Obama's Lack of Leadership

You might find this hard to believe, but there is a word in the dictionary that is appropriate for what's happening in our intervention into Libya's festering civil war.  The word is OBAMBULATE, which means to "wander or walk about aimlessly."  You can check it out if you don't believe me.

It's a fitting word for the lack of leadership coming from President Obama on the majority of issues he has faced in his two years of office.

Starting with Libya, yesterday during a press briefing, we were treated with this hilarious exchange between Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes and a journalist who asked:  "If it's not a war, what's the right way to characterize this operation?"

Leader of the Pack
Vince Lombardi

Mr. Rhodes said:  "I think what we've said is that this is a military operation that will be limited in both duration and scope.  Our contribution to this military operation that is enforcing a U.N. Security Council resolution is going to be limited to the from end, and then we'll shift to a support role..."

Question:  "But it's not going to war then?"

Mr Rhodes answered:  "Well, again, I think what we are doing is enforcing a resolution that has a very clear set of goals, which is protecting the Libyan people, averting a humanitarian crisis and setting up a no fly-zone.  Obviously that involves "kinetic military action", particularly on the front end..."

In response to the earlier question, it's clear that President Obama has no interest in exhibiting any leadership on the Libyan conflict.  Not only won't he call it a war, but he talks about providing humanitarian aid, to enforcing the no fly zone to providing naval and air support, with little or no clarity to our mission.  His dependency on NATO (who's origins date back to creating a North Atlantic Alliance to support member countries -- of which Libya IS NOT ONE) eliminates the United States and President Obama from taking the lead in what is understandably a difficult situation.

Can you imagine President George Washington, Ulysses Grant,  Prime Minister Winston Churchill or better yet, General George Patton using "kinetic military action" to describe our activities?  For President Obama, not only is war hell -- but apparently -- so is just saying it.

President Obama has shown NO leadership in the handling of one of the biggest problems our country is facing -- illegal immigration.  Instead of showing support for tough new immigration reform -- designed to identify, prosecute and deport illegal immigrants -- President Obama filed a lawsuit against Arizona saying that the state was taking matters into its own hands.  That's our job, the U.S. Justice Department argued.

Apparently their job is to oppose Arizona's new immigration law.  Speaking at a naturalization ceremony last year, President Obama call for an overhaul of immigration laws to avoid "irresponsibility by others." He later added that the Arizona law threatened "to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans...".  Huh?  Since when does identifying ILLEGAL immigrants and deporting them undermine American fairness?  Maybe breaking the law is an acceptable way of doing business in Chicago, but not for the rest of the country.

I understand that President Obama, being a democrat, was likely to oppose the new law.  What I don't understand is why he decided to interject himself into this debate at all.  States across the country have proposed or enacted hundreds of bills addressing immigration since 2007 (some 222 laws and 131 resolutions in 48 states) because the federal government won't enforce the laws that will make these states safe.  If he wants to exhibit leadership on this issue, he should stop micromanaging immigration reform and just tell the Justice Department to "do their job."

For too many years, politicians have put votes and their survival before the safety of their constituents and the rights of states to protect their borders.  President Obama's no different.

If Obama takes the lead on anything these days, it's getting out there and apologizing for occasions when America has been " arrogant, dismissive and derisive" toward Europe.  Rather than being a statesman for a strong America, Obama has claimed that America has "a moral responsibility to act" on arms control because only the U.S. has "used a nuclear weapon."  In Latin America, he said the U.S. had not "pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors" because we "failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas."

Why the criticism?  As Nicolle Wallace explained in a Daily Beast article last year "Why is Obama Apologizing for America?" it's not because Obama is anti-American.  It's because he views America as needing to BE SAVED from its past (bombing Hiroshima, the Bay of Pigs and Pershing and cruise missiles in Europe and the Middle East).  And as it's savior, Obama must tear it down before he can save it.

By all accounts, President Obama does not see American exceptionalism.  Lacking in his definition is a belief in America's special accomplishments and a history of unrivaled freedom, generosity, productivity, innovation, militaristic and diplomatic strength and record as liberators, protectors, and defenders.

Finding fault in America has never had a seat in the Oval Office quite like it does with Obama.

My last post talked about how people are feeling like things have never been worse.  Throughout the history of this great country -- through depressions, wars and unemployment -- citizens have looked to our president for confidence, a great vision, and hope.  It is also important that our leaders hold an optimistic view of the world, so that they can inspire others to achieve better things and overcome obstacles to freedom and choice.

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, in her eulogy of former president Ronald Reagan, stated the following:  "In his lifetime, Ronald Reagan was such a cheerful and invigorating presence that it was easy to forget what daunting historic tasks he set for himself.  He sought to mend America's wounded spirit, to restore the strength of the free world and to free the slaves of Communism."

Is it too much to expect the same from Obama?