During the Bush years, when the fight against Islamic terror was still relatively new, big newspapers and other media outlets raced to publish or broadcast major state secrets of the war.  The New York Times splashed all over its front pages the secret of the warrantless wiretapping of suspected terrorists.  They and other papers published on Page A1 the secret of the black sites abroad, including the names of the countries that were helping us covertly detain terrorists.  They published the details of the enhanced interrogation techniques we were using to extract life-saving information from top al Qaeda terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.  USA Today
published a memorable piece detailing the specifics of the SWIFT program to track terrorist financing.

When these stories broke, most Americans were outraged at the lack of journalistic responsibility.  How dare these left-wing outfits publish secrets that would likely empower our enemies with high-value information and endanger American lives?  Normal Americans were aghast.

But the nutcases on the Left are not normal.  They were so consumed with Bush Derangement Syndrome that they were automatically opposed to everything he did and were willing to imperil the nation in order to hurt him. National security was way down the list of priorities.  The Bush White House begged these papers not to publish these state secrets, for fear of enhancing the enemy’s intel.  The papers told the White House to take a hike.

The Left elsewhere cheered the Times and the others.  They were simply doing their patriotic duty, you see: informing the public of the evils of the Bush administration.

Of course, it would have been their journalistic and patriotic duty to inform the public of the evils of the ACTUAL ENEMY, but I digress.

(more…)

Click to Play

Afghanistan and McChrystal top the conversation this week as Rob Long and Peter Robinson are joined this week by columnist James Lileks, John Yoo, and Victor Davis Hanson. Well, not all the time. Peter does manange to wedge in some discussion of soccer too. Questions? Comments? Join the conversation at Ricochet.com or write us at podcast@ricochet.com.
Run Down:

5:04 — James Lileks
25:55 — John Yoo
30:15 — Victor Davis Hanson
1:07:15 — Close

WASHINGTON (AP) – President Barack Obama ousted Gen. Stanley McChrystal as the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan on Wednesday, saying that his scathing published remarks about administration officials undermine civilian control of the military and erode the needed trust on the president’s war team.

Obama named McChrystal’s direct boss—Gen. David Petraeus—to take over the troubled 9-year-old war in Afghanistan. He asked the Senate to confirm Petraeus for the new post “as swiftly as possible.”

The president said he did not make the decision to accept McChrystal’s resignation over any disagreement in policy or “out of any sense of personal insult.” Flanked by Vice President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in the Rose Garden, he said: “I believe it is the right decision for our national security.”

Obama hit several gracious notes about McChrystal and his service, saying that he made the decision to sack him “with considerable regret.” And yet, said he said that the job in Afghanistan cannot be done now under McChrystal’s leadership, asserting that the critical remarks from the general and his inner circle in the Rolling Stone magazine article displayed conduct that doesn’t live up to the necessary standards for a command-level officer. (more…)

Last week, Congresswoman Giffords met with General Patraeus on Capitol Hill. This meeting took place after we have lost over thirty American soldiers in Afghanistan this month. The burning question on Ms. Giffords’ mind was: what are we doing to “green” our bases?

This is a disgrace. Ms. Giffords sits on the House Armed Services Committee and yet seems to be unaware of the ever-changing and deteriorating situation in our longest war ever – Afghanistan. Instead, she used that meeting for political grand-standing to please the Obama Administration.

(more…)

From the Associated Press:

President Barack Obama’s homeland security and counterterrorism adviser said Sunday that authorities believe the Pakistani Taliban was behind the attempted bombing at Times Square.

White House adviser John Brennan said that while the investigation is ongoing, it appears that accused bomber Faisal Shahzad was working for the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, or TTP. The militant group is believed to be hiding senior al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden.

Brennan said the finding “underscores the serious threat that we face from a very determined enemy.”

(more…)

Conservatives need to be wary of the notion that General David Petraeus – or, for that matter, any other general or admiral – is necessarily the answer to their fervent prayers for victory in 2012.  GEN Petraeus is a true hero, an awesome leader and a great American whom every citizen owes a debt of gratitude.  But politically, he presents an ideological blank slate upon which many on the right are merely projecting their hopes and aspirations.  For several reasons, GEN Petraeus is likely to disappoint them.

The most obvious reason is that GEN Petraeus himself has repeatedly and unequivocally rejected the idea of ever running for public office.  Cynical observers routinely discount such disclaimers, but there are several reasons to believe that he really means it.  As the commander of CENTCOM, responsible for both Iraq and Afghanistan, GEN Petraeus has a full plate and a mission he has not yet completed.  He is committed to the mission, and has worked for its success for nearly a decade (I have not worked for GEN Petraeus personally, but I have close friends who have worked directly for him – to the point of receiving emails from him at home at odd hours after their return to civilian life – and they uniformly deeply respect him).  He was also diagnosed with prostate cancer.  But the most powerful evidence against a possible run is that he has said he would not run.  Unlike many in the political arena, his word and a dollar are together worth more than 100 cents.

But assuming he could be enticed to run – say, if he was absolutely convinced that the good of the nation depended upon it – what then?  His storied military career and his ability to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat in Iraq via “the Surge” have fueled speculationabout whether he can follow in Eisenhower’s footsteps from the command post to the White House.  Like Ike, GEN Petraeus would probably be most comfortable as a Republican.  He was registered in the GOP before 2002, when he stopped voting.  The American Enterprise Institute recently honored him.  And he doesn’t seem like he would have much use for defeatists and pacifists, social parasites or the unbelievably corrupt, so he couldn’t be a Democrat.

(more…)