is a big part of the problem — and in more ways than one. I can’t help but notice that the abandonment of serious religion by most of the American elite has coincided with a massive collapse in both the public and private morality of the American establishment. Kids who weren’t raised in church or synagogue or mosque, who were taught that ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ were simplistic categories in a complex moral world of shades of gray, who were told that their highest moral duty was to be true to their inner passions, who were the first generation in American history to be raised in a Scripture-free educational medium, turn into self-indulgent, corner-cutting, self-centered adults.

"What a surprise! We raised a generation of bright kids without a foundation in religion, and they’ve grown up and gone to Wall Street. We never told them that the virtuous life was both necessary and hard, that character was something that had to be built step by step from youth, that moral weakness was both contemptible and natural: and we are shocked, shocked! when, placed in proximity to large sums of loose cash, they grab all they can."
H/T National Review's Jim Geraghty (Morning Jolt e-mail)

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

John Podhoretz and Stupid Conservatism

William Jacobson of Le-gal In-sur-rec-tion nails John Podhoretz for piling on and unnecessary roughness. Or what in normal parlance might be called stupid conservatism.
"Zero tolerance is my position on cheap shots at Sarah Palin from the right.

"I don't expect people to like her or support her, but piling on is unforgivable to me because it just feeds the mainstream media, entertainment industry, and left-blogosphere beasts who will turn with a fury on whichever candidate Republicans nominate.

"Which brings me to John Podhoretz's post at Commentary, Palin and the Curse of a Thin Skin, in which Podhoretz compares Palin's career to the drug addicted self-destruction of former Yankee Darryl Strawberry."

. . .

"So back to Podhoretz, here is the summary paragraph (emphasis mine):
'In some ways, the story of Palin is a story of temptation. Rather than sticking to her guns and deepening her political credentials and her knowledge base, she embraced her celebrity instead. And in doing so, she didn’t defeat her critics and enemies; she capitulated to them. Listen, it’s her life and her fortune and she is free to do what she wishes with it. And there’s no telling what the future holds for anyone in America. But she had and has more raw political talent than anyone I’ve ever seen, and, alas, as phenoms go, it looks like she is headed for a Darryl Strawberry-like playing career.'
"Podhoretz's explanation, much like that of Green, pays only passing attention to the unprecedented and relentless attacks on Palin since the moment she was nominated. Attacks joined in with glee from a broad swath of the media, and most importantly, the entertainment industry which to this day cannot resist mocking Palin.

"Rather than a thin skin, Palin showed a mental toughness which few if any politicians could muster in the face of the cultural, political and journalistic forces aligned against her from the get-go.

"By using the analogy of the Darryl Strawberry, who truly self destructed from drug addiction, Podhoretz not only uses a bad analogy, he piles on with a cheap shot.

"And I have zero tolerance for that."
Governor Palin has shown a mental toughness in the face of withering, unrelenting attacks not only on Palin herself (including supposed complicity in the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords) but on her children(!) as well. Palin has also been busy putting forth clear policy statements on everything from energy and health care policy and winning elections to national economic solvency and key parameters on when to use American military force.

Professor Jacobson is right that Palin has shown mental toughness when confronted with unprecedented personal attacks. She has also shown both mental toughness and acuity in focusing on public policy and how to lead the nation forward.

Interesting that Palin, who Podhoretz sees as having "capitulated" to her critics and enemies rather than "sticking to her guns and deepening her political credentials and her knowledge base", has been published in serious newspapers and journals like The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, National Review and USA Today--the latest article published just last December. Not to mention that her speeches, Facebook postings and even tweets are mined by top national journalists for political and policy content. Did Ronald Reagan get that kind of serious pre-presidential treatment? Or even Barack Obama on such a wide range of serious issues? Not a bad showing for someone who supposedly has "capitulated".

And why capitulation seems apparent to John Podhoretz just now, after a very successful speech in India, meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu, and clear annunciation of the Palin doctrine on use of U.S. military force, is anyone's guess.

Podhoretz deserved Professor Jacobson's (as well as Mark Levin's) smackdown. But, if he won't listen to them, maybe he should re-read his father, Norman's take.

Victor Davis Hanson: US Could Pay Down Trillions of Debt in 4-5 Years

Victor Davis Hanson sees a bright US future--even on debt.
"Our great crisis — astronomical debt — is one of will, not resources. We have the capital but not yet the sense of urgency to pay down our trillions, something we could do in a mere four or five years, without a traumatic loss of lifestyle, should the country find the courage to."
"[W]ithout a traumatic loss of lifestyle, should the country find the courage".


Step 1:
"In terms of energy, never have America’s fossil-fuel reserves been known to be more vast. For the first time in a half-century, inspired leadership really could make America 'energy independent' by full use of natural gas and methane, combined with increased oil, nuclear, and coal production."
Sounds like a job for "drill, baby, drill" President Palin.

Sunday, May 08, 2011

Don Surber: Obama lied, Osama died

Don Surbur:
Democratic Senator Barack Obama on Osama bin Laden: “as president, [I would] order a trial that observed international standards of due process.”

Well, the Navy SEALs captured Laden and killed same.

As I said on the night this was announced: “He’s dead. Good. No trial.”

But Barack Obama in 2007 insisted on a trial, didn’t he?

Where is the trial?

Where is the outrage from the left?

But thank God President Obama is doing what President Bush would have done — just kill the SOB.

No trial.

Still there is a danger.

On the campaign trail, Obama staked a trial for Laden as the high moral ground based on the fundamental principles of America.

Why just shooting the bastard would be unAmerican — at least according to candidate Obama.

Once again, our president has shown he has no morals — no scruples — no principles.

There are few things more dangerous than giving power to such a person.

President Obama’s full quote in July 2007 was, as preserved by National Review Online: “The first thing I’d support is his capture, which is something this administration has proved incapable of achieving. I would then, as president, order a trial that observed international standards of due process. At that point, do I think that somebody who killed 3,000 Americans qualifies as someone who has perpetrated heinous crimes, and would qualify for the death penalty. Then yes.”

Good for capturing Laden.

But Obama was elected in part on the promise of that trial. President Obama needs to explain that.

No one in the press will press that, which is why we blog.

V-E Day!

With deep gratitude to the troops who served (including my father and uncle) and especially those who gave their lives. And thanks to the Lord that evil was stopped and thrown down for a time in 1945.

Many years ago Dr. Frank Munk said that Hitler boasted, "Give me five years, and you won't recognize Germany!" Dr. Munk traveling in Germany just after the war thought as he looked upon destroyed German cities that Hitler was right.

Friday, May 06, 2011

When the Wicked Perish

When it goes well with the righteous, the city rejoices,
And when the wicked perish, there is joyful shouting.

Proverbs 11:10

Byron York: Obama Policy Hurting America's Image in the World?

Byron York via Twitter:
"What if Europeans become queasy with way bin Laden was dispatched? Will we hear worries that Obama has hurt America's 'image in the world'?"
The Germans are already restless.


Tuesday, May 03, 2011

The Palin Doctrine

From Governor Palin's speech yesterday:
"Our men and women in uniform deserve a clear understanding of U.S. positions on such a crucial decision. I believe our criteria before we send our young men and women—America’s finest—into harm’s way should be spelled out clearly when it comes to the use of our military force. I can tell you what I believe that criteria should be in five points.

"First, we should only commit our forces when clear and vital American interests are at stake. Period.

"Second, if we have to fight, we fight to win. To do that, we use overwhelming force. We only send our troops into war with the objective to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible. We do not stretch out our military with open-ended and ill-defined missions. Nation building is a nice idea in theory, but it is not the main purpose of our armed forces. We use our military to win wars.

"And third, we must have clearly defined goals and objectives before sending troops into harm’s way. If you can’t explain the mission to the American people clearly and concisely, then our sons and daughters should not be sent into battle. Period.

"Fourth, American soldiers must never be put under foreign command. We will fight side by side with our allies, but American soldiers must remain under the care and the command of American officers.

"Fifth, sending in our armed forces should be the last resort. We don’t go looking for dragons to slay. However, we will encourage the forces of freedom around the world who are sincerely fighting for the empowerment of the individual. When it makes sense, when it’s appropriate, we will provide them with material support to help them win their own freedom.

"We are not indifferent to the cause of human rights or the desire for freedom. We are always on the side of both. But we can’t fight every war. We can’t undo every injustice around the world. But with strength and clarity in those five points, we’ll make for a safer, more prosperous, more peaceful world because as the U.S. leads by example, as we support freedom across the globe, we’re going to prove that free and healthy countries don’t wage war on other free and healthy countries. The stronger we are, the stronger and more peaceful the world will be under our example."
H/T Sheya

Kudos to President Obama

Kudos to President Obama for making the bin Laden mission a "kill" rather than a "capture" mission, and for getting rid of bin Laden's body at sea. That showed understanding of the stakes involved and care for the lives of the Navy SEALs who killed bin Laden.

Most importantly, thanks to God for protecting the courageous men who successfully completed the mission.

Newspaper Circulation for March 2011

The Audit Bureau of Circulations report is out for March, 2011. Editor & Publisher* lists the top 25 along with the ABC warning that since print and digital circulation numbers have been merged (thus raising the average circulation number), direct comparisons with past totals should be avoided.
By total average circulation

1. Wall Street Journal; 2,117,796
2. USA Today; 1,829,099
3. New York Times; 916,911
4. Los Angeles Times; 605,243
5. San Jose Mercury News; 577,665 (including 370,126 from branded editions)
6. Washington Post; 550,821
7. New York Daily News; 530,924
8. New York Post; 522,874
9. Chicago Tribune; 437,205
10. Chicago Sun-Times; 419,409 (168,299)
11. Dallas Morning News; 404,951 (153,441)
12. Houston Chronicle; 364,724 (40,726)
13. Philadephia Inquirer; 343,710 (71,128)
14. Arizona Republic; 337,170
15. Denver Post; 324,970
16. Newsday; 298,759
17. Star Tribune; 296,605
18. St. Petersburg Times; 292,441 (17,249)
19. Oregonian; 260,248
20. Cleveland Plain Dealer; 254,372
21. Seattle Times; 253,742
22. Detroit Free Press; 246,169
23. San Francisco Chronicle; 235,350
24. Newark Star Ledger; 229,255
25. Boston Globe; 219,214
Even though Audit Bureau of Circulations warns against making comparisons, some can be made.

The Oregonian's 6 month total (now including e-circulation) went up 8.86% from print circulation alone in September, 2010 (from 239,071 to 260,248).

However, the total from a year ago is down at least 1.27% (assuming no digital circulation in March, 2010) from 263,600 in print circulation alone to the current 260,248 in combined print and digital circulation.

Also from Editor & Publisher the top 25 Newspaper Sunday Circulation figures:
By total average circulation

1. New York Times; 1,339,462
2. Los Angeles Times; 948,889
3. Washington Post; 852,861 (including 101,448 from branded editions)
4. Chicago Tribune; 780,601
5. San Jose Mercury News; 636,999 (400,129)
6. Detroit Free Press; 614,226 (133,883)
7. Houston Chronicle; 587,984 (75,842)
8. New York Daily News; 584,658
9. Denver Post; 519,838 (36,641)
10. Star Tribune; 516,134 (20,095)
11. Arizona Republic; 511,764
12. Philadelphia Inquirer; 488,287
13. St. Petersburg Times; 429,048
14. Chicago Sun-Times; 421,453 (170,545)
15. Cleveland Plain Dealer; 403,001 (60,318)
16. Atlanta Journal-Constitution; 391,815
17. Dallas Morning News; 375,100 (12,131)
18. Newsday; 362,221
19. St. Louis Post-Dispatch; 360,450
20. Boston Globe; 356,632
21. New York Post; 355,784
22. Seattle Times; 346,991
23. Baltimore Sun; 343,552
24. Newark Star-Ledger; 337,416
25. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel; 333,999

*Editor & Publisher usually only leaves its stories up for a short period of time. This information is also published by Jim Romenesko.
UPDATE: Rick Edmonds explains some of the new rules:
"Branded editions” are a new category being measured. These are versions of the paper, usually with a different nameplate and some distinct content. Several news organizations have embraced this way of selling their circulation story to advertisers, and it does result in a substantially higher total."
. . .
"Digital editions receive new treatment in several ways. Beginning with this report, ABC will differentiate “replica” digital editions, those that reproduce the print paper exactly, including ads, from “non-replica” editions like those sold on e-readers.

"The rules, in most instances, require that readers pay something for any digital edition counted, or, in the case of print subscribers, something extra. That raises the possibility that a single subscriber could be counted twice, three or four times if paying for access on several different devices.

"The pay-something rule (due for further modification in the period starting October 2011) presents publishers with a choice. They may still choose to grant print subscribers all-access to digital editions for free, as The New York Times and others are doing. But in that case, digital editions will count toward the average circulation totals only if users register and access them a given number of times per month.

"There are a couple of potentially controversial elements of the new system.

"So-called 'Sunday Select' and other programs distributing circulars to targeted non-subscribers have been widely adopted over the last several years and are popular with advertisers. Sometimes the ads come with a very condensed news report, sometimes not.

"But under the new ABC rules, even packets with no news content can count toward the verified total if those receiving the product have requested it. In other words, some circulation now will be an 'edition' with only ads.

"Another rule, actually in effect for 18 months now, allows papers to count as paid, copies for which someone has paid as little as a penny. In theory, this could lead papers to pad their numbers with many deeply discounted offers.

"However, that hasn’t happened and probably won’t. During the long gestation period for the rules, circulation came to be valued as a revenue source, while ad revenues were plummeting. Most papers have cut back on distribution to remote areas or putting copies in the hands of people only marginally interested. Such waste circulation is expensive to serve and of little value to advertisers."

Monday, May 02, 2011

Obama Okays NATO Bombing of Civilian Areas; Uses Enhanced Interrogation Information to Get Bin Laden

On Saturday we learned that President Obama was okay with NATO expansion of bombing in Libya to target "densely populated" civilian areas.
" . . . the campaign against Libya’s most densely populated areas raised new questions about how broadly NATO is interpreting its United Nations mandate to protect civilians."
Apparently winning a war (or kinetic military action) is more important than protection of civilians.

Yesterday we learned it's now okay to use information gained from enhanced interrogation techniques for important military projects--like finding and killing bin Laden. President Obama originally said such "torture" techniques were not necessary because the information could be gotten "in other ways, in ways that were consistent with our values".

Also from the President's statement last night, the "T" word (terrorist) seems to be back in fashion and "overseas contingency operations" is on hold, if not out.

It looks like President Obama is turning out to be more like President Bush than Candidate Obama as regards use of war tools. As Victor Davis Hanson has pointed out liberal regard for "civil liberties" supposedly violated under George W. Bush, was a liberal talking point not meant to be taken seriously as government policy.
"Likewise, the notion that “civil liberties” were sacrificed in the effort to stop Islamist terrorism increasingly is shown to be a liberal talking point, not a serious criticism of responsible wartime government. Barack Obama conceded that argument when he flipped on every pre-presidential critique he had made of George W. Bush’s protocols. At one time or another, Obama, as law professor, state legislator, senator, and presidential candidate, had ridiculed the Patriot Act, wiretaps, renditions, military tribunals, the Iraq War, Predator strikes, and Guantanamo.

"He ended up as president embracing them all, and even expanding some. I think he was quite confident that his liberal base, outraged by Bush’s supposed trashing of constitutional protections, would not much mind his own, inasmuch as civil-libertarian nitpicking was privately acknowledged as being as much of an advantage for outsiders as it was a liability for insiders. "
Except for the hypocrisy factor, this is a strengthening of U.S. military posture.

Wonder what the Nobel Peace Prize committee is thinking now.

H/T Tom Blumer - Newsbusters