In many respects, but particularly in military matters, President [sic] Obama is a Lilliputian standing on the shoulders of giants, namely George Bush and Ronald Reagan (a Giant among Giants).
The termination of Bin Laden is an unqualified success and should be celebrated, and mr. Obama deserves some credit for the action. But it is very clear even to the Liberal media that the ruthless path chosen by Dick Cheney and George Bush created the ability for a future President to strike.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Wednesday declined to rule out that enhanced interrogation techniques helped lead the government to Osama bin Laden… ”The fact is, is that information was gathered from detainees,” he continued. “We have multiple ways of gathering information: from detainees, from different methods that we have of getting information. <source>
From a story on National Public Radio:
Among those who provided information while under CIA control was Hassan Gul, a senior al-Qaida operative from Pakistan. According to the detainee documents, Gul told interrogators that Kuwaiti traveled with bin Laden. A senior U.S. official says the information Gul provided was key to identifying Kuwaiti as bin laden’s courier…
A 2005 document indicates that Gul was one of the CIA detainees subjected to “enhanced interrogation techniques.” <source>
It’s quite clear that the ruthless path has been vindicated by the Bin Laden action.
This episode reminds me of Obama’s celebratory ‘we’re getting out of Iraq now that we have fulfilled our commitment there‘, which of course was a plan of action made possible by the Bush Surge, a military strategy and policy that Obama vehemently opposed, as did most of Washington DC’s power elite. Here is one of many Obama statements regarding President Bush’s proposed Surge before it was implemented:
I don’t think the president’s strategy is going to work. We went through two weeks of hearings on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; experts from across the spectrum–military and civilian, conservative and liberal–expressed great skepticism about it. My suggestion to the president has been that the only way we’re going to change the dynamic in Iraq and start seeing political commendation is actually if we create a system of phased redeployment. And, frankly, the president, I think, has not been willing to consider that option, not because it’s not militarily sound but because he continues to cling to the belief that somehow military solutions are going to lead to victory in Iraq. Barack Obama, 1.23.07 <source>
“Phased redeployment,” as in turning tale and running away. Nice, Barry. Very presidential.
Just as Obama said, President Bush was not willing to consider “phased redeployment” (surrender) and did in fact embrace with conviction (not “cling to”) the belief that military solutions would lead to victory.
In fact the Surge worked, and proved Obama and all the others not just wrong, but horribly wrong.
Mr. Obama then lucked his way into the White House and enjoyed acting presidential regarding our troop withdrawal from a more secure Iraq.
Finally, all Presidents since Reagan have been playing with a military that was radically restored and rebuilt by the Great One, Ronald Reagan. Once again, a policy that at the time was hated and vilified by Democrats — the “600 ship Navy” / Reagan Defense Buildup — turned out to be prescient and very much needed by every President since then, including Barry. Reagan had to increase the Federal deficit to rebuild the military, and he did so knowing that the investment was worth every penny. And who opposed spending every penny? Democrats. And yet here we are, still secure and still able to project force in a dangerous world.
Barack the Lilliputian needs to kiss the steel toes of Bush and Reagan, and he won’t need to bow down to do it from his Lilliputian height.