“The more significant shortcuts are the public ones people can’t ignore. Churchill ordered the firebombing of Dresden just 12 weeks before the end of World War II. No one knows for sure how many civilians were burned alive, but tens of thousands surely were, in no small part to deliver a psychological blow to the Germans. If Churchill could have waterboarded a prisoner to avoid that — or stop the Holocaust — would one shortcut have been preferable to the other? Why? Or why not? Obama gives no sense he has an answer to such questions. You can ask the same questions about the shortcuts that flattened Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”

I don't recall if I came up with it, but we have a lot of good sayings in The U.S. :)

It is true, however, these people, on the far-left, are so on the fringes, that most people simply can not relate to their worldviews.

Do you know, this progressive movement started in The U.S. in the early 1900's? Not something I am proud of; I can't stand these Progressives! Over the years, they have so disrespected our Constitution, and via public school textbooks, have succeeded in semi-revising American history, in regards to our founding fathers, and some other historical events.

Basically, The Progressive moment invited such systems as Communism, Marxism, and Socialism, into our political system! It is like a cancer that has been growing, under the radar, for many years!

If you take away the obvious atrocities, committed by Mao, Stalin and Hitler etc., there are very striking similarities between Progressive (far-left liberal) policies, and those dictators, who "radically" attempted to alter the social landscapes in their countries.

"It is a déjà vu from the 60s, when the hippies were rebelling…"

Interesting you should say that! While I love the music of the sixties, and some good things did come out of the sixties, I have recently learned, that many of these aforementioned systems, were also a very big backdrop, in the sixties movement. In fact, there are now several elected officials in (The Democrat Party) Congress, who have come directly from the sixties movement.

"for I really want everybody to have his or her own opinion and feel how that fits in with their culture."

I am somewhat of a Libertarian as well, and in The United States Constitution, we have The Tenth Amendment, which basically says, any powers not given to the federal government, are reserved for the states, and the people. However, these people have been successful at pushing their agendas to the national level; and in a nation that was discontent over The Bush Administration, sadly, and overwhelmingly, the people just decided to vote for The Democrat Party; and out of the woodwork came these Progressives, who gained much power in Congress, and in The White House! It is very disconcerting, to say the least!

Thankfully, there is real momentum in the states to re-establish their state sovereignty, which would reject most of these far-left policies! Hopefully, in the near future, we can eradicate these nuts from our federal government! Perhaps that is the silver-lining… Now that these far-left politicians have had a chance to, so irresponsibly, govern our nation, it has galvanized this nation so much, that the change, likely needed, for many years, is now gaining momentum. Hopefully it will not end in a second American Revolution… if it does, then so be it!

–

In The United States, the (our Constitution) system our founders developed: for many years, gave the people of this country, maximum freedom, with limited government. The far-left believes in a strong, centralized, and often, authoritarian government.

Our former President, Ronald Reagan, once said these words…

"as government expands liberty contracts"

Those five simple words could serve as a formula (foundation) for any people who want maximum freedom, while acknowledging that some form of (order) government is, a necessary evil.

Yes I was referring to those Progressives. It strikes me that so many young people feel they belong there. It is a déjà vu from the 60s, when the hippies were rebelling against their parent, just for the power-boost that gave them, only this time they really seem to believe in the carrot dangling in front of their faces. That worries me, for I really want everybody to have his or her own opinion and feel how that fits in with their culture. But this time we are talking about the same culture (hopefully). So there must be a logical mistake in their (or our?) reasoning somewhere. The duality drives me into the core of my thinking (and I am blogging about it).

"…the marketing of policy by state controlled media. The president is not the person in power; the leftist elite is."

Indeed, we have our share of left-leaning, elitist, media organizations as well; however, they are, thankfully, folding like lawn chairs. Foxnews, which is more center-right, is doing better then ever. I have watched Foxnews since September of 2001, and have found them to be a reliable source for hard  news. Do you know, a few months ago, President Obama, himself, went to war with Foxnews, but was easily defeated, as even many of the far-left, in this country, thankfully, still appreciate our 1st Amendment right to Free-Speech… Apparently more then The President, whose job it is to preserve, protect, and defend our Constitution.

In your comment, it sounds like you are referring to these Progressives? They drive me nuts! They seem more concerned with the protection and feelings of terrorists, then they do with the lives of the people they are (elected) hired to protect.

This whole culture of political-correctness does nothing except to jeopardize "innocent" people's lives. For whatever reason, after WW2, it seems like countries are no longer fighting wars to win, but rather to "win hearts and minds." I often say, "how about we first win the war," then concern ourselves with hearts and minds? After a while, this liberal-guilt, and political-correctness, really becomes intolerable!

“England, historically, is a country that is very familiar with terrorism on its soil, and they are a country that understood, sometimes, in extreme cases, you have to do things that may not be the most politically-correct, however, are in the best interest of their nation’s security.”

You’re talking about a country that existed 70 years ago. England does not condone or commit torture, and sees it as a criminal offence.  If you can find an example of a British citizen torturing in recent times that didn’t get prosecuted, lets hear it now so we can find them and bring them to justice.

The rule of law is not flexible, we honour our agreements. I find your speculation highly offensive as you’re clearly trying to use our country to justify something we find completely unacceptable, by referencing our past. We’re better now.

"You’re talking about a country that existed 70 years ago"

Hi, thank you for the comment!

I can assure you, we never set out to offend anyone, however, if you were offended, I can see how you would arrive at that conclusion.

This post had little to do with my opinion or thoughts on enhanced interrogation techniques;  therefore, it was your own speculation that lead you to believe that someone was using England's history to condone theses practices.

The actual spin doctor here is Barack Obama who was either misinformed or blatantly distorted England's history and Winston Churchill to make his case; we were merely pointing out that the president did distort history.

Now, I did use these words…

"England, historically, is a country that is very familiar with terrorism on its soil, and they are a country that understood, sometimes, in extreme cases, you have to do things that may not be the most politically-correct, however, are in the best interest of their nation's security.”

Therefore, if England has stopped with the use of enhanced interrogation techniques, I do apologize for "not knowing" that fact, and not pointing it out; but again, we were not pointing to England's past practices to condone anything. I assure you, we do not need to look to foreign nations to find where instances of these practices were used. In fact, it was pointed out that two of our past presidents, Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, both had to make very difficult and controversial decisions as well.

And I do not want any president to distort history in order to spin their policies. No nation needs to be ashamed of any thing in their past, if they will bring it into the open and make a topic of public debate, and let the wounds be healed. You simply can not bury history and pretend it never existed.

It is likely that most war time presidents that were successful at keeping their citizens safe, likely made some controversial decisions among their citizens. Again, what is the bottom line? In my opinion, the bottom line is, Great Britain prevailed, and had Hitler conquered Great Britain, today they may be saying…why didn’t Churchill do more?

I pray that we never have to look back, as a defeated nation, and ask our leaders, why didn’t you do more to protect us?

At first I thought is was interesting how the main stream media had failed to report on such erroneous information until I realized that media instead relies on the person submitting the information to provide accuracy, except when the information is not in line with the ideology of the person providing the report.

You’ve asked the right questions…did they take the president at his word, or were they satisfied with the answer, even if it was a false representation of history?

This is why I rely on sources such as Bill O’, and a “few” others that take getting facts very serious.

No matter who the president is, I would still call them out, if they are misrepresenting historical facts, especially when using history to try to state their case. 

Perhaps Obama was ignorant of the truth.

I would very much be interested to know what article the president used as his source.

there is always the possibility that he knew the truth and wanted to spin a world renowned hero.

And that is what really concerns me. Hopefully, when a president, and/or a media organization starts to get called out on things such as this, then they will lose credibility, and hopefully become more responsible in the future.

No matter what your feelings are on this issue, I would think that most reasonable people want the truth, so that they can make decisions for themselves, and not based on a spin machine.

Recently, a worldwide epidemic of incorrect information was printed by hundreds if not thousands of media outlets, even though there was no reliable source of credibility to the information. Most of them have since retracted and issued apologies, however, it is very easy to understand how the “if you repeat it enough” mantra works.

Perhaps Obama was ignorant of the truth; of course there is always the possibility that he knew the truth and wanted to spin a world renowned hero into an anti-torture supporter. Regardless of the reasoning or facts behind it, President Obama used incorrect information to paint a false picture of Churchill. The administration should follow the lead of the few media outlets that have since retracted erroneous quotes of Maurice Jarre and set the record straight; but then I suspect the cat that got out of the bag is spinning so fast now that the dizzying speed at which it is traveling around the world is faster than any media blitz could ever hope to overcome.

So much for honesty and integrity in reporting.