For two weeks, the administration was largely quiet about the unrest in Libya until the insurgents began taking entire cities and seemed on the verge of closing in on Gaddafi’s Tripoli. Then President Obama called on Gaddafi to step down and stop the “unacceptable” level of violence. But things then got worse, not better, once Gaddafi began to employ a level of violence that his ilk counts on to stay in power (cf. Assad in Syria or Ahmadinejad in Iran). So at last we announced a funny sort of no-fly-zone, inasmuch as Gaddafi can put down the rebellion without use of his planes and gunships.
So, President Obama does nothing while civil unrest--like that seen in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain and other places grows. We do nothing to fan the flames of freedom, we do nothing to put a halt to Gaddafi's brutal response. Then when the brutality gets too many headlines on CNN and the President has finished his NCAA Bracket--we get the most wishy-washy, mealy-mouthed response. Where is Ronald Reagan, where is George W. Bush, hell at this point I would take a Bill Clinton--at least they had a real response. You either hated the response or you loved the response-but at least you knew it was a response. What is this action by the President?
Debt is now the father of us all. In some sense, every cruise missile fired, every Social Security check cashed, ever NPR show aired is done so in part with borrowed money. In response, the president saw the impending doom of insolvency, appointed a bipartisan commission to draft a solution, and then ignored his own appointees’ recommendations. So far the excuse is largely that George Bush ran up debt as well, although last month Obama’s red-ink exceeded the entire 2007 budget deficit under Bush — 30 days of Obama trumping 365 of Bush.
Well all know that debt is a problem, my larger concern is the inability of this Administration to own up to its spending habit. Further irritating me is that this Administration continues to blame George W. Bush. I didn't like the spending Bush did, I think it was wrong in some regards. But I have never, ever, in my lifetime or in my reading of history heard of one President blaming his predecessor for so long. Sure, Obama inherited a fiscal mess--but this Administration has done little to clean it up and in fact has added piles of debt to the nation's balance sheet. Even my kids eventually admit that they did something wrong after blaming their sibling--but not this President. He seems oblivious.
There is no longer a “war on terror,” and we are to understand that its former components — tribunals, renditions, preventative detention, Guantanamo, Predator assassinations, Iraq, the Patriot Act, wiretapping, and intercepts — were as subversive to the Constitution under Bush as they are essential to our security under Obama.
So if it was bad under Bush--why isn't it as bad under Obama. The difference is clear--in 2008 Obama was a candidate not responsible for the saftety and security of 330 million Americans. The world looks a lot different when you pick up that burden. The fact is, the Constitution is a document designed to protect the American People from the American Government. The document does not protect those who would do our Nation harm. Cross our nation, feel her wrath--that is the what the World needs to understand.