5 Jan

The Partisan U.S. President

                                       

Brushing aside legitimate criticism, concerns, and harsh questioning of the Obama Administration in wake of the Christmas “dingaling” bomber (as talk radio host Michael Medved refers to Umar Farouk Abdulmullatab), President Obama concluded his weekly radio address (January 2, 2010) with the following call for national unity:

But as we go forward, let us remember this-our adversaries are those who would attack our country, not our fellow Americans, not each other. Let’s never forget what has always carried us through times of trial, including those attacks eight Septembers ago. [Did he just invoke 9/11 (not the first time, actually)? Something President Bush was criticized for doing repeatedly?- wordsmith]

Instead of giving in to fear and cynicism, let’s renew that timeless American spirit of resolve and confidence and optimism. Instead of succumbing to partisanship and division, let’s summon the unity that this moment demands. Let’s work together, with a seriousness of purpose, to do what must be done to keep our country safe.

As we begin this New Year, I cannot imagine a more fitting resolution to guide us-as a people and as a nation.

As Medved pointed out in his program Monday, if the president wishes for politics to “stop at the water’s edge”, why then did he feel it necessary to include the following, earlier in the same speech:

It’s why I refocused the fight-bringing to a responsible end the war in Iraq, which had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks [he's used this line in past speeches- wordsmith], and dramatically increasing our resources in the region where al Qaeda is actually based, in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It’s why I’ve set a clear and achievable mission-to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies and prevent their return to either country.

Why does the “new kind of politician who rises above the petty Washington politics of old” never botheres to reach across the partisan divide himself and acknowledge that President Bush kept us safe since 9/11?

What is it with Mr. Unity, Barack Obama, who calls for the nation to come together at this particular moment, even as he sticks in politically partisan cheap shots within the same speech? As Michael Medved points out, how about leading by example, Mr. President?


Michael Medved writing in USA Today:

Obama undermines his own unity pleas by inserting cheap shots against his predecessor in even high-minded public pronouncements. His Nobel speech explicitly praised America’s battles in Afghanistan and in the first Iraq war 19 years ago, conspicuously excluding the current Iraqi conflict (in which soldiers continue to sacrifice). He also emphasized his decision to close Guantanamo a surefire applause line for his European audience but an utterly gratuitous slap at George W. Bush. Similarly, the big Afghanistan speech featured an out-of-context slam of the prior president’s decisions on Iraq. The whole world knows that Obama represents a fresh start, so these reminders of the raging disagreements of the Bush years unnecessarily undermine the spirit of solidarity the new president seeks.

Repeating the mantra “Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11″ is a politically partisan cheap-shot that stands only to alienate Americans such as myself, who rejects the conventional mainstream understanding of that statement.

Would excluding that gratuitous cheap-shot have weakened his radio address? No. Such partisan sniping is “sooo yesterday’s news”; and amongst his fellow liberals, so passé: Been there, believed that..time to moveon.org to the present…None of them need reminding of what a “miserable failure” “King George” was.

But President Obama can’t help himself because he is not the president everyone who voted for him wishes him to be: A great American president who can unite the nation. Nope. He is a divisive liberal president who represents only one side of the country. The wrong side. He is not conducting himself as the American president, but as the liberal Democrat president.

I’m not the one with the unity problem. I’m not the one who has trouble leaving politics behind at the water’s edge. President Obama is the partisan problem. And the saddest part is he can’t even see it; nor would it appear, can any of his advisors recognize his divisiveness.

This entry was posted in Baracks Broken Promises, Bush Derangement Syndrome, Iraq/Al-Qaeda Connection, Obama Euphoric-Rapture Syndrome, The Iraqi War, War On Terror, Yemen. Bookmark the permalink. Tuesday, January 5th, 2010 at 2:04 am
| 460 views

18 Responses to The Partisan U.S. President

  1. FedUp says: 1

    What an incredibly naive and idiotic moron! I was hoping that he’d start learning on the job he said he was ready for on Day One! A year later, he’s still campaigning against Bush and has YET to do anything on a bi-partisan level. Health Care comes to mind…

    PLEASE, EVERYONE – GET OUT AND VOTE ALL THESE CLOWNS OUT OF THE CIRCUS IN DC!

    ReplyReply
  2. bill-tb says: 2

    If you think of Obama as your two year old kid you will have a much easier time understanding him.

    ReplyReply
  3. Flyovercountry says: 3

    As Michael Medved points out, how about leading by example, Mr. President?

    Unfortunately, the Zero is the perfect example of what happens when we elect leftists. Unity, in its most simplest translation means, if you don’t agree with my agenda, be quiet. It sounds nice, but in reality, it is nonsense.

    ReplyReply
  4. Fit fit says: 4

    That’s not really a “partisan” shot. Many Democrats voted to authorize that war, including his Secretary of State.

    ReplyReply
  5. Steve In Tulsa says: 5

    But Saddam was a state sponsor of terrorism. He gave money and weapons year after year to Jihadists. Also we could not afford to continue the No Fly zones over two thirds of Iraq while Saddam shot at us almost every single day. He had to be eliminated.

    And as a result the Iranian people are rising up and demanding democracy for themselves. But Obama supports the Mullah oppressors over the people of Iran who are struggling for freedom. Obama doesn’t give a damn about freedom: he is trying to repeal as much freedom as he can every day.

    ReplyReply
  6. savage24 says: 6

    The great zero is a narcisus, and doesn’t need anything but himself . All you need to do is look at those he nominated to his cabinet and czars, everyone of them are inept socialist hacks. They make him look smart. He cannot even see that he blundering through this presidency and failing the “useful idiots” that elected him. Wake up America before it’s to late.

    ReplyReply
  7. Missy says: 7

    @Fit fit:

    And, where are they now? Appears they ducked out when the going got tough or, when they stuck their fingers in the air.

    and dramatically increasing our resources in the region where al Qaeda is actually based, in Afghanistan and Pakistan

    Interesting that he doesn’t include Somalia and Yemen. Would his little experiment with expansion unnerve his “half of the country?” Would they believe that having boots on the ground in Somalia and bombing Yemenis with our drones have anything to do with 9-11? Will it still be “the right war?” Has he realized there are some battlefields we have to fight and when is he going to break it to his lemmings? “Hey folks, Bush was right, it really is a “War on Terror.”

    It’s all just words, he belongs in Word World where all you have to do to solve problems is “build a word.” I’m starting to think that program might be dangerous for my great-grandson.

    ReplyReply
  8. Davey says: 8

    Watching Obama muse on the War on Terror is like watching one of those episodes of Police Squad where there’s a 3 alarm fire in a building and the cops are running around with bullhorns squawking, “Move on, nothing to see here, move on”.

    ReplyReply
  9. Wordsmith says: 9

    @Fit fit:

    That’s not really a “partisan” shot. Many Democrats voted to authorize that war, including his Secretary of State.

    True, but be honest here: When someone says Iraq War- no al Qaeda before invasion, no wmd, nothing to do with 9/11, etc., your general run-of-the-mill person thinks of Bush responsibility. Not about Congress. For Obama to throw that statement in there was nothing short of partisan gratuity. A kind of redundancy that’s been said in previous speeches, and already believed to be true by so many others. It was unnecessary in 2010, plain and simple. 40 years from now, when being interviewed and he mentions Iraq, is he going to have to knee-jerk piggy-back it with the mantra, “which had nothing to do with 9/11″? Believers will say “duh” while the rest of us roll our eyes.

    In a speech calling for unity, sticking that in there does nothing except be partisanly divisive. It is gratuitous and out of context for the purpose.

    ReplyReply
  10. I am now referring to him as the B.S.er in chief! He is more than an idiot – he’s a clear and present danger to our nation.

    ReplyReply
  11. It is so obnoxious that Obama wave sthe flag and calls for unity at the same time he’s attacking Bush, and by extension those of us who supported Bush. But as you say, he’s been doing this all along.

    And you’re right, he’s not the President of the United States. He’s the President of the Left. And they’re not even happy with him.

    ReplyReply
  12. Our president is a clear and present danger to the health, prosperity and safety of our nation. And we have to tolerate this immature jerk for another 3 years!

    ReplyReply
  13. BarbaraS says: 13

    Obama is a man of the left and like the rest of the left he has a raging case of BDS. I don’t believe there is a cure for this malady. It just gets worse as time goes by. He and they will never let up.They cannot let up and they cannot move on. They only look back and seek to punish Bush and anyone in his administration. Recall their removing the W from all the computers. Petty minds indeed.

    ReplyReply
  14. Flyovercountry says: 14

    As I learned while still a young pup, (as an assistant manager for the F.W. Woolworth Co.,) the new guy gets a free 6 months to blame the old guy for all of his ills. After that, the bosses get tired of the nonsense. It comes down to this, who do we ask, if you, the guy in charge does not have our answers. The Zero campaigned for this job. The American people want actual, and not theoretical results. So far, everything this idiot has done, has made everything worse. So while it all very well may have been Bush’s fault, (something with which I strongly disagree,) You don’t get any points for reporting that too me. In the year since he has been President, he has only accomplished one thing which could be construed as marginally positive. (He managed to not screw up the Samali Pirate thing. Although, most believe he was credited for something which others did well, and his inability to screw it up was more luck and lack of proximity than anything else.) He has been able to inflict massive damage to our economy, private industry, national security, world standing and diplomatic relationships, and God knows what else. The Blame Bush game no longer produces the results he is hoping to. By the middle of February, it will cost him to slip in the polls with every mention of Bush’s name or any appearance passing the buck.

    ReplyReply
  15. American Voter says: 15

    Speaking of security for Americans. . .why is manpower and equipment, once again, being diverted from intelligence gathering to monitoring environmental change? (Bush had halted this use of CIA resources)

    Will this mean all ‘climate’ data gathered will be classified and we will have to believe what ever the Golfer-in-Chief deems data results? Is he doing this to leverage passing the Cap & Trade Bill instead of protecting us? Is he that uncaring about our country and the American Citizens. . .(sarcasm alert — you do not have to answer)

    I heard that someone will be fired/’decided to work in the private sector’ in a day or two because of the BVD Jihadist. . .too bad we can’t pick who should go!

    ReplyReply
  16. tfhr says: 16

    @American Voter:

    Thanks to you a new acronym is born:

    BVDBIED – BVD borne IED. It’s a little trickier to say than the VBIED – vehicle borne improvised explosive device and also confusing if the BVD wearer is riding in a vehicle, but we can never pass on the opportunity to incorporate a new acronym.

    ReplyReply
  17. Toothfairy says: 17

    @tfhr: Gee, I’ve just been calling him Fire Crotch. It sounds less official, but it sure conjures up a lasting visual image.

    ReplyReply
  18. tfhr says: 18

    @Toothfairy:

    “Fire Crotch” really brings home that time honored phrase, “This is a non-smoking flight”.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>