Our President ... a Strategist Who Continues to Vote 'present'!



"The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory." ~ Sun Tzu, "The Art of War."

"Where government advances, and it advances relentlessly, freedom is imperiled." ~ Janice Rogers Brown


We have inept, arrogant and truthfully an abdication of leadership in this country. Political appointees and bureauracracy are the overseers and decision makers, not our elected officials. Our President plays both ends against the middle so he can come out in a good light ... taking credit if it works or pointing the finger at others if it fails. The "Buck Doesn't Stop On His Desk".

Our President knows how to campaign but not how to govern ... much like former President Bill Clinton.





Show Me the Leadership – Why Is Obama Still Voting ‘Present’?

by Pam Meister

After declassifying and releasing (http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.3022/pub_detail.asp) top secret memos written during the Bush administration detailing interrogation methods for Jihadist terrorists, President Obama declined to say whether he would call for the prosecution of Bush administration officials. Instead, he said he would leave that decision to Attorney General Eric Holder, saying (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/21/obama-open-prosecution-officials-cleared-interrogation-tactics), "With respect to those who formulate those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws. And I don't want to prejudge that. ... There are a host of very complicated issues involved there."  

The release of the memos is, of course, bad news for American security. What better way for Jihadists to prepare for the rigors they will endure if captured by the Americans? No doubt the memos will become part of the training process in Jihadist camps across the Middle East. But it’s comforting to know it’s all in the name of transparency and humane treatment of those who would cut our heads off or blow us up given half a chance.  

In the days, weeks and months following 9/11, Americans demanded protection and the Bush administration did its best to provide it. Now those who were involved in providing that protection – with the full knowledge of top legislators (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/23/top-legislators-knew-of-interrogations), some who are now whining about how horrible the interrogations were – might be prosecuted for doing their best to keep America safe from future attack.  

The question boils down to this: are the lives of millions of American citizens not worth putting Jihadists into uncomfortable situations to gather important intelligence?  

In a recent column (http://www.creators.com/opinion/debra-saunders.html), Debra Saunders points out the obvious choice when it comes to the question “to waterboard or not to waterboard?”  

The questioning got tougher. As the memo noted, the CIA believes that "the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001."  

And: Once "enhanced techniques" were used on KSM, interrogations "led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the 'Second Wave,' … to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner' into a building in Los Angeles."  

Do I like waterboarding? No, but it is not life threatening; in extreme cases, I can live with it. And I'll take waterboarding over a 9/11 in Los Angeles any day.  

On the bright side, though, think of how many “carbon footprints” would be snuffed out in a single moment. Maybe Jihadist terrorism has its silver lining after all.   Perhaps just as bad as the actual release of the memos is Tropical Barry’s inability to take responsibility for – well, just about anything. By giving the decision to prosecute or not to AG Eric Holder, Obama once again dodges the bullet that could possibly mean bad news for his popularity ratings. Once again, our top executive, our Commander in Chief, has come across something that is above his pay grade. Once again, he votes “present.” Back when he was an Illinois state senator, he was noted for his excessive use of the “present” vote – a handy way of avoiding committing to a yes or no vote on pending legislation. But it’s one thing to avoid accountability when one is merely part of a legislative collective. It’s quite another to avoid accountability when you’re the one in charge.  

Obama wants to have it both ways: he wants to appease those on the far left who have been champing at the bit to prosecute Bush and anyone else involved in the Iraq war for years – but he doesn’t want to take the chance of taking a pie in the face in the event such actions hit a sour note with the so-called moderates who, charmed by his rhetoric and taken in by his vague promises of change, were the ones really responsible for sweeping him to victory last November.  

Perhaps too, as a friend remarked, Obama is reluctant to be the one to call for prosecution since some of his top allies in Congress – Nancy Pelosi and John D. Rockefeller – were among those who were briefed on the interrogation methods. Indeed, powerful allies can become powerful enemies at the drop of a hat. Being the astute political animal he is, Obama can hardly be unaware of that fact.  

Critics of George W. Bush complain that he never apologized for anything. Perhaps not – but he was not afraid to make decisions. Some of his decisions were popular ones, others were not. Regardless, he stood by his convictions. Obama, on the other hand, is big on apologizing (especially to outside interests that are hostile to the U.S.) but rather than soil his own hands, lets others make the hard and fast choices for him.

Such dithering is unbecoming in the Commander in Chief of the United States. It could also prove disastrous.    


Pam Meister is the editor for FamilySecurityMatters.org.

Josie06 Josie06
56-60, F
Apr 25, 2009