l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 by Rick aka Mr. Brutally Honest
Victor Davis Hanson is painting things so clearly as to this President's
character that only the completely obtuse would miss the point being made:
Former president Bill Clinton just appeared in a reelection television
commercial for President Barack Obama. At one point, Clinton weighs in on
the potential consequences of Obama’s decision to go ahead with the planned
assassination of Osama bin Laden. He smiles and then pontificates, “
Suppose the Navy SEALs had gone in there . . . suppose they had been
captured or killed. The downside would have been horrible for him [Obama].”
There is a lot that is disturbing about Clinton’s commentary — and
about the fact that such an embarrassment was not deleted by the Obama
campaign. Clinton offers unintended self-incrimination as to why in the
1990s he did not order the capture of bin Laden when it might well have been
in his power to do so — was it fear of something “horrible” that might
have happened to his fortunes rather than to our troops? And, of course,
such crass politicization of national security and the war on terror is
exactly what Barack Obama accused the two Clintons of in the 2008 Democratic
primaries. We also remember that Obama on several occasions chastised
George W. Bush for supposedly making reference to the war on terror for
political advantage, though he never did so in as creepy a fashion as
Clinton. And aside from the fact that Barack Obama promised never to “spike
the football” by using the SEAL mission to score campaign points, only a
narcissistic Bill Clinton could have envisioned the death or capture of Navy
SEALs not in terms of those men’s own horrible fates, but only as
political “downside” for an equally narcissistic Barack Obama.
In Clinton’s defense, he spoke not just from his own selfish instinct
to see presidential survival as more important than the fates of those who
actually took the physical risk. Rather, a year ago Obama himself had
already hijacked the mission with a flurry of self-referential pronouns: “
Tonight, I can report . . . And so, shortly after taking office, I directed
Leon Panetta . . . I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden . . . I met
repeatedly with my national security team . . . Idetermined that we had
enough intelligence to take action. . . . Today, at my direction . . . I’ve
made clear . . . Over the years, I’ve repeatedly made clear . . . Tonight,
I called President Zardari . . . and my team has also spoken . . .These
efforts weigh on me every time I, as commander-in-chief . . . Finally, let
me say to the families . . . I know that it has, at times, frayed . . .”
As for the civilian responsibility for approving such hazardous missions
for our intelligence and military communities, Obama has never confessed,
then or now, that most of the anti-terrorism protocols that led to critical
intelligence about the probable whereabouts of bin Laden had been strongly
opposed by Obama himself. Indeed, almost every Bush-Cheney policy that
President Obama eventually embraced — renditions, tribunals, Guantanamo,
the Patriot Act — was opposed by Obama as a state legislator, a U.S.
senator, and a presidential candidate. Apparently, there is no loudly
announced “reset” when it comes to the war on terror.
He's got more and it's damning, especially for those who continue to refuse
to see or who purposely ignore who this President truly is and what he
stands for.
Read it. Pass it on.
May it become additional fodder to vote for anyone but Obama in November. |
|
