Most Dangerous Man Ever To Occupy Oval Office”
Former Bush chief speechwriter Marc Thiessen kicked up a big fuss yesterday with a Washington Post Op ed slamming Obama’s executive orders by saying that if there’s another terror attack, “Americans will hold Obama responsible.”
Today Thiessen ratchets up the rhetoric a couple dozen notches in a post at National Review :
The CIA program he is effectively shutting down is the reason why America has not been attacked again after 9/11. He has removed the tool that is singularly responsible for stopping al-Qaeda from flying planes into the Library Tower in Los Angeles, Heathrow Airport, and London’s Canary Warf, and blowing up apartment buildings in Chicago, among other plots. It’s not even the end of inauguration week, and Obama is already proving to be the most dangerous man ever to occupy the Oval Office.
Obama is already “the most dangerous” President ever?
Here’s the thing about this. You have here an assertion that crosses over from mere opinion into verifiable or disprovable assertion. If you’re going to say that someone has already proven himself to be dangerous , as opposed to merely being potentially dangerous, you need to point to empirical evidence of this, such as lives lost to foreign threats on your watch. There haven’t been any such lives lost under President Obama yet, unlike other past Presidents.
That aside, whatever side of the arguments on torture and Guantanamo Bay you’re on, this is the sort of toxic rhetoric that is supposed to draw condemnation from the sort of non-partisan Beltway pundits that routinely call for “civility” and bipartisan comity in our political discourse. Yet we’re not hearing much of anything about this increasingly vitriolic attack campaign from those folks at all. And I’m not expecting too, either.