Saw this OBVIOUSLY biased report in the New York Times on how the President is taking the use of a kill list very seriously. Really? What President doesn't? Probably ours. That is, unless it's an election year and he needs to seem, well, more decisive, presidential and "gutsy."
This reads like a vendetta against the personnel doing time for blowing Valerie Plame's cover. But Valerie Plame gets more protection while serving canapes to political hatchetmen and has a lot less to lose than this interrogator who questioned the most vile and evil men in the history of the world...[for our opinions on the Plame issue, Google Blackfive and Plame - suffice it to say we were for severe punishment for revealing a covert CIA person].
So what is the Shill Scott Shane up to about the kill list?
...Mr. Obama has placed himself at the helm of a top secret “nominations” process to designate terrorists for kill or capture, of which the capture part has become largely theoretical...
That's not an overtly bad thing at all, even if you pull Shane's lips off of the President's ass. But how did this become a major piece in the NYT?
...In interviews with The New York Times, three dozen of his current and former advisers described Mr. Obama’s evolution since taking on the role, without precedent in presidential history, of personally overseeing the shadow war with Al Qaeda...
Look, one advisor is a leak. But, as one of the Blackfive authors stated in a conversation about this piece, three dozen is an organized campaign effort to make the President look more, well, presidential in his conduct of the war. This campaign ad HAD to have had the President's approval. Those 36+ advisors ought to be worried that Shane might out them as he has done before...oh wait, those were agency employees, not political appointees...Good on the NYT for resisting that effort. /sarc
In my book, if President Obama wants to be more presidential, then he should set out to win the war, rather than hold staff meetings about how to wordsmith "defeat."