Posted by
Roxanna M. on Monday, April 13, 2009 1:27:34 PM
Here are three items from one edition of the Washington Post. No wonder it's going broke.
(1) "Did President Obama bow to King Abdullah? And, if he did, is there anything wrong with that?" asked Mary Ann Akers. Well, yes, there's a whole heckuva lot wrong with that. (1) No protocol or etiquette on earth requires one head of state to bow to another. (2) The President of the United States should never bow to anyone. And the whole "he wasn't bowing, he was just trying to shake hands with a shorter man" is a load of Barbra Streisand. You'll notice no such gesture from BO when he greeted Queen Elizabeth, and she's shorter than Abdullah.
The question as asked by Ms. Akers betrays her bias. She didn't ask: Did President Obama bow to King Abdullah? What do you think? She asked, "is there anything wrong with that", indicating that she doesn't think so.
(2) "An Early Military Victory for Obama" by Michael D. Shear. Is he kidding. Let's get the facts straight. Four rag-tag pirates were in a boat that had run out of gas and was foundering in the ocean. The US Navy made short work of the whole thing, as it should have. This situation, which should have been brought to a conclusion much sooner than it was, was hardly a military "victory".
(3) This brings us to Chris Cillizza who penned: "On the surface, the Obama . . .". Did you catch that? "The" Obama? He went on to say that "Obama received his first briefing on the incident (hijacking of the Maersk Alabama, hostage taking) just hours after returning from his eight day trip abroad on Wednesday." Why wasn't he briefed immediately? Wasn't this important enough to bring to "the" Obama's attention? BO received subsequent briefings over the next 48 hours.
Going on, "The president's deep involvement in the hostage situation is a recognition that seemingly small events can grow into massive crises in a matter of days, catastrophes than can do significant political damage to even the most popular of presidents".
Being briefed on a regular basis = deep involvement? And, more importantly, did BO do what he did because it was the right thing to do or because he wanted to safeguard his popularity? Does Mr. Cillizza understand the difference?
This brings us to my favorite by Mr. Cillizza: "Obama's willingness to get his hands dirty in what could have been originally dismissed as a minor matter (although it grew into a national and even international story) paid off with the successful release of the captain."
BO had two choices in this matter: (1) Do nothing. (2) Do something. BO has already been doing plenty of nothing when it comes to Americans. He has yet to visit the scene of a single natural disaster, despite the fact that Americans have died while others have gone without for days.
It was long past time for BO to do something besides have parties, go abroad, and apologize for our "arrogance". He wanted to be President of the United States and should get no special recognition when he does his job.
In this particular instance, the US Navy did the job. The Left's should save its plaudits for when BO actually does something. The Left also needs to learn that popularity matters a whole lot less than actually doing something that is in the best interests of this nation.