I’ll have more to say on this tomorrow. George W. Bush responding to a question from Brit Hume on Fox News Sunday today … would the nation be in danger if the next president did not have all interrogation tools at his disposal? The president’s answer is critical and I think Obama understands this already.
So what makes me so sure Obama understands? See this post from today.
There’s one other factor to consider … and a tough act for the Obama administration to follow, especially given the above information. George W. Bush has kept America safe. No that’s not me saying that … it’s Tom Friedman.
Loading ...
Yeah, more torture, more of the same BS. How about all of the innocent Iraqis that are dead because of your action Mr. Bush? What makes your cause so just?
I give President Bush a lot of credit for keeping us safe. His presidency has been far from perfect, but it will be hard to top his record when it comes to keeping us free from attack. Once in a while, you have to take extraordinary measures to get the information needed to keep us safe, but I don't believe these represented torture.
President Bush did answer the question, unlike many other current or former political leaders who would not have done so.
Sorry, Rick-you're wrong
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/White_House_Increas…
Chris if that's the best you got … you gotta do better. The Rand figures reflect both the increase in violence in Iraq and Afghanistan. The numbers are to be expected. We are at war, although recent figures reflect the lowest number of deaths since the conflict began. Still the question addressed here is whether there has been another attack on the US since 9/11. The answer is no and that can be directly attributed to the President's surveillance and interrogation tools put in place. This will indeed be a tough streak to continue for the new President should he decide to discontinue these policies. In short Chris … Rick is right.