Obama: Blunder in Chief

What happens when America appoints a community organizer as Commander in Chief? Thanks to the election of Barack Obama, we now know.  First, he breaks his campaign promise to bring Iraq troops home within a year.  Next, he breaks his campaign promise to close Gitmo within a year.  Then he isn’t even a month in office when he is nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, which he would later win in spite of having accomplished nothing with the exception of going on a grand American Apology Tour.  His next move as Commander in Chief was to send just a little over half the number of troops to Afghanistan that were requested by the Generals on the ground to help push back a rise in the insurgency.  If all this wasn’t enough, Obama signed an arms limitation deal with an extremely untrustworthy Russia (a country that completes military exercises with China and Venezuela).  The mission in Afghanistan is now looking like it might fail with no exit strategy.  And if all this wasn’t enough, Obama is now working with al-Qaeda in an effort to topple Libya for “humanitarian” reasons without prior approval from Congress despite four or five other neighboring Mideast governments who have behaved no different than the Libyan government.

Obama’s debacle with Libya begins with a strong cry for democracy by civilian protesters throughout the Mideast that began earlier this year.  The first big protest was against the Mubarak government in Egypt and ended with dissolution of the current government one month later.  During this time, Obama took no sides and maintained that Egypt’s future would be “determined by its People.”  During this time Human Rights Watch estimated over 300 deaths including 135 protesters.  Obama championed the will of the people and ushering in a day of democracy.

The next successful revolution was Tunisia.  During the protests, which became violent, Obama stated, “I urge all parties to maintain calm and avoid violence, and call on the Tunisian government to respect human rights, and to hold free and fair elections in the near future that reflect the true will and aspirations of the Tunisian people.” The BBC reported that at least 219 people died during the struggle to topple the government.

Clearly, the trend was not in favor of the governments in the first few months of the revolutions taking place in the Mideast, specifically in the North African countries.

Major protests have continued in Algeria (8 deaths), Bahrain (22 deaths), Djibouti (2 deaths), Jordan (2 deaths), Oman (6 deaths), Syria (100 deaths) and Yemen (122 deaths).  And the governments have pushed back. Other protests, considered minor, have occurred in Iran (3 deaths, 1,500 arrested), Morocco (6 deaths), Saudi Arabia (2 deaths and 100 arrested), Sudan (1 death) and Western Sahara (1 death).

While Jordan, Oman and Yemen have adopted new changes to their governments to help quell the protests, other countries such as Algeria, Syria, and Saudi Arabia continue to have ongoing protests.

Then there is Libya.

The estimates of the total number of deaths are unreliable, but is said to be in the thousands.  Even though it is reported that there are three anti-Gaddafi rebels killed for every Libyan soldier, the rebels outnumber the combined total of Libyan armed forces including their hired mercenaries by approximately 5,000.  That is before including the assistance from the U.N. and NATO which intervened on March 17, 2011.

Our Nobel Peace Prize winning Commander in Chief, unprovoked by a country that was not an imminent threat, bypassed the Constitution and authorized a military strike into Libya.  ABC reported that 122 American Tomahawk cruise missiles blew up some twenty Libyan air and ground defense systems.  CBS News reported that three B-2 stealth bombers dropped forty bombs on a Libyan airfields and US fighter jets searching for Libyan ground forces to attack.

Meanwhile, al-Qaeda works with Libyan rebels on the ground against Gaddafi and the Libyan government.  So, in essence, the United States is now working with al-Qaeda.

The only way a President can bypass Congress to authorize a military action is when the United States is in imminent danger by another country.  No such danger existed from Libya.  And Obama did not get Congressional approval prior to the attacks.  In fact, it’s been over a week and there is still no Congressional approval.  Obama is no stranger to attacking above his Constitutional authority and with the worst Attorney General, Eric Holder, leading our Justice Department there appear to be little-to-no consequence for this and other similar actions taken by the President.

Yet, there are consequences.

First, there is a major outcry from the public as well as outspoken leaders of other countries for Obama to give back the Nobel Peace Prize… something he says he will not do.  Second, the far left wing of the Democrat Party, led by Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich and followed by Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), John Conyers (D-Mich.), and Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), are now talking about impeachment.  Lastly, Obama’s approval ratings have sharply dropped from 51% on 3/20 (CNN) to 45% on 3/27 (Gallup).  This is not something Obama’s re-election committee wants to pile on the list of hurdles to overcome for his 2012 re-election bid.

So, how does a community organizer turned Commander in Chief try to salvage his military blunders?

First, Obama attempts to change the language to soften the tone.  The Nobel Peace prize winner and community organizer doesn’t want people to think he “attacked” anyone or that he sent our Troops into “War.” No, his administration attempted to soften the tone by calling it a “Kinetic Military Action.”  Changing the language might work in some neighborhoods around the country, but this attempt was about as successful as his earlier attempt of trying to change “Terrorism” into “Man-Made Disasters.”  Obama lacks integrity.

Next, Obama claims moral authority by saying that our attack on the Libyan government was a “humanitarian” mission, because they were brutalizing their own people.  Aside from the fact that Obama’s rhetoric all along was about the People of these countries determining their own future (presumably without foreign interference), Obama fails to realize two major points:  One, the rebels fighting the Libyan government are greater in numbers and the brutalizing goes both ways.  Two, if we are the World’s Police now saving protesters from brutal governments, why haven’t we gone into Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iran or all the other Mideast countries where the citizens are dying in the course of the riots and protests?  Obama lacks consistency.

And now Obama is attempting to sell Americans tonight in a prime-time address to the nation a new reason why his actions of unilaterally attacking Libyan forces were justified.  Presumably he will suggest three things: One, we have a moral obligation to assist innocent men, women and children in a humanitarian crisis from being brutally murdered.  Two, we have an ethical obligation to work within the constructs of the U.N. and to help our coalition allies.  Three, and more importantly for a President who is hearing rumblings of impeachment from his own political party, we have a legal obligation because it is in the national interest of the United States to do so.  Obama lacks authority.

At the end of the day, Obama will not win over his critics and his approval ratings will continue to sink.  And as the 2012 election approaches, the winds of change may have turned against Obama for good… and not even the best community organizer will be able to offer the kind of hope he would need to see a second term.

Share This Post

8 Responses to "Obama: Blunder in Chief"

  1. So, this is what Obama said in his speech tonight: “For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and as an advocate for human freedom. Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world’s many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act.”

    Did I nail it or what?!

  2. Holy Christ, I don’t know where to start. I guess just this one paragraph should suffice:

    >>First, there is a major outcry from the public as well as outspoken leaders of other countries for Obama to give back the Nobel Peace Prize… something he says he will not do.

    There is no such major outcry. Right-wing blogs do not a “major outcry” make. Right-wing blogs cried “Brainwashing!” when Obama told children the value of education.

    >>Second, the far left wing of the Democrat Party, led by Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich and followed by Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), John Conyers (D-Mich.), and Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), are now talking about impeachment.

    Kucinich said the air-strikes COULD be an impeachable offense. Conyers, when asked about impeachment, said “I’ll leave that one alone”, which is really the OPPOSITE of “talking about impeachment.” The others expressed disapproval of his not consulting Congress, but they are NOT talking about impeachment, and even if they were, so what? What do YOU care what the “far left” Democrats say, all of a sudden? You ridicule and disagree with everything they say and do, but suddenly when they’re complaining about something Obama did, they’re credible?

    >>Lastly, Obama’s approval ratings have sharply dropped from 51% on 3/20 (CNN) to 45% on 3/27 (Gallup).

    Okay, first off, it’s curious that you’re using two different sources for your numbers to reach the conclusion that his ratings have “sharply dropped.” I can play that game too.


    Look at that! OMG! Quinnipiac has him at 46% a month ago, and now has him at 51%! They’ve sharply RISEN!

    The simple facts are, a) Across the board, he’s somewhere in the upper 40’s or lower 50’s and has been for a while, which is significantly higher than your beloved Reagan was at this point in his presidency, and b) Whenever he does ANYTHING and his numbers go down, you guys point to this as proof of a blunder, and when he does anything and his numbers go UP, not a word from you on the subject. You’re all so transparently phony, it’s just laughable. And beyond that, you really think it’s wise for the party of George W. Bush to ever mention approval ratings again?

    And I love how you have to keep reminding us that he’s a community organizer. That’s really all you have in your arsenal, the cries for his birth certificate and the same old moldy quips from some lousy Sarah Palin speech that’s almost three years old. Sarah Palin, incidentally: Former beauty queen and sportscaster and mayor of a dinky town in the middle of nowhere and half-term governor before the lure of money for being a reality show host and Fox News pundit inspired her to quit. She’s among your front-runners. You really want to keep harping on the “experience” thing? (And leave it to the GOP to ridicule being a community organizer, anyway. Guy graduated law school and decided to devote his life to improving his community. Ha, ha! Why didn’t he run an oil company and baseball team into the ground? Lazy!)

    And beyond that, all this ridiculous criticism of the thing has no choice but to deliberately omit the fact that this action was brief, relatively inexpensive, had full international approval, and probably saved 25,000 innocent lives, which is to say that it’s the exact opposite of the Iraq debacle you guys somehow still feel obliged to defend, despite the fact that it’s indefensible.

    Another big, steaming pile of crap, Tim.



Post Comment