Submitted by Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
“I should have anticipated the optics.”
–President Barack Obama
President Obama claimed in an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press that he regretted playing a round of golf immediately following a press conference in which he spoke of the murder of captured Journalist James Foley by ISIS terrorists. This comes after weeks in some media circles of condemnation for showing lack of sincerity and being aloof to what had taken place.
The president stated that he “had to hold back tears” when speaking to the family of Mr. Foley but added that there was the possibility of a “jarring contrast” between world events and his desire to carve out a semblance of a normal life involving recreation.
The president also admitted that sometimes his own performance in some of the more public rituals of the presidency was lacking.
“Part of this job, is also the theater of it.
“It’s not something that always comes naturally to me. But it matters. And I’m mindful of that,” Obama said.
President Obama’s statements are surely not going to temper anger in the minds of those who were affronted by his remarks. It could be asked if his regret was whether he might have upset the family and those who knew and loved Mr. Foley or if his own image might have been tarnished.
One has to wonder how much else is theater with proffered claims of sincerity.
By Darren Smith
Source:
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
Olly,
The President of the United States is not just any person. Look at the 1st part of the 2-part construction of “rule of law”. That’s Executive – that’s POTUS.
Rafflaw,
I can understand why it ‘appears’ everybody hates that guy. I think of him the same way I do many on this blog. So much intelligence wasted simply because they care more about a person (Obama) than they do about the rule of law. We could be so much better as a nation but that would require putting the nation above themselves. That takes humility and that is not important in this selfie-trophy culture.
rafflaw: “How about trying some facts for a change.”
1. President Obama threw away the hard-earned peace we were building in geopolitically critical Iraq. He was wrong to leave Iraq prematurely. America’s protection was needed for the continued progression of Iraq’s pluralistic liberal reform and constructive role in the Middle East and the welfare of the Iraqi people – increasingly so as the Arab Spring degenerated, especially in neighboring Syria. Imagine what might have followed if we had similarly abandoned Europe and/or Asia in the early 1950s.
2. Yet Obama actively supported regime changes in the Arab Spring, most prominently in Libya but also Syria. But because Obama refused to use US troops as the mechanism, he resorted to supporting proxy forces in a sort of ‘Charlie Wilson’s War’ anti-Soviet Afghan mujahideen strategy – which effectively meant empowering radical factions in the anti-government forces. There is some accusation that Obama went as far as deliberately building up radical factions like ISIS as proxies. I think that’s a stretch. But just Obama’s general support to anti-government forces likely reached the same end.
3. Most damning is Obama has known of the compounding harms of precipitously leaving Iraq in combination with his no-US-troops-but-yes-regime-change approach to the Arab Spring for over a year. How do I know Obama has known? Because it’s been open-source news for at least that long, which should mean he’s known about it for longer.The Ambassador Stevens killing in 2012 was a clear sign that Obama’s approach was failing.
The third point is not most damning because Obama’s deviations from Bush have been a disaster. I understand that in the high-level global competition of war and peace, a right-intended strategy might not work as intended on contact. That’s normal – that’s just the nature of competition. What is unforgiveable is Obama’s apparent refusal to try to adjust to the contest as the ‘error messages’ piled up. Just in Iraq, the terrorist attacks crossed over from Syria to Iraq last Spring/Summer. Fallujah fell in January – that should have been the red line for US intervention. Then Mosul in June. Humanitarian disaster building rapidly. Yet Obama took it in passively and let it.
American leadership of the free world is real. Its absence in a competitive world is also real.
I can only say Wow. We know many of you hate Obama and you are entitled to your opinions. How about trying some facts for a change. Just a suggestion.
rafflaw – I don’t hate Obama. I do however think he is an incompetent twit who has done more to bring down this country than any other President. And that’s a fact, Jack!
Annie,
This is what it looks like when those that take an oath actually honor it. Enjoy!
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2014/09/08/sheriff-nace-stands-tall-for-gun-rights-in-pennsylvania/
Annie: “My daughter served under Bush who she did not vote for”
That reminds me of my Army service where Clinton was my CinC.
I didn’t vote Clinton, either. I had no problem with Clinton, or Dole for that matter. I just voted for Perot on general principle as a viable 3rd party candidate.
As a soldier, I questioned Clinton about 2 things.
One was typical soldier’s grumbling about the Army being run ragged due to the various ‘mission creep’ interventions. We weren’t really being overtaxed but it was noticeable that we had a shrinking Army post-Desert Storm being asked to do more stuff more often. In particular, it stood out that reservists were busier than they ought, which told me that the regular Army wasn’t big enough. The deployments also told me the geopolitical situation was dynamic and changing.
The other question was more serious. When the USS Cole was hit in 2000, I expected that to cross the red line.
I was a few blocks away in 93 when the World Trade Center was attacked the 1st time. Later as a soldier, I had wondered about our reaction to the embassy bombings. When the USS Cole was hit in 2000, I thought there was no way the President would let that go without decisive action, which meant us. When that didn’t happen, I thought it was a mistake by Clinton and wondered what was next on AQ’s target list. I was back home in NYC when the question was answered.
Elaine M,
The burden of proof was never on the US and UN to find WMD in Iraq. The burden of proof was always on Saddam to prove compliance with the UNSC resolutions of the Gulf War ceasefire, which included the requirement for Saddam to account for his weapons (stocks, systems, research & development, production, materials, procurement, etc) to the mandated standard.
UNMOVIC was Saddam’s “final opportunity” (UNSCR 1441) to comply and the main trigger for OIF was what UNMOVIC did find over the UNSCR 1441 inspection period: “about 100 unresolved disarmament issues” (Cluster Document). Clinton didn’t “find” WMD stocks, either, when he bombed Iraq in 1998. The same unaccounted stocks that, among other violations, triggered Clinton’s Operation Desert Fox in 1998 also triggered Bush’s Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003.
President Clinton, CNN, July 2003:
Saddam was guilty. It’s not relevant to Bush’s decision for OIF, but the Iraq Survey Group found this in the post-war investigation, among other violations:
That falls squarely within the UNSCR 687 standard. It stands out in particular for the association with the IIS, which was notorious as Saddam’s regime arm that worked with terrorists and carried out Saddam’s in-house black ops. In fact, Saddam’s chemical weapons program originated in the IIS. It appears Saddam intended to hide it there from the UN.
The scary thing? It worked. I haven’t seen anywhere that either our pre-war intelligence or UNMOVIC had a handle on the proscribed activity in IIS. It’s conceivable that had Bush been less strict about Saddam’s compliance and allowed Blix to relax the mandated standard, Iraq might have been certified by UNMOVIC while Saddam retained the very capability in the very regime arm that concerned us the most after 9/11.
Annie; at least bush wasn’t an outright liar Bush quit playing golf during the war.
This is too dumb to know the difference between right and wrong. constitutional scholar my a$$
If only your obsession extended to those in government refusing to honor their oath.
http://youtu.be/45qt0iq5scE
Rhodes, founder of the Oath Keepers calls Romney a “traitor to the Constitution”. Calls for the Republican party to “die”.
http://youtu.be/0EKpTkHCbcY
Olly, it’s NOT a reaffirmation of your military oath and you know it. But carry on. Very few rational thinkers are going to buy it.
Well Annie, I take you at your word(s). You do make a good point though. In one thread you claim to respect the military and veterans and then on this thread you condemn veterans for reaffirming their oath. I’ll just weigh your body of work that I’m familiar with and conclude my assessment is correct.
Thanks.
Olly, you have abolutely NO understanding of me. None. Any more mischaracterizations?
“according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”
That point is significant!
http://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/swearing-in-for-military-service.html
I believe I’m getting to a much better understanding of you Annie. An oath to you is something one does to acquire a job, not something one does IN the job; kind of like checking off something on one’s bucket list.
Fortunately, the military has a job description that is directly connected with the oath and therefore lives to honor it every single day. The political class and their civilian electorate don’t have that same relationship to an oath. The former check it off their “list” and the latter don’t even have it on their lists. The real irony is our republic entrusts those disconnected from any oath to take on the responsibility of holding the elected accountable to an oath.
That explains plenty.
Be Ready To Raise Your Right Hand
Share on facebook
2.3K
Share on twitterShare on google_plusone_shareShare on more
Add a comment
Everyone who joins the military has one thing in common, they must swear-in by repeating the enlisted or officer Oath.
The Oath of enlistment is something that every service member must promise and adhere to for his/her entire military career. From the Oath, you can see that you will be defending the Constitution – not a person. Discipline and accepting orders is sworn to. Finally, you vow to face the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) should any disputes arise.
The Oath of Enlistment (for enlisted):
“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
The Oath of Office (for officers):
“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the _____ (Military Branch) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance tot he same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”
***************************
Enlisted military members swear to obey orders from their superior officers and the CinC, as well as an oath to uphold the Consitution. The officers swear to uphold the Consitution. Again, there is NO need for any redundant “oath”.
Olly,
Military members take an oath to uphold the Consitution. No need to expand on it. I don’t see JT coming out in support of any insurrectionist group, are you attempting to indicate he does? I seriously doubt it.