I don't buy it. Obama is not a captive victim. Hersh is doing him a solid, by pretending that he is.

The Generals, Stan and Mike, know the 'ole Predator flies over their heads too, just like Omar's head.

Video not working, at least for me.

Obama isn't a captive victim, he's a willing victim.

Sorry 'bout that, video should be working now.

Working fine now, thanks. I notice Hersh didn't actually answer the question, or at least in that clip.

Nice to see Mike Meyer is back from sabbatical.

Wow, Hersh didn't say Obama deserved the Peace Prize. And I wouldn't call "following the policies of Bush and Cheney almost to a fare-thee-well" and letting the military "dominate" him such high praise for Obama that poor old unreliable Sy deserves a thrashing.

By the standards of LBJ, Nixon, Kissinger, Poppy Bush, W, and Cheney (and Reagan, to the extent he was sentient). Obama isn't much of a liar. His ears wiggle when he lies.

Hm. That's like saying that Reagan wasn't much of a liar because his lips moved when he lied.

And would peace with the Taliban really work? What about Malalai Joya or Rawa in this situation?

It amazes me that people believe that Obama might have any political convictions, apart from the notion that being president is swell. BHO seems to have a keen instinct for who butters the bread, and hones in on that, like with the healthcare industry.

As far as ongoing US militarism goes, I assume Obama filters everything through the prism of what will make him look stronger and involve the least personal risk. I think of our ATR host's frequent invocation of the difference between the sane and the insane overlords, and I see BHO as a guy who has determined that the soup of the day is crazy, and it's easier to buy or sell more of it than send it back.

THANK YOU, NE, it was my Florida Vacation is all.

Jonathan Versen: Agreed.

Jenny,

Why does the US state need to make peace with the Taliban?

Ronald Reagan's lips did not always move when he lied, but a whole lot of other lips often did.

Sigh. I wonder if we'll be seeing "When Obama Lied Nobody Died" bumperstickers.

Still, your latest apologia for Obama reminds me of Cokie Roberts's claim that Dubya wasn't "smart enough" to be a "serial exaggerator", so it was okay for the press to give him a free ride on his lies.

It doesn't matter whether Obama is as big a liar as Bush, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, etc. When Obama lies, people die.

"It doesn't matter whether Obama is as big a liar as Bush, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, etc."

It only matters if you want to understand what has gone on and is going on. Otherwise, you're right.

"So it is – and again for Obama, Iran's not resolved, in terms of, Iranians have come out of this crisis stronger than ever. We don't want to believe that"

Who the fuck is "we"?

"who the 'fuck' is we?"

Hersh is an insider and certainly considers himself one. He is speaking for himself and his regular sources, i.e., those in the military and intel world who think the hawks/jingoes/ hardliners/unilateralists/macho-men are still controlling policy too much, while they the smart, civilized mulilateralists with lots of friends in Europe and Japan and even the UN (gasp) know that we need to be smart about getting our way, and that it's a lot easier to corrupt or topple governments than just bomb the hell out of whole countries. (On the other hand, that can be really good for business sometimes too.)

"Jenny,

Why does the US state need to make peace with the Taliban?"

Because there is no one else to make peace with. the alternative is no peace. the ineveitable outcome of that is what we had in saigon in 75 and what the soviets had in afghanistan in the 80's

I repeat myself when under stress ... I repeat myself when under stress ...

N E: "It [i.e., Obama's comparative liar-ness] only matters if you want to understand what has gone on and is going on. Otherwise, you're right."

I'd say it's the other way around. If you want to understand what has gone on and is going on, fussing over who's the biggest liar is a distraction, especially when it's in the service of an agenda to prove that a particular President is different. And what a useful distraction it is.

That's a common pattern of evasion among liberals. First you claim that the present case is an aberration in some way, then when others show that it is part of a long-standing pattern, you accuse them of dwelling on the long-dead past instead of getting involved now. Other patterns include saying that the President is hamstrung by hardliners and misled by various Evil Boyars and we proles don't understand the pressures he's under (plus he knows so much more than we do), and then saying that voting is important and we should put lots of pressure on the President to make him change the course of action that he is supposedly helpless to change.

Duncan

I don't think the facts, whether about the present or the past, are a distraction. Lay bare your analysis and opinions and maybe just a few facts, such as you know them, to let us take measure of the source of your confidence. Anyone can call people Evil Boyars and be sarcastic. It doesn't take much time or effort or smarts or wit. Is there more behind the curtain?

Crackpot realism from N E:

It only matters if you want to understand what has gone on and is going on. Otherwise, you're right.

Read in context of the history of N E (and "Not Exactly") posta at ATR, the above quote means this:

It only matters if you want to create technical, hair-splitting distinctions without substance, in order to excuse Obama and the current Donklecongress.

Oh wait.

Have I once again missed N E's clever satire that just isn't there?

C F Oxtrot

Gee, there's so much to think about there I'll have to get back to you. Donklecongress is just as good as Evil Boyars.