A shrewd campaigner, Barack Obama capitalized on anti-Bush sentiment by proclaiming himself the Un-Bush and blaming the Bush Administration for the issues de jour—initially the war in Iraq and then the economic crisis. But the Un-Bush Doctrine did not lose steam with Obama’s election. Faced with an economic crisis, Obama found it expedient to continue the Bush blame game. By faulting the Bush Administration for all our Country’s ills, Obama, with Nancy Pelosi’s help, was able to push through a $787 Billion social spending bill, offering no economic stimulus whatever.   So why not take the Un-Bush Doctrine into the foreign policy arena? Obama launched his Spring Apology Tour among NATO nations, openly apologizing for what he himself characterized as “U.S. arrogance,” bowed deeply to Saudi King Abdullah, ordered the shuttering of Guantanamo Bay, eliminated the term “enemy combatant,” renamed the “Global War on Terror” the “Overseas Contingency Operations,” released the “enhanced interrogation techniques” Justice Department memos, merely issued a statement “strongly condemning” Kim Jong Ill’s illegal test firing of a missile over Japan, and has done nothing to halt Iran’s imminent acquisition of nuclear weapons, despite Israel’s openly stated intention to act if the U.S. fails to act. 

Quick to pile on, Nancy Pelosi has unleashed hypocritical and false attacks on the Bush Administration’s use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” against high value detainees, Al Qaeda lieutenant, Abu Zubaydah, and 9/11 WTC attack mastermind, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Waterboarding was used on these out-of-uniform civilian mass murderers in the post 9/11 environment in a desperate attempt to garner intelligence on and stop the second wave of attacks then on the drawing boards. The information procured by the CIA in these interrogation sessions saved countless American lives and halted the destruction of the Brooklyn Bridge. As Obama’s own CIA head, Leon Panetta, has confirmed, Speaker Pelosi is lying about not having known that enhanced interrogation techniques were being used—she was briefed specifically about the techniques by the CIA in 2002. 

Enhanced privilege with respect to persons who threaten not-yet-committed crimes is no stranger to the civilized world. Lawyers and psychologists alike are privileged—if not compelled—to break client/patient confidences when they learn about a crime about to be committed. Every day U.S. prosecutors threaten prosecution and incarceration while simultaneously offering plea  bargains to their targets in order to obtain evidence from them against the “bigger fish”—other higher value criminal targets. Is not such a prosecutorial threat of incarceration a form of mental torture designed to flush out valuable information?

The debate about what constitutes illegal torture—in the context of a high value terrorist detainee with information about future attacks versus interrogation of a soldier in uniform who has attacked only other uniformed soldiers—is one for which there is no bright line. Reasonable persons can and do differ on the answer. But the moral calculus always is this: what enhanced interrogation techniques are justified in an effort to procure the critical intelligence necessary to thwart future attacks and save innocent civilian lives?

The moral calculus under the Un-Bush Doctrine though is quite different: How far should we go in risking the lives of American soldiers and civilians in our effort to prove to the world our condemnation of Bush? Obama, Pelosi and the liberal vanguard proudly wear the Bush bashing Un-Bush label like Republicans where a flag pin. It is their way of apologizing to the world and taking (or so they think) the moral high ground. If you don’t think the Un-Bush Doctrine will cost innocent lives one day consider the recent Somali pirate standoff. 

Obama issued an order to shoot to kill the three pirates but only if and when Captain Phillips’ life was placed in “imminent danger.” After many tense hours during which the Navy Snipers had the three pirates in their crosshairs, there came a point, while the lifeboat was being towed, at which one of the three pirates pointed an AK-47 automatic rifle at the back of the head of a bound Captain Phillips. It is a well known medical phenomenon that a man holding a gun with his hand on the trigger can experience “involuntary trigger squeeze” when shot unless the single kill shot is a perfect head shot, instantly immobilizing the victim’s autonomic nervous system. Thus, in addition to heavy seas, darkness, moving targets, and a moving shooting platform, the Navy Sniper assigned the pirate holding the gun on Phillip’s head, had to pass a bullet directly into the center of the pirate’s brain, in order to avoid “involuntary trigger squeeze.” The snipers passed up several opportunities, during the many tense hours they waited on the Bainbridge’s fantail deck with the pirates in the crosshairs of their scopes during which no automatic weapon was aimed at Captain Phillips’ head. Obama could have simply issued a clean, clear and unconditional order—“kill the pirates and rescue the Captain.”   The Somali pirate incident unexpectedly thrust Obama into a situation where HE actually had to make a tough decision rather than just Monday morning quarterback those made by President Bush following the 9/11 attacks.  Given the choice between making the right decision—unconditionally ordering the pirates killed and the Captain saved but being compared to Bush—or risking the Captain's life but safeguarding against the Bush-Obama comparison—Obama decided  that it was better to risk Phillips' life than Obama's anti-Bush reputation.

While Pelosi’s falsified anti-Bush rants go unchecked, it would appear Obama has realized the Un-Bush Doctrine is risking American lives—both civilians and soldiers alike. That is doubtless why he just changed position on releasing classified detainee photographs.   Criticism of the “enhanced interrogation techniques” must be accompanied by reasoned alternatives. Has anyone heard what Obama and Pelosi propose instead of waterboarding? Simple questioning? Obama and Pelosi must be pressed for their solution. Absent a reasoned and practical alternative, the Un-Bush Doctrine is nothing but unconstructive criticism—an effort to bash Bush unaccompanied by any proactive policy to keep Americans safe. Worse though, Obama’s Un-Bush Doctrine nearly cost Captain Phillips his life, and may cost us—god forbid—millions of American lives given Iran’s near nuclear capability. If Israel fails to halt Iran’s nuclear program, the threat to the U.S. is just as real as the threat to Tel Aviv. While Iran cannot reach the U.S. with a GPS guided missile, they will be more than happy to give a nuclear warhead to Al Qaeda so they can quietly float the warhead into one of our ports and murder millions of Americans.