Front Page
NMJ Search
Editorials
Commentary
Archive
NMJ Radio
Constitutional Literacy
Islamofascism
Progressivism
Books
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...
Facebook
Twitter
Site Information
About Us
Contact Us
  US Senate
  US House
  Anti-Google






Social Bookmarking
Print this page.
A Clueless President That Wears
His Incompetence with Pride

Andrew Malcolm
June 9, 2014
President Obama was completely surprised by the IRS scandal. Dumbfounded, in fact, that government workers would help his 2012 re-election campaign.

And the NSA scandal. Who could possibly anticipate citizen outrage over government monitoring all their communications?

Obama was clueless about the Obamacare debacle, even days after its botched rollout dominated national news. Months after staff warnings of fundamental tech troubles within his namesake legislation.

And Obama only learned of the recent VA corruption scandal, fraud and tardy treatment for vets from the media, which had chronicled his original outrage over unconscionable delays fully six years ago. Delays he vowed then to fix should he become king president.

But, according to Obama, he was not stunned or surprised at all, not even mildly shocked by the nationwide, bipartisan outrage over his illegal swapping of the Taliban's Terrorism Board of Directors for an American who not only volunteered for the US Army, but then volunteered to walk over to the enemy busy killing his comrades.

And to see that man and his eccentric parents hailed in a special Saturday Rose Garden photo-op celebrating his release with an heroic tone. True, this prisoner-bargain controversy buried the VA scandal for the moment. But it's also hijacked coverage of the president's weeklong attempted reset of security policy in Europe.

"I'm never surprised by controversies that are whipped up in Washington," the president claimed in a Thursday news conference.

What planet has he been on? Does Obama ever talk with his staff, who didn't tell him about the IRS, Obamacare and the VA?

They've been quoted all week saying (anonymously) they were caught flat-footed by the political wildfire ignited by the deal to release five of the world's worst bad guys in or out of prison. "Blindsided" was their preferred word.

"Sire," a minister once told the French monarch. "The peasants are revolting."

"I know," said that country's last king, "They never bathe."

Then, conveniently misunderstanding the target of widespread criticism, Obama added: "I make absolutely no apologies for making sure we get back a young man to his parents." What a thoughtful politician! Always thinking of others.

OK. Well, how about making sure that five top-ranking terrorists -- two of them wanted elsewhere for crimes against humanity -- don't get back with their IED-making, girls-school machine-gunning colleagues? No regrets there either, the Democrat professes, because he'll be "keeping eyes on them."

This from the man whose administration can't lay eyes on the Benghazi murderers 633 days after the president vowed swift justice for them and months after raid leaders were interviewed by US media outlets.

According to Obama and his apologists, speed was suddenly of the essence in this bargain because the American might be in poor health and -- who knows? -- the Taliban might kill him.

Which -- let's be honest for a change, sir -- they could have done during any one of the 2,592,000 minutes they held him. But they didn't -- did they? -- because they knew he was worth more alive.

So, big Obama hurry after five years of nothing. Come to think of it, that's about the same time-frame Obama's held the Keystone XL pipeline as prisoner.

The US commander-in-chief acts like he had no leverage on these Taliban guys, who kept returning to the table for years. What might that suggest to even the dimmest of used-car salesmen?

Vladimir Putin, Bashar Assad, Nouri al-Maliki, Kim Jong-un, Hamid Karzai and Iran's mullahs have been playing Obama like this for years.

The alleged need for speed is also Obama's excuse for violating the law he signed last December requiring 30 days' notice to Congress before moving any Guantanamo prisoner. Susan Rice's credibility is even lower than Obama's job approval. But she says the prisoner deal was essentially done May 27 and finalized the next day.

So, that's only three days to get a call through the 16 blocks to Capitol Hill.

"The White House," Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein observed with a collegial shrug, "is pretty unilateral about what they want to do when they want to do it."

Obama claims that years ago his people told Congress he might do a prisoner deal. But then, years ago he also promised the Recovery Summer of 2010.

Obama is so smart he doesn't want to waste time talking with mere Americans, as opposed to at us. So, we're left to mine news conference blather to detect his thinking.

Of course, Obama won't be the one to feel the blast of his mistakes. But in Warsaw, the president made a stunning public admission about the released Taliban for someone in charge of United States national security: "Is there a possibility of some of them trying to return to activities that are detrimental to us?" Obama asked himself out loud. "Absolutely!"

Obama said the possibility of freed terrorists returning to battle has been true of all the prisoners he's released from Guantanamo. And many have.

You almost have to admire someone with the nerve to cite his own failures as evidence he has the courage to repeat them.

Almost.

Malcolm is Investor's Business Daily'S national politics columnist.

This article was originally featured in Investor's Business Daily. Refer to original article for related links and important documentation.








The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on tax deductible donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a sustaining donation today.







Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of NewMediaJournal.us, its editorial staff, board or organization.  Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to NewMediaJournal.us.  NewMediaJournal.us is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations.  NewMediaJournal.us is not supported by any political organization.  Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by NewMediaJournal.us is copyrighted. NewMediaJournal.us supports BasicsProject.org and its goal: the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


The Media Journal.us © 1998-2014    Content Copyright © Individual authors
Powered by ExpressionEngine 1.70 and M3Server