Obama’s Poor Leadership Revealed in CIA Memorandum
July 27, 2012
David L. Goetsch
The reader will recall that following the long-awaited and much deserved demise of Osama bin Laden, Barack Obama went into overdrive in taking personal credit for the mission’s success. The courageous Navy Seals who put their lives on the line carrying out the mission rated barely a mention from their Commander-in-Chief. Of course, what the president failed to say in all of his comments was that while the Navy Seals were doing their dangerous work in the treacherous mountains of Pakistan, he was comfortably ensconced in an air-conditioned room watching events unfold on television.
Much has already been written and said about the unmitigated arrogance of the president in his handling of the Osama bin Laden takedown. But just when I thought there was nothing more to say on this topic, a memorandum surfaced that casts Barack Obama in a much different light than that of the self-anointed courageous president who had the moral courage to give the go-ahead on a mission that could blow up in his face, embarrassing him and the United States. The president who portrayed himself as a strong leader willing to make tough decisions turns out to be—no surprise here—a weak leader who was prepared to cover his tracks and blame the Navy should the mission fail.
Recall that even his most ardent detractors were willing to give the president credit for green-lighting the mission to take out bin Laden. It now appears that those detractors spoke too soon. A classic “CYA†memorandum addressed to Leon Panetta—Director of the CIA at the time—clearly shows that Obama gave only a tepid and impossibly conditional go-ahead to the Seals. This memo shows that the president wanted to have it both ways. He wanted to be able to claim credit if the mission succeeded and blame the Navy if it didn’t.
<Article Truncated>
Read it all here: http://patriotupdate.com/articles/obamas-poor-leadership-revealed-in-cia-memorandum
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 9
I'm sorry that it pains people to see a Democrat successful. But he is. President Obama forestalled a global economic catastrophy not seen since 1929, had killed the greatest enemy the world has known since 1945, and is bringing American troops home from foreign lands where they have been valiantly fighting and dying to keep terrorists from our shores. No counter-argument is going to alter those facts of his success. He is, I know, just as flawed a human being as any President (Republican or Democrat). But he has had success and to argue otherwise proves one's own ignorance and willful blindness. Such an argument marks one as the kind of cattle who will always vote against their own interests when properly motivated by the greed of others.
To quote BA Baracus: "I pity the fool."
Your aspersions aside, there's zero evidence behind the core assumptions. He's made policy decisions. Some I agree with, others I do not. But, on the whole, he's been no worse or better a President than the last few and probably better than many (Carter and A. Johnson specifically). Your rabidity on the subject is a touch concerning, however. Have you read about the Presidency throughout history? Do you know the kind of things that have gone on in the White House in decades and centuries past?
Personally, I think Dick Cheney should go out hunting with himself. Maybe, with some better aim, we'd be one micro-managing, self-aggrandizing, militarily incompetent fewer in the US. Perhaps he could take Mr Rumsfeld with him first. Between the two of them, they made decisions that cost six thousand US Servicemen and women their lives. General Franks tried to tell them he needed nearly 400k men to secure the population centers in Iraq. Rumsfeld (with the complete backing of Mr Cheney) allotted him 130k. And we fought for eight years to try to gain control of the country because of it. And all of that is President Bush's fault. Because, like it or not, he was the Commander-in-Chief.