The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Loose Canons

Killing Them Softly

By on 6.4.12 @ 6:08AM

Obama’s “kill list” tactic is assuredly doing nothing to win the war on terror.

(Page 2 of 2)

That reasoning doesn’t preclude the targeted killing of terrorists to interdict terrorist attacks against us or against our forces abroad. Such targeted killings are an essential part of fighting the war. But the president is using those strikes as an alternative to a decisive strategy that could lead to victory over the enemy.

Obama is a mass of varying principles and liberal emotions. He, and his worshippers in the media such as the Times, want to characterize his personal control of anti-terrorist drone strikes as moral, courageous, and risky. But this is the same president who refuses to recognize and deal with the Islamist threat that emanates from Iran, Pakistan, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. It is the same president who two years ago banned the use of the terms “Islam,” “jihad,” and even “Islamic extremism” from our national security strategy documents. And it is the same president who is doing everything in his power to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

If Obama is reelected, we can expect more and less of the same. He may not continue his once-secret program of drone strikes because his beliefs do not permit it and his leftist constituency — even including the Times — says that the program is untenable in the long term. Part of the rationale for the program is to interdict terrorist attacks on our forces in Afghanistan. Once those forces are withdrawn, that rationale will disappear but the terrorists, the nations that support them, and their ideology won’t.

Obama will do less, not more, in a second term to defeat the continuing threat of the Islamist ideology and the terrorism it requires.

Page:   12

About the Author

Jed Babbin served as a Deputy Undersecretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush. He is the author of several bestselling books including Inside the Asylum and In the Words of Our Enemies. You can follow him on Twitter @jedbabbin.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (71) |

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.4.12 @ 7:20AM

Obama is a dog and pony show and the pony has left the barn.

Von Mises Jr| 6.4.12 @ 7:56AM

And the dog is being eaten by the Iranians.

c. j. acworth| 6.4.12 @ 8:03AM

I thought Obama was the dog-eater.

Von Mises Jr| 6.4.12 @ 8:15AM

Have you seen Bo lately?

JimH| 6.4.12 @ 8:52AM

Is dog Halal?

ObamarStomper| 6.4.12 @ 10:41AM

Yes. Dog is most certainly Halal if it furthers the cause of Islam!

Jack in Wi| 6.4.12 @ 8:39AM

More nonsense from Mr. Babbin. Endless war for no sane reason. Shredding the Constitution like toliet paper. Execution of American citizens without indictment, trial, and appeal. Feelups and ex-rays at airports forever. Tell me what either Romney or Obama are going to do to return this country to the rule of law? I am one hell of lot more afraid of Washington DC, then of some hillbilly in Pakistan with a musket. Judge Napolitano knows more about Constitutional law in his little finger then Mr. Babbin does in his whole body. Shilling for endless preventive and pre-ventive wars are serious war crimes, under international Law.

CJW| 6.4.12 @ 9:26AM

You already know what Obama will do because he has been president for almost 4 years.
You may not have to worry about a hillbilly in Pakistan with a musket, but you should worry about muslim terrorrists in Pakistan with nuclear weapos.

C. Vernon Crisler | 6.4.12 @ 1:02PM

Typical Paulista claptrap. Jack, are you ever going to have an original thought? Or do you just like cutting and pasting your pacifist mantras hundreds of times a year?

Occam's Tool| 6.4.12 @ 2:01PM

Well, the Pakis have nukes the last time I checked, Jack. And the Iranian hillbillies are going to as well if we don't do anything.

Try a higher standard for your cheezewhiz.

TLP| 6.4.12 @ 3:12PM

I know this is off topic, but I think that it's worth noting that our NON-SOCIALIST President, just had a big dust up within in his Inner Circle, whereby his Puke Political Advisor, and his Blacks Only, Gun Running, Attorney General, got in each others' faces, because our NON-SOCIALIST, NON COMMUNIST Presidents' Political Advisor, wanted to put a "Political Official" inside the Justice Department, just like the "Political Official" that the Soviets had on board the Submarine - RED OCTOBER.

But, he's not a Socialist.

I'm just saying.

Drunken Sailor| 6.4.12 @ 2:04PM

Jack, you are such a chicken little over "Neocons" and warmongers. Hell, you make the Quakers look like a warrior society.

TLP| 6.4.12 @ 7:07PM

You have to understand, Sailor. NEO CON = JEW.

Capiche?

The Big E| 6.4.12 @ 4:52PM

Jack, if attitudes like your's prevailed in the 30's and 40's all of Europe would now great each other in German.

Except of course, that if attitudes like your's continued to previal, by the 1960's they, and possibly the rest of the world as well, would be greeting each other as "comrade."

Cowardice is never a virtue.

CJW| 6.4.12 @ 8:00AM

Maybe Obama's supporters can explain why it is ok for Obama to kill the terrorrists but not ok to use enhanced interrogation if we capture them.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 6.4.12 @ 8:09AM

...or why collateral damage by manned aircraft is bad ("air raiding villages and killing civilians") is bad, but when done by unmanned predator drones is acceptable...

CJW| 6.4.12 @ 9:36AM

Bottom line is that it is ok for Obama to do it but not for Bush, or a Republican.
Obama's intentions, as a lefty, are pure therefore his actions do not matter.

John786| 6.4.12 @ 8:41AM

In a confusing article the only objection by Mr Babbin to the Drone holocaust is that it should be bigger to encompass the entire Islamic world. A vile man. Genocide comes easily to the Islamophobes. 

Drunken Sailor| 6.4.12 @ 2:05PM

History says it also comes very easily to radical Islamist.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 6.4.12 @ 6:21PM

It is important to note that when used in English, a phobia is an IRrational fear.

Louis Jenkins| 6.4.12 @ 8:57AM

So if Obama has justly targeted terrorist, why is our local governments on the the UAV band wagon? They're putting the mechanism in place, and pretty soon the Feds will be able to latch on to a UAV in your neighborhood, if not already. Obama's list can be expanded or contracted as necessary, and we should surely hope that none of us are on it. The Constitution no longer protects anyone.

Louis Jenkins| 6.4.12 @ 9:57AM

Just came from another website, and yes, Obama loves the UAV. That's his magic button for now. He can't wait to get to the post bombing meetings. The aritcle goes on to say that if Obama is re-elected, well, we're in a world of hurt even greater than what we're currently in.

Kingofthenet| 6.4.12 @ 9:23AM

OK, I got it, the even thou the President has killed a large Number of key enemy, without endangering the lives of a single American, We need to to Tank the world Economy and further stretch tine our Military with an attack on Iran, Pakistan, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. This is a BRILLIANT plan by the NeoCon Chickenhawks!

CJW| 6.4.12 @ 9:29AM

How do you know the ones killed were our enemies?
What about international and U.S. law against torture? Isn't killing them torture?

C. Vernon Crisler | 6.4.12 @ 1:03PM

Better NeoCon Chickenhaws that Paulista cowards.

Peppermint Tea | 6.4.12 @ 9:45AM

"There's no validity to the point that secretly enacted laws are themselves unlawful: there is nothing in the Constitution barring them."

BABBIN is joking, right? Please tell me he is joking. Please. "Nothing in the Constitution barring them?" He can't be serious--can he?

Von Mises Jr| 6.4.12 @ 10:12AM

I think the Constitution calls for a "Declaration of War" that is required by the Congress and must be specific.
What Obama is doing, and unfortunately the Neocons agree with is totally unconstitutional based on my logic. We don't even declare war on Libya, Pakistan or Yemen while we bomb the crap out of them.
This is a great point, Peppermint Tea, but seems moot until we rid ourselves of Obama and Reid. Then we need to take our Constitution back from the Neocons to finish the job.

CJW| 6.4.12 @ 10:25AM

Von,
Imagine if George Bush, or any Republican, was doing this.
Obama's Justice Dept investigated and wanted to indict Bush's Justice Dept attorneys who gave an opinion that enhanced interrogation ia lawful.

This is a dangerous step to allow the President, of any party, to select individuals for assassination. We have gone beyond allowing the president to engage in war against countries, as in Korea, Vietnam, Libya,etc,, without a declaration of war to now engage in a war against inidviduals. We may like it because he is killing Muslim terrorrists but it is still a dangerous extension of the President's power.

ObamarStomper| 6.4.12 @ 10:39AM

In bombing the crap out of Pakistan and others, aren't we just begging for some kind of retalitaion? After all, bombing a country that we aren't at war with, it seems to me, an ACT of WAR.

Von Mises Jr| 6.4.12 @ 11:06AM

Socialist love war. Hayek wrote in "Socialism and War" that war demands a planned economy to allocate resources in the war economy. Then the socialist tout that since central planning worked so well in winning the war, we should have a peacetime planned economy.
Of course there are other beneifts for totalitarians as played out in fun and interesting novels such as "Cat's Cradle" and "1984." They needed a Bokonon as a foil. Orwell's "1984" had their "Two Minutes Hate." This is apparently Obama's re-election campaign platform. Bokononism and "Two Minutes Hate."

C. Vernon Crisler | 6.4.12 @ 1:04PM

CJW, uh, terrorism? Have you ever heard of that before?

CJW| 6.4.12 @ 5:33PM

Yes. What is your point, explain.

Mike G| 6.4.12 @ 7:32PM

Doesn't the Tenth Amendment say that powers not grated to the government belong to the states or the people? Does the constitution grant the government the power to make secret laws? I think not.

WeMustResist| 6.4.12 @ 9:55AM

Secret laws? You didn't hear about the secret law that gave all power to me? Ignorance of that law is no excuse! Hand over your money now and if you keep this law a secret I will have mercy on you.

Stuart Koehl| 6.4.12 @ 10:26AM

My Babbin's remarks indicate that lack of strategic thinking is not a monopoly of the left or the right, but simply a congenital American shortcoming. Most of the comments indicate that lack of intelligence might be another one.

C. Vernon Crisler | 6.4.12 @ 1:06PM

Dittos Stuart.

ObamarStomper| 6.4.12 @ 10:37AM

By killing terrorists instead of capturing them, Obama avoids any problems with Islamic terrorists who might reveal a link between them and the Liberal Socialist movement in the USA. Additionally, Obama probably feels like a "big man" choosing who lives and dies on a given day. This would definitely go hand in hand with his "Greek god" fixation.

Kingofthenet| 6.4.12 @ 10:49AM

Not a single terrorist is being killed without 'due process' the terrorists THEMSELVES are resisting capture by hiding in areas we cannot reach to arrest them. They can turn themselves in and not be killed, but it's like holing up in a barricaded house with a swat team outside, armed. What happens next is entirely up to you.

Drunken Sailor| 6.4.12 @ 12:01PM

That is about the stupidest analogy I think you have ever used.

Warrior| 6.4.12 @ 4:46PM

Our government declared that returning military veterans were potential terrorists. I guess using your brilliant analysis, they can either turn themselves in for doing nothing or risk being blown up where they sleep because assholes like you and this President believe due process responsibilities are met though there has been no evidence presented or testimony required?

cicero| 6.4.12 @ 12:55PM

I think we miss the point made by Mr. Babbin at the beginning of his article. There has been a total lack of clarity by our government at to the reasons and purpose of these wars. If we are fighting the sponsors of radical Islam, why are we still sending billioins to Pakistan; giving favored treatment to the Saudis; and letting anyone from those countries into this country? We are still sending money to the Palistinian Authority, and Hamas, for goodness sake. Either we get serious about this, and recognize it as a war for our existence, or we let them do whatever they want, and hope that they don't kill too many of our citizens.

C. Vernon Crisler | 6.4.12 @ 1:08PM

Good points. I thought the Bush doctrine was that we would not deal with sponsors of terrorism. Why have both Bush and Obama not repudiated Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? I guess it's too many convenient alliances; not enough principle.

Mike G| 6.4.12 @ 5:01PM

Repudiating Saudi Arabia can't be done until we are drilling our own oil. To do otherwise would destroy the economy. The only reason the Saudis pretend to be our friend is because they need our oil money. So basically, we need each other until some pol grows the cajones to start using all the resources available to us..

PappyHappy| 6.4.12 @ 1:34PM

At what point in time will Pakistan say "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! WE ARE A Sovereign Country, and the USA is killing our people at will!" At what point in time will they bring charges against Team Obama in the World Court with charges of CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY?

This may give Eric Holder something to do with his time vice bringing suits against states for attempting to protect their borders, and providing integrity to voting!

How would the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize explain this??? Guess Obama could chalk this up as another first -- "HISTORIC -- UNPRECEDENTED!"

C. Vernon Crisler | 6.4.12 @ 3:25PM

At what point in time will Pakistan stop sponsoring or giving safe haven to terrorists?

Skippy| 6.5.12 @ 3:51PM

As soon as Hell freezes over or until they fear us more than they love Muhammed.

Occam's Tool| 6.4.12 @ 1:55PM

Dear Stuart:

I am going to blow off name calling here. You are the expert on this (look up Staurt Koehl in Amazon.com, folks; worth your while), I am not.

What would be the best approach from a money/ life expenditure/intelligence gained perspective?

Pursue drone attacks? Avoid drone attacks and pursue capture if possible, kill only when unavoidable? Mix and match depending?

My only concern is winning. How it is done is completely immaterial to me. What do you recommend?

Stuart Koehl| 6.4.12 @ 7:51PM

Drone attacks alone are not the answer, because there are no panaceas against terrorism. You have to be ready to use all the weapons and tactics at one's command, and employ them over the long run. That means, yes, "permanent war", lasting decades.

This may distress some people here, but the fault lies not with us, but with our enemies, who have within their hands the power to end all this. But they won't, because they view the conflict in eschatological terms. Nothing we do can appease or assuage them because it's not what we do but what we ARE that causes them offense.

I would prefer a balanced and coherent strategy that included stabilization and nation-building (particularly in places that are not yet problems), because it's always cheaper to bribe or subvert potential enemies than to fight them); continuing, open-ended pacification measures in both Iraq and Afghanistan; covert measures against countries that support terrorists; and active measures against terrorists, whenever they can be attacked without undue risk to U.S. forces or to innocent civilians.

Those active measures can and should take the form of raids to capture or kill terrorists and gather intelligence; stabilization operations to drive them out of sanctuaries; and, of course, drone attacks to inflict attrition upon them.

All of these work synergistically, so the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. But I will settle for whatever parts I can get.

Stuart Koehl| 6.4.12 @ 7:51PM

Drone attacks are not mindless whack-a-mole, because in real life, the supply of moles is not infinite. Contrary to popular belief, it takes time to train up competent terrorists, and it takes innate talent to be a terrorist leader. Every time we kill a high-ranking terrorist, his place is taken by somebody less experienced and probably less competent. That person will make operational and tactical mistakes, which will result in botched operations that result in more terrorist casualties. When that person is nailed by a Predator in his turn, he will be replaced by someone even less competent than he was.

Eventually, you end up with terrorist organizations commanded and manned by tyros, which reduces the threat substantially. Moreover, as their success rates go down, terrorists find it harder and harder to get willing recruits (dying for 72 virgins is one thing, being blasted to bits by a Hellfire missile without any chance of fighting back is something else). So, drone attacks do not create more al Qaeda sympathizers--it reveals al Qaeda and its subsidiaries as impotent, and drives off the smarter types who might be dangerous. Eventually, they'll just be left with religious zealots of marginal intelligence. We can deal with that.

Occam's Tool| 6.4.12 @ 1:59PM

Actually, with regards to how the killing is done---the US Submarine Service engaged in unrestricted warfare against the Empire of Japan's merchant fleet in WWII. When the subs left, where they patrolled, almost everything was done in secret.

The public data is that we are using lethal force against terrorists. Details necessary to do this may need to be kept secret. Really, my problem with barack is whether or not this is optimally working, not that he is killing Islamist terrorist scum.

Does it advance the interests and power of the USA best? That's my question.

TLP| 6.4.12 @ 3:16PM

I think that it would, if a DAISY CUTTER was attached to each Drone, instead of a Missile.

Don't you agree?

Stuart Koehl| 6.4.12 @ 9:04PM

How so, unless your objective is just mindless destruction?

Occam's Tool| 6.4.12 @ 2:02PM

By the way, is anyone at TAS paying attention to the incipient Zombie Holocaust?

Drunken Sailor| 6.4.12 @ 2:10PM

Why yes I am. I am placing my order for Zombie killing weapons at:

http://zombietools.net/

Occam's Tool| 6.5.12 @ 3:45PM

Thanks, DS. I have an unlimited water supply up at my place. Mi casa, etc.

Occam's Tool| 6.5.12 @ 4:13PM

From Missoula, Montana. Much weirdness emanates from that town; sometime I must check it out.

Stuart Koehl| 6.4.12 @ 9:04PM

If zombies need to eat brains to survive, the poor bastards are doomed.

Occam's Tool| 6.4.12 @ 2:10PM

Jack, regarding your harassment of President Johnson:

"In a unanimous decision the Supreme Court ruled Monday against a man who criticized and touched Vice President Dick Cheney while he was visiting a Beaver Creek, Colo., shopping mall in 2006.

On June 16, 2006, when Cheney visited the mall, accompanied by a Secret Service contingent, he was spotted by a man named Steven Howards."

Who Knows?| 6.4.12 @ 3:20PM

Keep up the good work, Mr. Babbin.

You forgot to slip “Jeremiah Wright” into your article, though. Sin of omission.

I’ve been closely following the Intrade odds on Romney being elected, and after months of hanging out at around 40%, the last week it’s crept up to 45%. Maybe more and more people are losing their attachment to all things Obama.

For some time, now, especially during the primary campaign when it became clear Mitt was going to win, and he started to sound and look more conservative, I’ve been close to placing a bet, myself, that Romney would win. How can Obama keep fooling enough people to win?

Therefore, I predict that it won’t be too long before Intrade at least gets to 50%, and as November gets closer, I look for Obama to plummet---see, there he goes, the way Jimmuh Carter collapsed before Reagan’s grown up American Exceptionalism.

Obama is the epitome of American “Deception-alism”, to coin a new word, and when the truth telling about this “Jeremiah Wright loving” Obama dude REALLY starts to spread, a la Maureen Dowd to the nth power, I further predict that “Oh my God!” will become the basic mood, or attitude, for the coming tsunami of awakened ex-Obama lovers.

Remember the old trip about Nixon---after he won going away in 1972, and then left the White House in disgrace, you could find hardly anyone who’d admit voting for him.

Obama, meet Nixon!

Bill84728| 6.4.12 @ 4:57PM

How is that the President can't kill an enemy of our country? Can I kill an enemy of our country, someone who's making war on the United States? Can Jed Babbin? If he and I can, what makes the President different?

Bill84728| 6.4.12 @ 5:07PM

I don't really mind it very much of the President has a Kill List for our enemies, but I draw the line at dressing that kind of thing up as legal under "secret laws." People who think like that need to be kept out of government.

Bill84728| 6.4.12 @ 5:09PM

If we The People like the Kill List, we won't prosecute. If we don't like it, we will. Democracy in action, eh?

Bill84728| 6.4.12 @ 5:12PM

Churchill said the first platoon leader who takes the Chancellory stand Hitler up against a wall and shoot him. Do you think that shooter would be committing a crime, or, if he were, he would be subject to a prosecution? If he were subject to a prosecution, do you imagine him getting some punishment other than two weeks' paid leave, and all-expenses paid trip to the place of his choice, lodging and fine food in the finest establishments in the area, along with a bevy of beautiful willing ladies to stay by his side for as long as desired?

Bill84728| 6.4.12 @ 5:03PM

I suppose it's technically true that secret laws can be passed, our Constitution doesn't prohibit it, but what about the fact that we have a Sixth Amendment that guarantees a speedy and public trial in criminal trials, with Constitutionally-guarantees to due process and compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in favor of the defense?

Doesn't that kind of knock the idea of protecting our secrets with secret laws into a cocked hat?

Bill84728| 6.4.12 @ 5:05PM

I mean, the whole idea of the Sixth Amendment was to protect us from Star Chamber proceedings, with ex post facto laws, secret laws, masked witnesses, and so on.

Just because the Constitution doesn't actually come right out an expressly forbid secret laws, do we REALLY want to take a turn down that road?

The Big E| 6.4.12 @ 5:05PM

Somehow, I can no more get worked up about Obama killing foreign terroists with drone strikes than I can about Roosevelt ordering the assassination of Yamamoto in WWII. If targeted assassination of a key enemy leader will advance the overall cause of victory, or head off a direct attack on us or our troops, then I'm all for it.

That said, I fail to see how picking off a few terrorists advances the cause of victory, when we're doing nothing to stop the advance of the violent ideology which is creating terrorists in the first place.

Somehow, I can't shake the feeling that Obama knows this as well, and is only using drone strikes as a diversion, to keep the populace from noticing that he is doing everything within his power to insure that, ultimately, we LOSE this war.

Stuart Koehl| 6.4.12 @ 9:07PM

The truth is, there aren't that many terrorists out there, so killing a few--especially the leadership--imposes crippling losses disproportional to the raw numbers. Most potential terrorists remain just potential terrorists unless focused and commanded by a highly motivated few. To kill the snake, cut off its head.

Occam's Tool| 6.5.12 @ 3:51PM

Thank you, Stuart. Excellent answer. Nice Weekly Standard article in 6/4/12 issue, by the way. I also liked your Heinleinian approach to manpower: "Every job that does not require a man in uniform can be performed by a fully competent civilian." (Starship Troopers' passage was to the effect that every position that did not require fighting spirit was performed by a Civilian in the armed forces of the future. Fighting spirit and ability was precious and rare; none of it was wasted.)

marque lunettes de soleil | 6.5.12 @ 5:17AM

My sources will not describe those authorities because they were enacted in secret and remain so. There's no validity to the point that secretly enacted laws are themselves unlawful: there is nothing in the Constitution barring them. Though uncommon, such laws are passed when some aspect of our intelligence or military operations require them. For example, top secret intelligence satellite programs need the authorization of Congress -- and congressional appropriations -- to be brought to fruition. That same congressional action almost certainly is the basis for Obama's use of CIA and military assets to target and kill terrorists.

More Articles by Jed Babbin

More Articles From Loose Canons

Obama’s Thin Red Line

April 29, 2013 | Jed Babbin

Why Has No One Taken Credit?

April 22, 2013 | Jed Babbin

Dusty Springfield’s Pentagon Budget

April 15, 2013 | Jed Babbin

Guns Responsible for Global Warming

April 8, 2013 | Jed Babbin

When Blackmail Fails

April 1, 2013 | Jed Babbin

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/06/04/killing-them-softly

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|73 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|40 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|55 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|76 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|32 comments

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|20 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|1 comment

The Spectacle Blog

Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 3:45PM

Felonious Attorney General?

Kaylin Bugos | 3:21PM

Did the Boy Scouts Cave to Pressure?

Claire Healey | 3:14PM

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 12:36PM

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats

Ross Kaminsky | 11:03AM

Stein on IRS Scandal

Patrick Ryan | 10:29AM

The Restricted Engine

Yogi Love | 6:00AM

Muslim, Er, Youth Riots in Sweden

Aaron Goldstein | 12:41AM

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

H/T to National Review Online

Most Popular Articles

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara | 5.22.13

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

Jeffrey Lord | 5.20.13

#FreeKate? Movement to Normalize Pedophilia Finds Its Poster Girl

Robert Stacy McCain | 5.23.13

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple | 5.22.13

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord | 5.23.13

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr | 5.22.13

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey | 5.23.13

Obama's Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. | 5.23.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.