Punt

654.) The hypocrisy of the Obama Administration has beenwell documented. The message of hope and change championed by Senator Obama wascast aside once he was sworn in to office. He learned the hard way that being President is a hard job, and I wish Icould say I find it odd when President Obama partakes in the same activitiesthat he ripped President Bush for.  Forexample, on March 19th, 2008 then Senator Obama gave this harsh criticismof former President Bush “There were too many politicians in Washington whospent too little time reading the intelligence reports, and too much timereading public opinion. The lesson of Iraq is that when we are making decisionsabout matters as grave as war, we need a policy rooted in reason and facts, notideology and politics.”

So many people will say “What is the big deal, this makessense” and I would have to agree with you, we should not make decisions basedon polls and politics. Decisions need to be made on facts and logic. Whatgrinds my gears, what makes my blood boil is not the concept that Senator Obamalaid out in the above statement, but rather the fact that he has blatantly ignoredhis own advice. According to Government Accountability Institute during thefirst two and a half years that President Obama was in office he was presentfor only 43.8% of his intelligent briefings.  In 2011 reaching up until mid way through 2012that appalling average fell to 38%.  Sostop and think about this,  here is a manwho said “There were too many politicians in Washington who spent too littletime reading the intelligence reports, and too much time reading public opinion”who can’t be bothered to attend the meetings where the intelligence is discussed.  Do you see the problem here?

Now of course there are those who will fail to see this as aproblem. They will note that while President Obama does not attend most ofthese crucial meetings he does receive and read the briefings.  So this is man who blasted the previous administrationfor not paying enough attention to intelligence,  for not basing policy on reason and facts,yet is himself unwilling to take the steps necessary to understand the reasonbehind the facts that he is presented.  Howcan one claim to understand these highly complicated issues when he does notlisten to the people who understand the situations being presented to him farbetter than his limited experience allows. That would be like giving you a text book for advance quantum mechanicsand jus assuming that if you simply read it you will be able to understand thecomplex theories proposed by Einstein. How can you be involved and engaged in the operation of this nation if you are not present? Voting in the Senate is a clever way of hiding your view points from the public, but you cannot just be what amounts to an empty chair when you are the commander and chief

President Obama had no clue how hard it is to be thePresident of The United States of America. No one trying to become President does. There is no class on how to run themost powerful nation in the world. There is no manual on how to deal with thestress, or the constant media barrage. So I can understand how President Obama might not have the time to be atall of his intelligent briefings.  Thereis a difference between being a hypocrite and being wrong.  If you make a statement, and later realizethat you were wrong, or your opinion changes, that does not make you ahypocrite, so long as you admit your mistake.  The issue here is that President Obama has yetto admit that he was wrong.  He has yetto say that it is impossible for the President to be informed on every lastdetail. He has yet to say that the President cannot be present for every intelligencebriefings.  He has not said these thingsbecause they are not true.  PresidentBush attended all of his daily intelligence briefings.  So by the President’s own statements, who hadthe better bead on things. Of course the progressives will not buy this, andthey do not have to.  The facts speak forthemselves.

The plain and simple fact of the matter is that SenatorObama said whatever he had to in order to obtain his comfy office in the WhiteHouse.  He has paid little attention tohis duties choosing instead to focus on maintaining his office and attemptingto destroy the foundation which has made this nation the most powerful countryin the world. He has punted his responsibilities.

Advertisements
8 comments
  1. I have not read much about the time spent at intelligence briefings, but if that’s so, I’m with you.That said, W also favored a “humble foreign policy.”I think the best you can do with campaign promises is throw them in the trash, as far as most politicians are concerned.Btw, love the profile pic.

  2. virtus1 said:

    Last July, the Washington Times noted that Obama has spent 600 hours playing golf since January 2009.

  3. @stuartandabby – This is from an attack ad (surely a credible source) that was made to distract from the news that obama took out the number 2 leader of al qaeda… on the anniversary of 9/11… and has wiped out most of the leadership of the organization, including bin laden.

  4. @agnophilo – I said, “if that’s so.”I don’t applaud Obama for continuing W’s wars, regardless of whose blood he managed to spill on his nobel prize. And I can’t help but wonder if his intel has kept him posted on how many innocents he’s killed with his bombs.Claiming and exercising the power to assassinate American citizens without due process was a nice touch as well.

  5. @stuartandabby – “I said, “if that’s so.” And I said “it’s not”.”I don’t applaud Obama for continuing W’s wars, regardless of whose blood he managed to spill on his nobel prize. And I can’t help but wonder if his intel has kept him posted on how many innocents he’s killed with his bombs.” The wars were controversial for bush not just because they were wars, but because they were started under false pretenses outside of the bounds of the law.  Once we wiped out the military and carpet bombed cities we were in it for better or worse.  Starting a fight and finishing it are not the same thing.”Claiming and exercising the power to assassinate American citizens without due process was a nice touch as well.”There’s no due process in war unless someone becomes a POW, which was not the case.  And killing in self-defense is not illegal, even in international law.  And obama didn’t claim the authority to go after terrorists whoever or wherever they are, it was given to the executive branch before he took office.  “That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”- Authorization for Use of Military Force, section 2(a).You can argue it’s immoral or bad policy, but it’s not outside the bounds of the law.

  6. @agnophilo – Out of curiosity, did you ever argue for W to end the wars? Were you eager at the prospect of Obama taking office as “the peace candidate”? Forgive me if I’m wrongfully lumping you in with all of the others who are doves when W is in power and hawks when Obama is.Do you think innocents regularly dying in multitudinous drone strikes is acceptable? I mean, it’s not okay if it’s part of a wrong war someone else started, but if you have to take over said war, it is fine for you?Are you comfortable with the president deciding that we’re at war with “suspects”? When you hear about Anwar al-Aulaqi’s 16yo son dying in another strike two weeks later, do you just shrug it off? If you’re going to make omelettes, you have to kill over an order of magnitude more innocents than died in the 9/11 attacks.Do you think if Obama keeps enough troops in Iraq for long enough of a time that Iraq will become a bastion of Western sensibilities in the Middle East? Even if he could, would it be worth it? Do you think if Obama bombs enough “terrorists” in Pick-a-stan that they’ll give up? Do you think all of the civilians who survive will praise the USA and feel no sort of resentment or ill will, definitely not the kind that would lead them to retaliation?

  7. @stuartandabby – “Out of curiosity, did you ever argue for W to end the wars? Were you eager at the prospect of Obama taking office as “the peace candidate”? Forgive me if I’m wrongfully lumping you in with all of the others who are doves when W is in power and hawks when Obama is.”As I said, I thought the start and execution of the war was the heinous part, not the mop up.  A lot of people were also pissed that we invaded iraq on the pretense of a response to 9/11 when the taliban were in afghanistan.  While there are some people who are just anti-war period, the reason people were against bush isn’t as simple as that.  And there is hypocrisy on both sides – when bush was in office conservatives were saying it was wrong to criticize a president in a time of war – now they criticize every detail of obama’s policies down to every military decision.”Do you think innocents regularly dying in multitudinous drone strikes is acceptable?” If you mean do I think the level of civilian casualties is justified by the good of the combatants killed, I honestly don’t have enough information to say, at least when it comes to the drone strikes which have vastly fewer casualties than the invasions, which involved widespread, non-targeted attacks on civilian populations.  Both were supposedly to stop alqaeda and the talliban, but for every drone strike fatality there are between 300 and 1,000 civillian casualties from the invasion.  All war is horrible and vile and tragic – and while the drone strikes may not be worth it (I’d need intelligence information to even try to figure that out) a targeted approach is vastly superior both logically and morally to the dick-waving “shock and awe” method the previous administration employed.  And your statistics are wrong, there were barely more casualties from the drone strikes than from 9/11, virtually all of them would have to be innocent bystanders for it to even match 9/11, and even then that’s based on the highest casualty estimate, which is triple the lowest estimate.  Would it be worth killing a thousand people to stop the people who killed 3,000 (and were active 20 years apart from that)?  It’s honestly hard to say.  Just one alqaeda US embassy bombing killed several hundred and injured five thousand people.”I mean, it’s not okay if it’s part of a wrong war someone else started, but if you have to take over said war, it is fine for you?”Most of the controversy from the drone strikes was drummed up after obama took office if memory serves.  Again I don’t think this was a major sticking point for people who were anti-bush or against the wars.  It’s kind of like protesting a war because they’re using bullets (which kill innocent bystanders all the time too).  It’s the nature of war itself.”Are you comfortable with the president deciding that we’re at war with “suspects”? When you hear about Anwar al-Aulaqi’s 16yo son dying in another strike two weeks later, do you just shrug it off?” Are you asking if I think the CIA, DOD and president of the united states got together and decided to take out a teenager in the middle east for kicks?  We’re fighting an enemy that doesn’t wear uniforms or play by any of the conventional rules of war.  What were we supposed to do, invade pakistan so we could arrest him and put him on trial?  In a perfect world we would put every soldier on trial before putting a bullet in their head – or hell just not put a bullet in any part of them.  But we don’t live in that world.  I think the whole thing should’ve been avoided, but I didn’t get that option, and neither did obama.”If you’re going to make omelettes, you have to kill over an order of magnitude more innocents than died in the 9/11 attacks.”I addressed this above.”Do you think if Obama keeps enough troops in Iraq for long enough of a time that Iraq will become a bastion of Western sensibilities in the Middle East? Even if he could, would it be worth it?” Um, obama removed the last of our troops from iraq 9 months ago.”Do you think if Obama bombs enough “terrorists” in Pick-a-stan that they’ll give up? Do you think all of the civilians who survive will praise the USA and feel no sort of resentment or ill will, definitely not the kind that would lead them to retaliation?”I think they’d have been a hell of a lot more receptive if we hadn’t bombed their cities first, and had built hospitals and schools for them instead of blowing up the ones they had first.  But once we did I think we have a responsibility to rebuild and try to undo some of the damage we did, and that we should take out the groups that are bombing our troops in the meantime.

  8. @agnophilo – So, after W had initiated war (particularly in Iraq), you weren’t interested in any sort of withdrawal until everything had been rebuilt? When Obama was promising to end the Iraq War first thing in office, were you excited at the prospect, or were you thinking, “That’s nice, Obama, but we have more work to do”?When I referred to all of the deaths of innocents, I wasn’t strictly referring to drone deaths, but all of the dead in the wake of our aggressive foreign policy in the whole region. At any rate, I’m under the impression that over 15k Afghan civilians have died since 2001 (40% or so of those under Obama). It seems incredibly disproportionate for us to have killed that many people pursuing our own vendetta when less than 20% of that number were lost on our soil.I’m sorry about the Iraq question. Let me rephrase. Do you think almost a decade in Iraq, continued aid, and an ongoing presence of contractors and such will net America a like-minded ally in the region?Re: Afghanistan, I’m trying to understand you correctly. You think we should clean up what we blew up and come back? Or they should be doing some of that and pursuing Al Qaeda and whomever else while they’re there? Are you a fan of keeping 10-20k over there until 2024 or so to train Afghans and all that?

Let the discussion begin

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: