Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
After Bin Laden Republicans Undermine Obama As Commander in Chief
After the terror attacks of 9/11, the nation rallied behind George W. Bush because Americans are aware that in a time of crisis it is important to support the commander-in-chief of our armed forces. The support and goodwill for Bush was in spite of his poor performance and the fact that the Supreme Court handed him the presidency. At the time our troops were being deployed to invade Iraq, some Americans questioned Bush’s motivation and they were ostracized, called traitors, and worse, accused of not supporting the troops. The Republican noise machine propagated the meme that questioning the president while our military was engaged in a war was tantamount to hating our soldiers.
Since Republicans are known for being rank hypocrites, it was not surprising that when President Obama took office, the criticism from the right was that he was soft on defense and ill-suited to lead the military. Republicans like John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Dick Cheney assailed the president for being conciliatory with the enemy and not displaying the cowboy diplomacy associated with George W. Bush, but they were never called traitors and no-one accused them of not supporting the troops. Dick Cheney went so far as to say, “It is clear that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe.” So to use the Republican measure of what constitutes being a traitor and not supporting the troops, Dick Cheney plainly qualifies on both counts.
Sarah Palin, the self-professed greatest military mind in the history of the world said of the President, “his fundamental approach to terrorism is fatally flawed.” Palin also said the president’s handling of the war on terror is “dangerous for our nation’s security,” and that he needs to “recognize that the real nature of the terrorist threat requires a commander-in-chief, not a constitutional law professor.” As it turns out, the real commander-in-chief, President Obama, does recognize the terrorist threat and used his law professor mind to carefully explore all options before ordering the military to covertly enter a sovereign nation and kill the most wanted terrorist in the world. For the myriad times Palin criticized the military’s commander-in-chief, it is obvious that she does not support the troops. It is also obvious that Palin’s criticism of the president while on foreign soil qualifies her as a traitor.
There is no lack of criticism for the president from Fox News, and like Republicans, have made it their stock and trade to characterize Obama as weak on defense for “reaching out to the Muslim world” and saying “that America is not at war with Islam.” Pundits on Fox have said that under the Obama Administration, “the federal government really doesn’t take terrorism very seriously.” In another Fox News program during a conversation regarding the president and the CIA, a conservative pundit claimed, “The real problem, is the morale is obviously bad but clearly, for the CIA now to be answering to a president, for the first time I think a sitting president who has given aid and comfort to the enemy, both psychologically and materially, it’s a very distressing thing because…the President obviously does not care.”
The criticism has not abated with the killing of Osama Bin Laden although many critics in Congress have been careful to commend the president for making a “gutsy” decision. However, many right-wing pundits have given credit to George W. Bush instead of President Obama. Palin in particular thanked the military and particularly Mr. Bush for killing Bin Laden in a post on Facebook, and in the thousands of comments following the post, Palin’s supporters decried Obama’s involvement in Bin Laden’s death and congratulated Palin for her role…whatever that may have been.
There are thousands of instances of Republicans criticizing the president while the country is still engaged in two wars and it is painfully clear that they do not understand the nature of the military. Soldiers are loyal to their commander-in-chief regardless of his party affiliation, and when they hear criticism of their leader, they take it very personally. In the case of our current military, every soldier is a volunteer and they serve out of a sense of patriotic duty to the country and their leader. There is some validity to the point that being critical of the president is being critical of the military when regarding the prosecution of the wars. Service members have related that when they hear anyone criticize President Obama’s handling of the wars, they bristle that it extends to the troops in the field who are following orders.
The continued criticism of the president’s handling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are unfounded and borne out of hatred for the president’s race. He has been strong on defense and has made bold decisions in prosecuting the war on terror and his critics can hardly accuse him of being weak any longer. Republicans will be hard pressed to use their staple campaign slogan that a Democratic president is weak on defense, and it explains Republican attempts to give all credit to Bush or Sarah Palin. What Republicans have done with the criticism is show their hatred for our military and their lack of support for the troops in the field who would follow the president’s orders at any cost.
President Obama did make a gutsy decision, but it was made out of concern for justice and to protect the American people. His decision also demonstrated his trust in the capabilities of the men and women in the military as well as the intelligence community who work tirelessly to protect the nation. This president and Democrats in Congress have done more for veterans and soldiers in the field than George W. Bush ever did and military personnel are grateful to their commander-in-chief. They are also grateful that Obama does not recklessly commit them to danger and they appreciate his diplomacy first policy instead of shoot first and ask questions later.
Republicans accused critics of Bush’s policies of not supporting the troops and being traitors to America, and they were relentless in pursuing that line of thought throughout the Bush war years. Now that there is a Democrat in the White House, Republicans have changed the rules and it is in part because of the president’s party and in part because of his race. However, they are not getting a pass on this one just because they are hypocrites. When Republicans criticize President Obama’s handling of the wars or his policy on the war on terror, they are not supporting the troops. In fact, their unrelenting attacks on Obama’s patriotism or alleged weakness on defense means they hate the military. Their insistence that the president should confront enemies and wage war on Islam shows their disregard for the lives of our service men and women.
The president deserves to be commended for his thoughtful decision and steady resolve to protect the nation and our service members. As for the critics of the president’s defense policy and handling of two wars; they are hypocritical traitors, despise the troops, and are not worthy of the dedication and sacrifice the military makes to protect them.
For ten years Americans sacrificed incredible, crippling sums of money, and the blood of our brave ...
There are very few organizations in a country that are as important as the men and women who wear milita ...
President Obama’s plan to leave 50,000 troops in Iraq has come under criticism from the nation’s leading ant ...
On Fox News Sunday former vice president Dick Cheney explained to his own party why Obama deserves credi ...
According to a new Pew Research report on Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, 51% of vets believe that relyin ...
majii
May. 4th, 2011 at 11:37 am
Many republicans aren’t patriots in any sense of the word because true patriots support their country, its leaders, and its troops, no matter who holds the reigns of power. I didn’t vote for GWB, Reagan, GHWB, or Nixon, but I also didn’t abandon my loyalty to the country and stop wishing for the nation’s success only because they were the president, either. It is the type of partisanship that many republicans engage in, to the detriment of the country and its citizens, that illustrates this lack of patriotism, imo.
phoebes-in-santa fe
May. 4th, 2011 at 12:11 pm
majii, you are so right. I didn’t vote for those Republicans either, (though I did vote for Ford in 1976) but they were MY presidents. I may not have agreed with them or their policies most of the time, but I still supported their position as president of the US, ALL the US.
The only president I did not support was Bush II. I gave him a chance after 9/11, but the invasion of Iraq and all the subsequent lying finally killed any measure of support or respect I had for him.
These Republican assholes never gave Obama a chance. That’s what I think is the worst.
Reynardine
May. 4th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
There is no question that the Dissocialists are hypocrites and bullies, but I have to flaw the mainstream media for enabling them. To the MSM, “fairness” means striking an exact median between the facts and tthe worst lie told; between justice and the most unjust of propositions. The Dissocialists propose exterminating ten million “useless eaters” and their opponants say that is criminal and illegal? Come on, “liberals”, the MSM bluster, why can’t you compromise on five million? Isn’t it “fair” to say you can torture people a little bit, or that the pensioner who lives on four hundred a month can “share” the tax burden of the filthy rich(who actually aren’t paying)? Come on, why isn’t denouncing racism playing the race card… and on, and on. The law in its majesty forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges and dumpster dive, just as it allows rich and poor alike to invest in hedge funds: the law is “fair”. That is the state of our journalism and punditry: fair… a fair description of the enablement of political bullies, who never saw an advantage they didn’t like to take.
Reynardine
May. 4th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
While proofing the above, I noticed I had written “pollutical” for “political”, a most serendipitous portmanteau word, which you are all welcome to use.
Nasty Liberal
May. 5th, 2011 at 4:32 am
Love it, being the pollutical animal that I am!
sherriww
May. 4th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
This article brought up such a good point,in the fact that our Military,all of our Armed Forces,they work for,and stand up for,their Commander-In-Chief,and that any overt or extreme meaness toward the President,makes them feel demoralized and angry,because it seems a direct hit at THEM too! So,the Rethugs are not even beyond hurting our Military men and women for their own,sick purposes! Most of us have a relative or friend in the Armed Forces these days That means that not one of us should tolerate the terrible antics of the Rethugs/Teathugs against our good President-not one more minute. The repubs are,in every corner of this country,coming up with crazy issues that they hope to get on their state ballots in 2012.WHY? because they feel they can draw out the more confused,as well as the crazies,in their states,to the polls and incite them to vote ONCE AGAIN AGAINST THEIR OWN INTERESTS,by voting for whatever idiot they get put on the Repub ballot,against this President who will actually protect them! Republicans have now become a form of Domestic Terrorists themselves,and will throw ALL the poor&middle class under the Bus,given that chance!
Sally
May. 4th, 2011 at 12:57 pm
I have been impressed by the speed at which the GOP returned to criticizing the President after the events of Sunday. They are so entrenched in their lies about him that it is impossible for their small minds to even consider admitting that he is brave, intelligent, and very much an American. This will all come back to haunt them next year, when the GOP Governor/Fuhrers have done more damage to hurting states, and when the GOP figures out that it has no planks left in their platform. They will not be able ti run on jobs again, after the total lack of attention to job creation they have shown since November. I think Palin will be the sacrificial nominee…might as well get her run over by the big bus and be done with her.
HardyHare (EOA)
May. 4th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
If we questioned Bush, we were called un-American and he led us to the wrong place twice!
Michael Lange Optometrist
May. 4th, 2011 at 1:36 pm
There was a time when I considered myself to be a republican with conservative values. That time has since passed. The catering to the evangelical right, constant hypocricy, and movement away from TRUE fiscal conservatism has driven me to the other side. President Obama did what Bush failed to do. That is the nail in the coffin in any argument where Obama’s ability be commander in Chief is questioned.
Ann
May. 4th, 2011 at 8:00 pm
I’m thinking his advisors did what Bush failed to do, since Obama himself never served in any military capacity that has come to light! Those advisors and better intel. then Bush had and those wonderful military soldiers that did the job, are what DID THE JOB! The CIC does say GO, but he does not by all means make the decision without those other factors. While we are on this, is everyone in America naive enough to this that this was the only time they did a raid to catch him. How many failed missions before he pushed the GO button? Really now! It may be a good thing that we killed him, time will only tell. Nothing about the time strikes anyone as weird!? And I’m not a Republican but I have dealt with the military for 20 years.
Shiva (Moderator)
May. 4th, 2011 at 8:08 pm
No nothing about the time strikes anyone as weird. It is a year and a half to the next elections you know
Sarah Jones
May. 4th, 2011 at 8:22 pm
You have dealt with the military but you question and challenge your CIC and disrespect him like this? I am on base all of the time and no one discusses their CIC like you are here.
Anne
May. 4th, 2011 at 1:38 pm
The Republicans are driven by anger and hatred at this president, partly because he keeps doing well in spite of the worst they throw at him. They also demonize him due to his party and his race, and also because he continues to defy their efforts to pigeonhole him with their negative stereotypes of liberal Democrats. It doesn’t seem to occur to them that we are living in the Information Age, and that their lies are easily discredited. However, they are good at stirring up hatred, fear, and ignorance among low-information voters with appeals to raw emotion rather than logic. Much of what they’ve done and continue to do can be called seditious, which they called any small criticism of GW.
Conservative Heart
May. 4th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
Obama as commander in chief is the biggest joke around. Civilians should not be able to overrule military people in terms of the military.
This just shows how absolutely socialist this country has become. When was the last time we had a civilian commander in chief? And even worse, Obama never even served in uniform. We can’t have civilians who have never enlisted be in charge of our mighty military.
None of this would be a problem if we still had Bush in office. Bush was qualified, thoughtful and calm. Obama’s nothing but a thug. And a communist. And a no good Muslim.
You Libbies all know it but won’t admit that Obama secretly wants Osama bin Laden to succeed.
ElvisAndretti
May. 4th, 2011 at 2:44 pm
Brilliant parody, you’ve nailed the piss ignorant point of view of the typical right winger. Funny stuff.
JayInDallas
May. 4th, 2011 at 3:38 pm
1) Not every president served in uniform. 2)It isn’t part of the job description. As far as Bush goes, it doesn’t really qualify as “serving” when Daddy gets you into the reserves and you spend most of your time awol, like he also did while president.
No, he wasn’t qualified. Unless your qualifications include 2 meaningless wars, thousands of our young people dead, enabling Halliburton and Blackwater to steal billions, enabling Wall St to create the housing bubble and mortgage crisis, as well as the economic meltdown.
911 happened ON HIS WATCH. That is an undeniable fact. Someday you will see that as much as you don’t want to admit it, FOX NEWS LIES.
Ann
May. 4th, 2011 at 8:03 pm
I personally agree. I don’t think that a President should be CIC if they have not served in the military. How many people would want someone that has only read about surgery, watched some on tv, …instruct and make the final decision on how a surgery is to be performed! SO AGREE!!!
Shiva (Moderator)
May. 4th, 2011 at 8:09 pm
So you expect a military man to know about the economy? Someone who has only read about it?
Sarah Jones
May. 4th, 2011 at 8:18 pm
Our CIC is supposed to be a civilian. This is how our country was set up on purpose. Guns do not run the government. You can see the conflict, right?
And by the way, Obama went against the advice of several military strategists in this mission and they all came out and said he was right to do it the way he did.
Strategy is a matter of mind, not guns.
cathy
May. 4th, 2011 at 9:14 pm
Twelve of our Presidents have had no military service. A true leader surrounds themselves with qualified advisors. I think President Obama’s reasoned approach to our problems is just what this country needs. He deserves our respect! Also, my husband is a disabled veteran, who loves his country, but he was opposed to entering Iraq and Afghanistan, but felt that Obama’s choice on Libya was the correct one.
sherriww
May. 4th, 2011 at 2:28 pm
The other thing I want to bring up today,in regard to this same thing,is an article out today on CNN. It brings up something that I have thought,and said,for some time now.While the Rethugs are always saying Pres,O.is golfing,or playing basketball,or taking his wife and girls someplace for a weekend,all normal things,of course,but Bad if the President has aminute to himself.However,I have been saying for a long time:Barack Obama is probably the absolute”busiest”President EVER! The CNN article addresses that,the fact that,This is a guy who can Multi-task like few people ever can.They refer to the 5days that we now know he was having top level meeting,over the last many weeks,planning the operation!Now,on those SAME days,they have figured out that the President had 2big meetings on immigration,1 On educaton,met with Japan PM on nuclear worries,did 2fundraisers,went to Alabama about the storms,put on a wonderful show,as only he can,THE NIGHT BEFORE THE BIG DEAL! Among HUNDREDS of things he does every day,every hour!They said he is ALWAYS ON CALL,where other Presidents have taken MUCHmore time off,all thru history.THEN-AN issue I believe is BIG today-they asked-COULD AN OLDER MAN WITHOUT HIS EXTREME ENERGY POSSIBLY KEEP UP ON ALL THIS SPEED OF LIGHT MOVEMENT,Required Today??They said “The Health and Energy factor is showing to be VERY important”! Indeed it is,and NO,I do Not think Anybody else out there,at this time,is up to it! They ALSO said that the” Sane”factor HAS to play into it,and Pres.O. not only has GREAT ABILITY,He is ALSO SANE_and-He WONT try to Take All our Rights Away and Destroy all the Financial backup we” little folks”have,like MEDICARE&SOC.SECURITY and Healthcare! PRES.OBAMA IS OUR ONLY” SANE”CHOICE IN 2012!
Shiva (Moderator)
May. 4th, 2011 at 4:18 pm
I can see it now. John McCain and Sarah Palin and the White House. Sarah telling John to just sat there. She will take care of everything. And then going through the same type of week that the president just went through. By now she would have quit and John McCain would’ve still been sitting in the chair, his bones bleaching in the sunlight that comes through the White House Windows
Tina
May. 5th, 2011 at 6:05 am
Well said,and I agree 100%Thamks for your post
Shiva (Moderator)
May. 4th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
how well I remember the times that if you attack general George W. Bush for anything you are a traitor. How well I remember that if you said anything about the Iraq war you were a traitor. How well I remember that when president Obama followed through on the agreement that George W. Bush had made about troops leaving Iraq be was called a traitor and soft on war.
when president Jeannie(cheney) makes all of his remarks about Obama being soft on terrorism He had absolutely nothing to go on. and that typified the entire time he was in office. He never showed proof of anything that he said. And now Fox news and the Republicans all live on innuendo and clichés. Just like president Jeannie. They have absolutely nothing. And when getting something real. They cannot man up and face reality. It’s the Democrats responsibility to prove that they are not facing reality.. By the time 2012 comes
Reynardine
May. 4th, 2011 at 8:50 pm
You’re ordering us to agree? The only military man I can think of who made a first-rate President was George Washington. Zachary Taylor, Ulysses Grant, Dwight Eisenhower… great on the battlefield, maybe, but the best they could do in the White House was C- to D+. William Tecumseh Sherman knew the difference between military command and civilian leadership, and he refused to stand exactly because he would have won. We do not have generalissimos commanding either our armed forces or our nation. Meanwhile, Miss Ann, if you must give orders, go to the bathroom, hold a gun on yourself, and tell yourself which move to make.
Mark
May. 5th, 2011 at 7:36 am
The fact that the GOP is capable of totally dissing Obama after this feat of intelligence and strength, shows their underlying foundational lie as an organization. They are anti-American and completely amoral.
edhino
May. 5th, 2011 at 2:08 pm
you state rwingers hate obama for his race colin powell was black its not obamas race they hate its the name muslim and being of an african father born inafrica kenya to be exact .and doesnt matter what he does he will never be accepted cause he was voted in to the good ole white boys domain occupied by rwing extremism .the koch brothers hate all folks of color and if you dont have millions to donate to there campaigns youwont be allowed into the country club set .
Jeanne
May. 8th, 2011 at 10:03 am
Kudos go to military and intelligence gathering, first. Then to their leaders, including Bush and Obama. I personally think Obama was quite naive, as are many liberals, until Pres. Bush took him into the White House after Obama won the election. There, he probably got the most intense education of his life, something you cannot and will not see on any college campus. He learned that there are people out there willing to die to kill the American way of life. The fact that Obama kept the majority of the Bush people and policies in place to further ramp up the pressure on dirt bags, further convinces me that Obama learned quickly, the difference between campaigning, and commanding. How many thought he would ever give the go ahead to issue kill orders, or impugn a nation’s sovereignty to get the job done?
How I wish he would be such a fast learner when it comes to the economy, the health care issues, and the reduction of the government regulations in our country. I also hope he learns that his rich vs poor class warfare shtick is exactly what Osama saw as a way to bring the USA down.
Shiva (Moderator)
May. 8th, 2011 at 10:14 am
The last person you want to learn how to be a president from would be Bush.
He knows healthcare, the progressive budget has the public option in it. FInally we can catch up to Europe
Are you another one of those that wants our rivers polluted again?
Sarah Jones
May. 8th, 2011 at 10:43 am
Well, since he told us in the campaign that he would issue kill orders for OBL, we figured he would. He’s on video saying it. Also, if you had read his books, you would know he is not naive. How can one be both from the “thug” Chicago machine and be naive, as the right wing claims he is? LOL. He didn’t use Bush policies to catch Bin Laden, but that should be obvious since Bush didn’t manage to do it. He also overrode the military’s suggestion for the capture/killing and didn’t bomb the entire area.
Reynardine
May. 8th, 2011 at 11:21 am
You make up very pretty stories, Jeannie, dear, but nice people don’t present them as truth. Why don’t you write your little fairy tales and submit them to children’s magazines?