Friday, March 25, 2011

Hillary, Our Commander-in-Chief

OK, class, let's try to imagine this one: George W. Bush sending Condolleeza Rice to the microphone to tell the American people that he's sending troops into harm's way.

Obama evidently has never had this commander-in-chief thing explained to him in a nuanced-enough way that he can grasp what it means. Or else he just isn't interested in that part of being POTUS. The perks of the job--you bet, he'll take those all day long. The real work of the job, not so much.

Thursday afternoon, Hillary was sent out in front of the cameras to explain to the American people what roles NATO and the U.S. will play in enforcing the no-fly zone. She started with, "Let me be clear," and frankly, the woman should get an Academy Award for being able to utter that phrase with a straight face. I can hardly wait for her memoirs.

As Politico reported, Obama is successfully resisting the pressure he's getting to deliver an Oval Office speech explaining to the American people what in God's name he's doing in Libya. His aids are saying that while he might talk about Libya in the coming days, he's not likely to "succumb to pressure" to deliver a "long, explanatory address." Well, that's a first! As Windbag-in-Chief, this must certainly be the first time in his narcissistic life that he hasn't wanted to come before a crowd and give people the opportunity to listen to one of his droning, professorial lectures.

It's simply unbelievable the verbiage about Obama's Great Libyan Adventure that's coming out of the White House. His 12-year-old press sec'y, Jay Carney, said on Thursday that this is "a time-limited, scope-limited military action." All I can say is, you f_cks have no right to ask our military men and women to die for something that none of you have the balls to call a war. Let a "scope-limited" bomb hit the White House and see how fast you scream, "War." Let a "time-limited" bullet hit you in the head, and see how fast you call it War.

Byron York, at the Washington Examiner, writes a good article: "Obama fails to grasp the gravity of going to war." Here's an excerpt; the entire article is a must-read: "I see Obama's visiting the United States," said Rush Limbaugh on Thursday, the president's first full day back in Washington after a spring break diplomatic tour of Latin America. For the White House, it was a touch of well-deserved sarcasm; Obama's absence at the start of the Libyan hostilities, along with his haphazard conversations with members of Congress and his nonexistent effort to prepare the American public for war, left more than a few Washington insiders shaking their heads over how the president could have mishandled things so badly.

Here's an article from today's WSJ by Peggy Noonan: "The Speech Obama Hasn't Given." It all seems rather mad, doesn't it? The decision to become involved militarily in the Libyan civil war couldn't take place within a less hospitable context. The U.S. is reeling from spending and deficits, we're already in two wars, our military has been stretched to the limit, we're restive at home, and no one, really, sees President Obama as the kind of leader you'd follow over the top. "This way, men!" "No, I think I'll stay in my trench." People didn't hire him to start battles but to end them. They didn't expect him to open new fronts. Did he not know this?. . . Without a formal and extended statement, the air of weirdness, uncertainty and confusion that surrounds this endeavor will only deepen. Read the entire article.

God bless our troops. Obviously these Marines were soluting the Office of the Presidency, not this fey, physically awkward little man. "Commander-in-Chief"--as former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton, has said, Obama's actions would be a joke if the situation weren't so deadly serious.

Update. Saturday, still waiting for Obama to make his speech to the American people... and as we wait for Barry Soetoro to come out with something substantive about why he's bombing Libya and what his plans are going forward, we can amuse ourselves with nuggets like this one from 2007: Candidate Obama, pandering to the anti-war left, arguing that decisions of foreign policy and military action must involve a discussion with the American people. Heh.

Here's a leg-slapper from Weasel Zippers, quoting Senator Barack Hussein Obama, 20 December 2007:

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

The full interview is at WZ.

No comments: