2 Legitimate, Bi-partisan Thoughts

I say bi-partisan for these thoughts because my liberal friends actually agree with me on them. PLUS the reasoning behind them is bi-partisan, even if the reaction arises to blow them off rises from partisan emotions. They are:

1. Obama's initial Fort Hood remarks after the tragedy.
2. Obama's reluctance to trust General McChrystal in Afghanistan.

About point one. On a day of great national tragedy, when Americans are able to look to their President without the partisan spectacles they often have, they seek to hear words of reassurance and comfort. Sure, you can usually predict what those words will be, but you want to hear them nonetheless. So, when Obama's moment comes and network television is interrupted to bring us the breaking address of comfort and mourning, Obama begins to address the nation about....huh? Wait, wasn't there a tragedy? He starts speaking in a broken and uneloquent manner about the treatment of Native Americans? Not to mention an impromptu, casual, and even light-hearted shout out to an audience member. And then after OVER two minutes, he segues into his address on the tragedy mid-sentence while talking about something else! The massacre at Fort Hood didn't even warrant it's own introductory sentence. Can you imagine if FDR had given a shout out to a Senator before uttering that December 7 was a date that would live in infamy? What if Reagan had thrown in a few remarks about our freeway infrastructure before proceeding to address the nation about the Challenger tragedy? Or President Bush grabbing the blowhorn at Ground Zero and hitting up Social Security for a few good comments before declaring that the whole world would hear our resolve. Not only that, but despite the fact that we already knew that the shooter, a Muslim, was shouting "Allah Akbar" while shooting, Obama had the tenacity to tell us to "refrain from judgment," somehow implying that this wasn't an act of terrorism. Okay, well, anybody remember his remarks of July 22 in regard to the arrest of the black professor? Obama had no problem rushing to a judgment later proved completely inaccurate and wrong when he said that the police officers acted "stupidly" when they "had evidence indicating the individual was the home owner." Obama didn't have that evidence, he rushed to judgment, and when his blatant brashness was discovered he was given a "get out of jail free" card by the media who refused to call him on it.

Point two. Bailouts and health care are apparently crisis legislation that have to be rushed to votes so fast that nobody even has time to read them, literally. Votes are demanded not days, but mere hours after the bills are written. I guess Obama forgot his campaign promise of "transparency" in allowing the people 5 days to examine any bill our supposed representatives will be passing. So we know he's prone to quick action and decision in critical situations. Or is he? I guess our troops in Afghanistan aren't critical enough. He's acting as if he's making the decision to start the war--a decision that would rightly demand much thoughtful deliberation over some time. He is not, however, starting this war. It began 8 years ago and our troops have been fighting it actively ever since. This should be a simple decision--your combat commander is telling you what he needs to protect the troops already in harms way as well as what he needs to complete the objectives of the war. Yet what does Obama do? Sit on it. Not only that, but his indecision came during, literally, the bloodiest month of the entire 8 year conflict. More American troops died than any other month while Obama couldn't decide whether to do what their commander knew needed to be done for their protection. Out of 96 combat months in Afghanistan, October was the bloodiest for American troops. And yet he still hasn't reached a decision! Is he vacillating on whether the cause is still worth sending more troops? Have the ones who have already given the ultimate sacrifice done so in vain? If the cause isn't worth more sacrifice, it shouldn't have been worth any to begin with. Obama sends a clear message that health care demands more urgent action than our troops. How do the troops in the field feel--knowing their combat commander, General McChrystal, went to the commander-in-chief to ask for reinforcements that still haven't come? How do they feel on the front lines waiting for relief, looking over their shoulders hoping for support that isn't coming, week after week? Does Obama really think General McChrystal is so incompetent that Obama can't trust him when he asks for more troops? No, Obama needs to consult with his own war council, completely void of any actual representative from the entire operation going on in Afghanistan. Obama needs his Washington bureaucracy to determine the legitimacy of what the man actually in the field of combat is telling everyone.

I guess the people who thought you didn't need any experience as a leader to be President are quickly learning the futility of their naive thinking.