And I happened to stumble upon a media lap-dance Republican Stooge Fred Barnes gave to President Bush over at the Weekly Standard, back in September 2006. Now mind you, this is a mere two months before the GOP got shellacked in the mid-terms, and perhaps when Osama was hunkering down in his compound in Abbottabad.
Here is the entire first paragraph:
WE NOW KNOW WHY the Bush administration hasn't made the capture of Osama bin Laden a paramount goal of the war on terror. Emphasis on bin Laden doesn't fit with the administration's strategy for combating terrorism. Here's how President Bush explained this Tuesday: "This thing about . . . let's put 100,000 of our special forces stomping through Pakistan in order to find bin Laden is just simply not the strategy that will work."Oh, well then. That's why Bush didn't make Osama the main goal: Because it didn't fit his strategy. In other words, he picked this strategy because it fit his strategy. Right. That explains everything. Of course, if I got paid what Fred Barnes got paid, I'd probably report drivel like that, too.
And of course, as it turns out, it didn't take 100,000 special forces stomping around. But who's counting.
Find Terrorists ??? Profit
Bush then goes on to impart his knowledge on combating terror warfare. It's a surprise West Point doesn't invite him over to lecture on the topic.
The way you win the war on terror is to find people [who are terrorists] and get them to give you information about what their buddies are fixing to do.Really? That's what we needed to do to win?
Let's make a checklist:
Get Their Information
Find More Terrorists
Of course! That's what we needed to do: Find terrorists so they can help us find more terrorists. Wow, it's so simple! I can't believe it didn't work. Because we all know there's a finite number of terrorists, and once you've found them all, you win!
And here's one for you:
It's really important at this stage . . . to be thinking about how to institutionalize courses of action that will enable future presidents to gain the information necessary to prevent attack.How to institutionalize courses of action. Indeed.
Fortunately, Fred decodes this into human speak, writing:
This, presumably, would include the use of secret prisons, tough but legal interrogation techniques, a ban on lawsuits against interrogators, electronic eavesdropping, and monitoring of bank transfers, among other measures.But of course, by "legal interrogation," they mean as they define what's legal; making the word "legal" entirely superfluous.
And, what? Ban on lawsuits against interrogators? What the hell for? Of course you should be able to sue your interrogator. After all, if he didn't do anything wrong, he shouldn't have anything to worry about, right?
Fight the Aura!
And here's perhaps the saddest part:
I know exactly what's in the news. I listen to a lot of people. I've got smart people around me. And they can march right in here--this Oval Office can be slightly intimidating, but I've got people here who can fight through the aura and say, 'I think you're wrong. I think you're right.'Hear that? He's got smart people. People who can fight through the aura to tell him he's wrong as well as when he's right. Well, that's good to hear. Because I've long had trouble with people who were simply incapable of fighting my aura to tell me when I'm right. It's good to know he didn't suffer that problem..
Of course, you read stuff like this and you start to wonder...
At the outset of the interview, which occurred the morning after his speech to the nation on the fifth anniversary of 9/11, Bush declared: "I've never been more convinced that the decisions I made are the right decisions."...perhaps they didn't fight enough.