Obama Foreign Policy: Seriously Sub-Optimal

Pictures of Barack Obama bowing courtesy of today’s Drudge Report.

Overview.

I’m not going to hammer on the president for his choice of words on Jon Stewart. I’m not a fan of the Dems’ insulting attempts at faux outrage over things like “binders” so I’ll not do anything but quote our president. But we can safely say, as President Obama did, when Americans die our president’s foreign policy is obviously “not optimal.” And when you look back at the past four years, really, we can’t say what’s happened are mere “bumps in the road,” either, but the result of having chosen the wrong road altogether. Today in the New York Post Amir Taheri put it more succinctly: the president’s foreign policy has “failed.”

So before tonight’s debate about foreign policy, let’s remind ourselves just how sub-optimal this president’s foreign policy has been, and how bumpy the road was. People may criticize Mitt for not having foreign policy experience, but Obama only has four more years than Mitt has, having had none when he started on the job training. The question is whether Barack Obama learned anything during that time, and perhaps the biggest indictment contained in the mess in Libya is that his record indicates he hasn’t learned what he needs to, and is willing to close his eyes to the obvious in favor of a narrative that supports, if tenuously, his world view. Meanwhile I’m sure someone else with a different philosophy, like peace through American strength, would do a lot better.

His One Argument: bin Laden

Let’s start by giving the president partial credit for his one “achievement.” In a true team effort, American intelligence, after years of searching that culminated during the Obama administration, was able to find Osama bin Laden. The president then sent a team of experts into Pakistan to kill him. Still, a number of things still trouble me about this “success.”

First, the president’s beaming over the mission and “spiking the football.” While it’s a comforting thought bin Laden is no longer a threat, call me old fashioned but it does not seem appropriate to throw a party when anyone is killed, even if a confessed terrorist and murderer. The appropriate attitude seems to be one of quiet gratitude, and confidence we were able to accomplish what we needed to protect American citizens from harm. But not elation.

Second, the president’s taking personal credit for the achievement. What happened was a success due to years of work starting in the Bush administration and involving hundreds if not thousands of people from intelligence gatherers to planners of the raid to those who actually executed it. Let’s not forget the president watched it on TV, and was not on the ground personally in Pakistan. He deserves credit as the person at the head of the team, but to the extent he deserves that credit, he deserves as much blame for what went wrong in Libya. And gracious leaders give credit where due. I agree he should be congratulated for making the decision to move forward. He took a risk and it paid off. But I disagree with President Clinton’s assessment that this decision took any special fortitude. I believe Mitt’s right that any president would have made the same decision. So Obama’s credit is for being in the seat at the head of table when the team succeeded, and for calling for the two-point conversion to win the game. He succeeded, and gets the credit for that strategic decision. But it was the team on the field, not him that deserves any glory, and an end-zone dance seems particularly inappropriate.

Third, in his desire to take personal credit, the president shared sensitive intelligence information. He volunteered the identity of the team that carried it out, putting them and their families in danger. And this was one of many leaks, coming per Dianne Feinstein directly out of the White House, of sensitive US information. The president seems willing to compromise security when it suits his political purposes, which I find difficult to condone.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the success of this one mission does not mean Al Qaeda is really “on the run,” as has been claimed by the Dems. They’re still in Afghanistan and now are in Libya. And whatever the president’s policy in this regard, despite bin Laden’s removal, the date of Al Qaeda’s last successful terrorist attack is no longer 9/11/01. It’s 9/11/12.

Now, to more problematic issues: world hot spots

1. Libya. Four Americans are killed in Libya despite pleas for additional security. Reports out of the State Department, the intelligence community and the White House contradict who knew what when. Immediately after the attack the president made a generically deniable statement about not letting terrorism deter us, but spent the next two weeks allowing the American people to believe it’s somehow the fault of our freedom of speech and an obscure YouTube video, using rhetoric that could suggest we somehow deserve what happened. Why? Again President Obama and the Democrats insisted on “spiking the football” over Osama bin Laden’s death at their convention, such that it’s an inconvenient truth that Al Qaeda is not really “on the run,” especially in Libya where the president is trying to take credit for “leading from behind.” Contrary to his assertions, Libya is not a model for American foreign policy success as it is now the site of the first assassination of an ambassador in 30 years.

Judge Jeanine of Fox lets it out here:

(more…)

Romney: More to Gain Than to Lose in Last Debate

Well, the final Presidential debate will be over in less than 24 hours.

I’m sensing a certain level of stress among some Romney supporters in the lead up to this debate. Sure, it’s human nature to feel anxious just before a big event … especially when we are so invested in Mitt’s success. But I’m not nervous one bit, and here’s why ….

Governor (soon to be “President Elect”) Romney has much more to gain than to lose in this debate. It’s Obama that has the tough job tonight. The non-incumbent challenger generally has a low-bar to clear in these debates. They only have to 1) show that they can credibly be Commander-in-Chief and 2) avoid major gaffes. Mitt has shown that he is more than capable of achieving this based on his first two debate showings.

Much of the “who won the debate?” game is about expectations. Obama was widely expected to be a superior debater/communicator, and it was a race-changing event when he lost the first debate so dramatically. This set up debate number two, where Obama had reset his bar down to the floor. As such, many observers felt that he “won” the second debate (by a much narrower margin than the 1st debate, and more on style than on actual issues according to polls). But the President’s “win” was really more of a “most improved” award … we’ve seen no bounce in the polls for him at all.

Conventional wisdom is that Obama is supposed to trounce Governor Romney tonight, since the topic is Foreign Policy. The problem for Obama, is that his supposed foreign policy superiority is already “baked into the cake” of his poll numbers/support. Obama’s problem arises from the fact that his foreign policy successes begin and end with “Bin Laden is dead.” Sure, that’s a HUGE point, but it’s sort of hard to talk about THAT for 90 minutes straight. And no voter is going to change his mind to vote for Obama on this issue. “Hey yeah, Obama got Bin Laden … I had forgotten that. I guess I’ll vote for him now.”

Even those formerly on Obama’s foreign policy team decidedly do NOT see this as a strength for him (be sure to read that scathing rebuke!).

The debate will give Mitt an opportunity to, once again, unexpectedly impress voters on the depth and breadth of his international experience and knowledge. The media have painted him as a lightweight on foreign policy, someone out of his depth. Mitt can and will highlight his substantial foreign exposure through his public, private, and religious experiences.

The wildcard issue for tonight is Banghazi … and not in a good way for Obama.


Despite the President’s higher foreign policy numbers in general, this recent Ohio poll (that was even a +8% Dem sample) showed Mitt UP 49%-47% on the question: “Do you trust Barack Obama or Mitt Romney more on the issue of Libya?” Mitt did miss an opportunity to fully expose Obama on Libya in debate #2. Don’t expect a replay of that tonight …

War on Women? Guest Post: Barbara Hiller Johnson

Barbara Johnson and her husband Mark Chapin Johnson are dear friends in California. Barbara is quite the satirist, but her Barbs are quite reflective, insightful and strike a chord that resonates with many Americans. She has a unique perspective on the ‘War on Women’! Enjoy.

Barb’s Barb

Warning! All who are offended easily please be warned the contents of this material are written by a satirist.

What ‘War On Women’?

Yesterday I was feeling nostalgic so I started perusing old black and white family pictures from years gone by. I came across a photo of my mother in her late teens lined up with a group of her girlfriends all wearing miniskirts, shorts or pants in the style of the old Annette Funicello movies at a camp ground. You might say, ‘so what?’ Well, this picture was taken in the late 1950′s in Iran. This is the same country where today a woman at the very least would be arrested for such indecent clothing. You see, I hear every day from our President, while hopping from university to university, preaching about this ‘War on Women’, and I keep looking to see where this war is being waged. I could certainly understand if the opposition candidate was a Rick Santorum type, but it’s Mitt Romney! You know, the moderate from Massachusetts! I guess if you say it often enough it becomes fact and there are plenty of young and impressionable women who believe this guy when he says if he’s not re-elected they would forfeit 50 years of progress. Hmmm! I bet there are a few women in Iran who would jump at the opportunity of by passing Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy and go back to those easy days and I have no doubt there are plenty of women in Egypt that are now considering the option of what it might be like if Barry Obama had stopped supporting the Islamists in their country. It is so very difficult to listen to 20 year old college girls trying to scare someone like me about the perils of a Romney Presidency. The poor girls are so brain washed that most of their cells have turned dormant and refuse to process thought on their own. Somehow, their college professors, the media and all the so called women’s groups reached into this immature casing of hormones and emotion and filled it up with the ultimate Halloween boogie man.

I must say I am not the most tolerant person I know, especially when it comes to low forms of IQ in human form. So, you can just imagine how hard it must be to smile and try to put some sense into a mind of a young girl who has not yet had the opportunity to lift a finger to support herself. She has been fed, clothed and educated throughout the years without a moment of doubt that all will be provided for her. She has a cell phone with internet connection, an assortment of computers, all the cute and cuddly accessories of a college life, most likely in pink, and of course the tiniest little skirts assuring the attention of the opposite sex. She speaks passionately about the terrible possibilities of how we might all end up barefoot and pregnant with men in charge of every aspect of our lives. I listen and listen while she spews the Chicago mob machine’s talking points on how to get women’s votes. I’ve heard it all before. I heard it when a 30 year old female law student testified in front of Congress about how she needed her Catholic University to pay for her contraception. I heard it when all the overpaid starlets of Hollywood spoke at the Democratic National Convention. How does one even approach such an empty vessel? My grandfather used to say the worse curse on the planet is be stuck with dumb person, and here I am. Funny, no one paid for my birth control and somehow I managed, and funny how thirty years ago no one I knew complained about paying for services such as a college education and most of us worked, sometimes, at more than two jobs! It’s funny how we all took pride in our achievements and never expected handouts. In my day it was shameful to be on any form of welfare and that included your parents. Our motto was ‘Hear Me Roar!’ and sadly yours is ‘Give Me More!’

I’m not sure what you think you’re achieving for women these days. If it’s equal pay you should look at the White House for paying its women staff 18% less according to government data. If you’re looking for sexual equality, well, you win, I guess. My only conclusion from your level of whining and expectation is that you truly believe that you are not now, or ever will be; competent enough to take care of yourself and that you would need either your parents or the government to provide for your every whim. My generation fought for the freedom to be responsible for ourselves, to achieve as far as we could or wanted to achieve, to be in charge our destiny. I’m saddened to see your generation is about expectations to have others do for you. Who is enslaved with shackles now, you or me? It is interesting that when it came to voting for a woman to reach the White House more women voted for the good looking younger man. Even Oprah, the queen of women’s issues put aside her life’s work to choose color over gender.

So little girl, I feel sorry for you. Not because there might be a chance any real progress in opportunity for women will be thwarted in the future, but for the lack of pride and individual accomplishment I see in you today. We have had a right leaning Supreme Court for decades and there has been no reversal in any legal choices for women. If you survived the farthest to the right President, such as Bush, I have no doubt you can survive Mitt Romney who has only proven in deeds to be a fair and considerate human being. Frankly, I am horribly offended by your lack of respect for the true achievement my generation and ones before mine allowing you to be an independent individual with the right to choose your own destiny. To see all that hard work and sacrifice be squandered by the agenda of one incompetent political figure and his ability to brainwash you is very sad indeed. My dear, you are selling your soul to be at the mercy of a man after all!

Romney’s Foreign Policy Speech (VIDEO, full text): Confidence, Clarity, Resolve

Mitt Romney delivers a foreign policy speech at Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, VA., today, Oct 8, 2012. (Photo – Charles Dharapak/AP)

In a sweeping critique of Obama’s lead-from-behind foreign policy, Governor Mitt Romney today delivered a powerful, robust foreign policy speech at the Virginia Military Institute. Speaking of the recent explosion of violence and upheaval in the Middle East, Romney said it is “time to change course in the Middle East.”

Punctuating his national security positions before his next presidential debate on October 16th with Obama (foreign policy will be the topic), Romney said, “That course should be organized around these bedrock principles: America must have confidence in our cause, clarity in our purpose and resolve in our might. No friend of America will question our commitment to support them… no enemy that attacks America will question our resolve to defeat them… and no one anywhere, friend or foe, will doubt America’s capability to back up our words.”

Foreign policy expert and columnist, K.T. McFarland, today on television program ‘The Five’ (FOX News) enthusiastically exclaimed, ”I’ve been waiting 20 years for this speech! He [Romney] was channeling Reagan!” She also went on to say Romney’s “speech was actually really phenomenal and I commend him for doing it!” (MccFarland served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs under President Ronald Reagan from 1982 to 1985 and speech writer for Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger.)

‘The Mantel of Leadership’:


Transcript:

I particularly appreciate the introduction from my good friend and tireless campaign companion, Gov. Bob McDonnell. He is showing what conservative leadership can do to build a stronger economy. Thank you also Congressman Goodlatte for joining us today. And particular thanks to Gen. Peay. I appreciate your invitation to be with you today at the Virginia Military Institute. It is a great privilege to be here at an Institution that has done so much for our nation, both in war and in peace.

For more than 170 years, VMI has done more than educate students. It has guided their transformation into citizens, and warriors, and leaders. VMI graduates have served with honor in our nation’s defense, just as many are doing today in Afghanistan and other lands. Since the September 11th attacks, many of VMI’s sons and daughters have defended America, and I mourn with you the 15 brave souls who have been lost. I join you in praying for the many VMI graduates and all Americans who are now serving in harm’s way. May God bless all who serve, and all who have served.

Of all the VMI graduates, none is more distinguished than George Marshall—the Chief of Staff of the Army who became Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, who helped to vanquish fascism and then planned Europe’s rescue from despair. His commitment to peace was born of his direct knowledge of the awful costs and consequences of war.

General Marshall once said, “The only way human beings can win a war is to prevent it.” Those words were true in his time—and they still echo in ours.

Last month, our nation was attacked again. A U.S. Ambassador and three of our fellow Americans are dead — murdered in Benghazi, Libya. Among the dead were three veterans. All of them were fine men, on a mission of peace and friendship to a nation that dearly longs for both. President Obama has said that Ambassador Chris Stevens and his colleagues represented the best of America. And he is right. We all mourn their loss.

The attacks against us in Libya were not an isolated incident. They were accompanied by anti-American riots in nearly two dozen other countries, mostly in the Middle East, but also in Africa and Asia. Our embassies have been attacked. Our flag has been burned. Many of our citizens have been threatened and driven from their overseas homes by vicious mobs, shouting “Death to America.” These mobs hoisted the black banner of Islamic extremism over American embassies on the anniversary of the September 11th attacks.

As the dust settles, as the murdered are buried, Americans are asking how this happened, how the threats we face have grown so much worse, and what this calls on America to do. These are the right questions. And I have come here today to offer a larger perspective on these tragic recent events—and to share with you, and all Americans, my vision for a freer, more prosperous, and more peaceful world.

(more…)

Best Friends Forever! Socialist Despot Hugo Chavez: I’d vote for Obama & Vice Versa

Yesterday, Venezuela’s dictatorial oppressor, Hugo Chavez, declared his best-friend-forever status with Barack Obama. (In July, Chavez, endorsed Barack Obama for another four years in the White House; yesterday made it a double ‘thumbs-up’ for Obama.):

With both presidents facing tight re-election fights, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez gave a surprise endorsement to Barack Obama on Sunday – and said the U.S. leader no doubt felt the same. “I hope this doesn’t harm Obama, but if I was from the United States, I’d vote for Obama,” the socialist Chavez said of a man he first reached out to in 2009… Chavez is running for a new six-year term against opposition challenger Henrique Capriles, while Obama seeks re-election in November against Republican candidate Mitt Romney. Venezuela’s election is next weekend. “Obama is a good guy … I think that if Obama was from Barlovento or some Caracas neighborhood, he’d vote for Chavez,” the president told state TV, referring to a poor coastal town known for the African roots of its population.

Regarding Hugo’s campaign race next weekend between himself and Henrique Capriles… surprise! Hugo is projecting victories for himself and Obama; plus, he likes the way Obama talks about the El Comandante administration:

But Chavez was back in a conciliatory mood in a TV interview with friend and former vice president Jose Vicente Rangel.

“After our triumph and the supposed, probable triumph of President Obama, with the extreme right defeated here and there, I hope we could start a new period of normal relations with the United States,” he said.

Obama recently said something very rational and fair … that Venezuela is no threat to the interests of the United States,” he added.

Obama’s thinking that Venezuela isn’t a threat to the interests of America sounds like a bit of wishful thinking with a quart of whitewash thrown in – kind of like his earlier statements when he said “the private sector is doing just fine” and the economy can be fixed if people “buy thingamajigs“. Chavez is thick-as-thieves with Ahmadinejad; in recent years, he’s met with the Iranian President at least nine times in Iran and Ahmadinejad has courted Chavez on or around his home turf at least six times. Chavez prides himself for thinking he’s at the head of a world-wide anti-imperialist effort (inspired by and in cahoots with mentor Fidel Castro). Ahmadinejad has called Chavez “a great revolutionary that is resisting against imperialism by defending the rights of his people, Latin America and the peoples of the world.”

Jan 9, 2012 – Bosom buddy oppressors Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, right, and his Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, joke together at Miraflores presidential palace in Caracas, Venezuela. (PHOTO – Juan Barreto/AFP/Getty)

Chavez has said he’ll stand by Ahmadinejad “under any circumstances” – that pursuing ties with Iran is a “holy matter” for Venezuela.

Ahmadinejad, in turn, has thanked Chavez for his “brotherly stance” in backing Iran in the face of international sanctions.

Venezuela is making unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones, with the help of Iran, Chavez said June 13 [2012] on national television.

The two countries in 2007 also established in Caracas the Banco Internacional de Desarrollo, which together with its main Iranian shareholder, Bank Saderat, is accused by the U.S. of being a vehicle for the Ahmadinejad government’s funding of Middle Eastern terrorist group Hezbollah.

According to Bloomberg’s Charlie Devereux, a bigger concern for our national security is what Chavez and Ahmadinejad are cooking up – which could include possible plans to use Venezuela as a launch pad for attacks against America if diplomatic relations with Iran continue to sour.

Townhall’s Guy Benson:

And what about Obama’s “very rational and fair” assessment of Venezuela’s position on the world stage? The notion that Caracas poses no “serious” threat to US interest might come as news to some:

(more…)

A Campaign About…Nothing (and other thoughts)

Is Obama intentionally, in the words of Reince Priebus, or John Ransom, running a Seinfeld campaign “about nothing,” hoping to win solely on likeability? In listening to XM Sirius’ “POTUS” channel Wednesday in my car I was struck by Julie Mason’s comment that this presidential campaign has lacked serious substance. We did get a brief glimmer of hope when Mitt chose Paul Ryan, as folks seemed encouraged by the boldness of the pick and Mitt’s staking ground in the debate about the size of the Federal budget. Ms. Mason lamented that the campaigns, however, have seemed to retreat from that attempt, and that if she craves something like a debate about the proper size and role of government it must mean there’s a real deficiency in her diet, like when she craves spinach. I agree, and quickly responded with a tweet reminding her that Mitt has a proposal, just one of many not responded to in any way to my knowledge by the Obama campaign (while they focus on attacks on Mitt’s personality), to limit government spending to 20% of GDP. Meanwhile Obama ducks the traditional bi-lateral meetings surrounding the UN General Assembly in New York to be filmed on The View. The administration’s quietly stated reason? Too much room for error. So not having meetings to build international relationships and help avoid little things like war over Iran was a a political calculation. The president is likely to make a gaffe or make a promise he can’t deliver on. So he decided to just keep away from problematic stuff like doing his job so he could cultivate his celebrity image. According to Time:

Of course, meeting with world leaders when you don’t know if you’ll still have your job in the next few weeks, can be potentially awkward. It can lead to unfortunate hot-mic gaffes, of which Obama has not been immune (for example, in Seoul earlier this year he asked Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to be flexible on missile defense until after the election, when Obama would have more space to maneuver–too much diplomatic candor for the sensitive electoral season). Still, ignoring the opportunity to meet one-on-one with world leaders underlined where Obama’s attention is fixed: the campaign. And it was the election that dominated the taping of The View. That, and the inside skinny of the Obama family’s schedule.

So he seems to want to float above the fray and not engage in the discussion, just repeating the same old lines about Bain Capital and exporting jobs. On that point, if you haven’t seen it yet, read this article in the New York Post pointing out just whose money is at Bain. Hint: unions, retirement funds and academic institutions are who trusted Mitt to make money for them. Turns out corporations he helped succeed are made up of people (their investors) and the left has known it all along! (more…)

Romney v Obama on 60 Minutes

You be the judge. Bias as I may be, I have more confidence in Mitt Romney’s capacity to lead with a deep well of experience, as opposed to Obama’s continued blame game of excuses. A leader takes responsibility; A leader’s experience nurtures wisdom; A leader recognizes the need to adapt with pragmatism; and a leader is governed by values, constants and principles. The leader of America should be honest, truthful and an advocate for American values of freedom, liberty and empowerment, not entitlement. The leader of the free world should not be an advocate America’s subordination through appeasement and accommodation. The leader of America should adhere to the Constitutional principles and values of a government subordinate only to the people it serves. This is an election of leadership, freedom, peace through strength and a strong, vibrant economy. A strong economy does more to lead people from poverty – under Obama more have entered poverty than at any time since the Great Depression. Again, you be the judge. As a prompt, notice the tenor of each interviewer – a stark contrast between the Romney and Obama interviews.

Those video clips not included in the broadcast. Note Obama’s admission of falsehoods in his ad campaigns and by his campaign.

Mitt Romney as President of 100%, and further insights to ‘distorted context’ by the media:

Barack Obama falls short:

Mitt Romney on Financial Regulation and the oppression of our current President’s agenda:

Mitt Romney on Job training programs and Government overreach and redundancy:

(more…)

Obama Should Adopt Mitt’s Motto: “No Apology”

Reuters reported Thursday that the challenges in the Middle East over the past week represent a “perfect storm” of problems for President Obama.

An eruption of violent unrest across the Middle East is confronting President Barack Obama with the most serious challenge yet to his efforts to keep the Arab Spring from morphing into a new wave of anti-Americanism – and he has few good options to prevent it.

Less than two months before the U.S. presidential election, a spate of attacks on embassies in Libya, Egypt and Yemen poses a huge dilemma for a U.S. leader who took office promising a “new beginning” with the Muslim world but has struggled to manage the transformation that has swept away many of the region’s long-ruling dictators.

Perhaps a “new beginning” wasn’t what was needed in the region after all. Perhaps instead an unequivocal message of America’s willingness to protect itself is what’s needed. We’ll talk, sure, but we’ll also stand up for ourselves. Warning: naked cartoon Obama below the fold. (more…)

A Frightening Moment For Our Nation …

Let’s review things for a moment . . .

A fresh-faced optimistic Democratic nominee (and future winner of the Nobel Peace Prize) is swept into office after a surprise win in the lead-off Iowa caucuses …

As this new President takes office, the economic crisis and national recession intensifies …

An iconic American automobile giant, on the verge of bankruptcy, receives a federal bailout and is “saved” …

Energy costs and inflation soar to historic levels …

Middle East relationships become tense and the US Ambassador to an Islamic agitator nation is murdered by Jihadist Muslim terrorists

The Islamic world isn’t frightened by obvious US military superiority, for they know this President wants to be loved and leave a legacy as a peace-maker …

The Republican Nominee is accused of a “shoot from the hip”/”shoot first; aim later” approach to foreign policy …

Russia is on the rise and emboldened by America’s decreased standing and respect in the world …

Against all reason (but with the help of a complicit media), this incumbent President leads his Republican challenger, a former Governor of a liberal state, in post-convention/pre-debate Gallup polls by close to double digits …

Many strong Republicans are disheartened by their prospects of winning the White House, thereby seeing their great country sink further into decline and disrepute …

The year? The President?

… none other than 1980 and Jimmy Carter my friends (or the present with Obama if you prefer …).


(more…)

A Sad Day for America! Where is our President?

Today America suffered a great loss following a day of sacred remembrance! Most critically, we suffered the tragic loss of life in Libya, and we mourn with those who lost their loved ones, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three of his staff. We offer our condolences and prayers for solace to the family members of those who have suffered this difficult loss. Today America mourns!

Yesterday’s remembrance and today’s tragedy are reminders that we are in the midst of significant turmoil, tumult and commotion in the world. Even so, it is difficult to measure the anger and outrage so many feel when our freedoms and principles are threatened, and lives are lost by radical Islamic thuggery. The disrespect and irrationality of these immoral thugs is difficult to fathom and comprehend, especially when as Americans we value and treasure life and human dignity so significantly. Needless to say, this is a difficult time for the world, and for America. I am grateful for who we are and what we stand for – now if we just had a leader in our President that stood resolute for these same principles.

After waking to the headlines this morning and seeking for some measure and understanding, I reflected back to Condi Rice’s recent speech at the Republican Convention in Tampa. Therein she speaks of leadership and a wanting definition of where America stands. She further speaks of the global turmoil and challenges we have and continue to face, and the critical need for wisdom and leadership on the global stage. She points out that if America doesn’t lead, someone else will. Today we have witnessed the consequences of absent leadership in Washington. The Arab Spring, as noted by Governor Romney is turning into the Arab Winter.

Therefore, I simply ask the question, ‘Where is our President?‘ At a time that demands great leadership in our nation and on the world stage, Mr. Obama is absent! At a time when our outrage and condemnation should be expressed in no uncertain terms, Mr. Obama and the State Department gave utterance to understanding the radical Islamic outrage over derisive comments against Mohammed. Clearly they indicated that such isn’t an excuse, but to give utterance to offense is not leadership, it is capitulation. At a time when our friend and ally in the Middle East, Israel, is under serious threat and their Prime Minister seeks an audience with our President, he is too busy to meet and is unwilling to make it the needed priority it is! And yet, Mr. Obama has time to visit with David Letterman in lieu of the Prime Minister; he has time to campaign in Nevada and Colorado on the very day we have suffered such a great loss in Libya; where are you Mr. President? And, do you really care about what matters? Or, are you too interested in the power, the prestige and the celebrity of the Presidency and your re-election?
(more…)

Page 1 of 3123