The Known World

We just finished reading The Finish: The Killing of Osama bin Laden by Mark Bowden. It's an OK book, but we took notice of Bowden's treatment of the three US presidents most connected to bin Laden. Here's how it breaks down. Bush generally gets the typical treatment given by a Liberal author....cowboy, bluster, mission accomplished, torture etc. Clinton gets neutral treatment. Obama - who granted the author lots of interview face time - is depicted as a thoughtful and decisive leader. To our reading Obama absolutely loves talking about how he makes these tough decisions and comes off as a narcissist. 

There are two small, but interesting points we will mention. The first concerns VP Biden. In one of his directives to subordinates, bin Laden argues against any Al Qaeda attacks on Obama because Biden would become president and bin Laden describes him as not up to the job! Also on Biden, it turns out that among all the many individuals who were asked to give their recommendation on whether or not to precede with the mission to kill bin Laden, Biden was one of only two who argued against it! Turns out bin Laden was right in his assessment.

The second point concerns Clinton whose main action against bin Laden consisted of lobbing a couple of cruise missiles which were unsuccessful. Most remember those actions. You may also remember a Fox News interview with Clinton in which Chris Wallace questioned Clinton's efforts to get bin Laden. Clinton ferociously lashed out at Wallace saying he had done all he could. It was definitely a "me thinks thou dost protest too much moment." Well, without mentioning Clinton by name, Bowden describes how a CIA bin Laden task force "presented the White House with eight such opportunities" to target bin Laden. According to one of the CIA principals involved "each time the strike was called off, primarily over concerns about collateral damage." No wonder Clinton is defensive. Oh, and he lies.


Weighty
Democrats are united on one point: For any legislation to reach the Senate floor, Mr. Obama will have to put the full weight of his office and bully pulpit behind it.

Without constant public pressure and a concerted effort to woo conservative Democrats, especially those up for re-election in red states in two years, there will be little impetus, numerous Democrats said, to move legislation along. Democrats also may be forced to decide whether to endure a lengthy legislative battle on guns at the expense of priorities like immigration. (NYT, 1/17/2013)

Wow, gun control legislation may fail because of....Democrats. We'll see how the media protects their own when push comes to shove.


Lovely
The media loved McCain, too; loved the way he publicly battled and undermined President George W. Bush; loved his maverick ways when those ways damaged the Republican Party. But where was all that media love when McCain really needed it? Where was all that media love when he became a candidate for president?

If Christie has any designs whatsoever on the presidency in 2016, he had best remember that the media only builds up Republicans who serve the left-wing agenda. But should you stop being useful, get all ambitious, and threaten a Democrat's path to power, the media will turn on you, without mercy. (John Nolte, Breitbart.com, 1/18/2013)

Very insightful warning to Chris Christie from John Nolte. Once the lovefest is over, they will go back to skewering him.


Pointless
At this point, “reform” proposals are all about things like raising the retirement age or changing the inflation adjustment, moves that would gradually reduce benefits relative to current law. What problem is this supposed to solve?

Well, it’s probable (although not certain) that, within two or three decades, the Social Security trust fund will be exhausted, leaving the system unable to pay the full benefits specified by current law. So the plan is to avoid cuts in future benefits by committing right now to ... cuts in future benefits. Huh? (Paul Krugman, NYT, 1/17/2013)

Moonbat New York Times Economist Krugman is back with a real doozy of a column. We'll spare you much of it because it is just so bizarre. (Deficits don't really matter!). The blurb above catches our eye because Krugman argues that there is no real reason to worry about impending entitlement program shortfalls because....well, they are so far in the future. That's a good approach...said the stork! And to those young parents worried about savings for Junior's college, don't worry, be happy. In Krugman's words, to save now, what problem is this supposed to solve?