These were the words Dick Cheney used to describe the Obama Administration’s terrorism policies.  It also describes almost every other Obama policy, from his energy policy to his fiscal and monetary policies.   The idea of a boy president was emotional and compelling enough to two American generations largely responsible for electing Obama, for the same reasons why television reality shows are so popular among the same 18-40 age group; they are attracted to watching everyday people accomplish unusual feats.  Who among us does not get inspired by watching 400 pound folks lose 250 pounds before our very eyes?   Who does not like to see otherwise ordinary people sing or dance their way to mega-stardom?   Or compete for survival against other common, “ordinary Joes?’ 

Many reality shows are compelling; they tug at our emotions, which explain their surge in ratings over the last eight or so years.   A reality show about an inexperienced boy running the country would likely be hilarious and draw a huge audience.   Unfortunately, this has become America’s real, reality show: The Obama Administration.  Sure, Barak Obama seems like a likeable guy, and we are pulling for him to make the right choices.  Unfortunately, that small, insignificant to the meda thing called lack of experience, is exposing him as an idealogue that is in way over his head.

Nothing can illustrate the man-child nature of the Obama Presidency quite like a contrast of the two simultaneous speeches given by Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney.  While listening to Cheney speak to the American Enterprise Institute on Thursday, it became clear that he is an adult who used adult reasoning, ideals and experience to combat the threat of terror in America.  Cheney laid out a reasoned and logical explanation for the Bush Administration’s use of enhanced interrogation techniques, and even “water boarding” on three terrorism suspects.  One water boarded suspect, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, coughed up enough information for American officials to stop a terrorist plot that would have killed thousands in Los Angeles.  Cheney spoke pragmatically of the administration’s multi-pronged approach to prevent terrorism acts in America and around the globe.  Bush’s results are to be commended, but Democrats, particularly those in the current administration, focus almost exclusively on the process, while ignoring the results.  Not once in Cheney's speech did he take unwarranted shots at the current administration, he was cordial, as an adult…” When President Obama makes wise decisions, as I believe he has done in some respects on Afghanistan and in reversing his plan to release incendiary photos, he deserves our support. And when he faults or mischaracterizes the national security decisions we made in the Bush years, he deserves an answer.

The point is not to look backward. Now and for years to come, a lot rides on our president's understanding of the security policies that preceded him. And whatever choices he makes concerning the defense of the country, those choices should not be based on slogans and campaign rhetoric, but on a truthful telling of history.

Our administration always faced its share of criticism. From some quarters, it was always intense. That was especially so in the later years of our term, when the dangers were as serious as ever, but the sense of general alarm after September 11th was a fading memory.”
 
Across town, the president gave a speech at the National Archives prior to Cheney’s speech, to vigorously defend his plans to close the Guantanamo Bay Military Detention Center, defying Congressional Democrats who voted overwhelmingly to not fund the closing of the military prison in Cuba.  Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, in a brief moment of consciousness, spoke of the dangers of closing that prison and releasing the prisoners into American prisons.  In a direct jab at Reid and perhaps Cheney, Obama said "We will be ill-served by the fear-mongering that emerges whenever we discuss this issue."   Perhaps it is not fear-mongering, but an intimate knowledge of the despicable human beings who want to unleash their horrific terror onto innocent Americans.  The four men recently arrested in New York for plotting to blow up two Jewish synagogues, were converted to Islam while in prison.  They were Americans who learned a visceral hatred for America while in prison.  Do we want to populate our prisons with more terrorists who hate us, so they can mentor low-life, mental midgets in larger numbers?   The president does; he made a case for it in his speech on Thursday.  Obama used the speech as an effort to try to retake the initiative on the matter. He spoke a day after the Senate, at the behest of majority Democrats, followed the lead of the House and voted decisively to deny his request for $80 million to close the prison. Lawmakers said they would block the funds until he gave a more detailed accounting of what would happen to the detainees.
He sought to do that in his speech, but stopped short of offering a clear answer on the key question of what to do with detainees who won't be tried for war crimes but are likely to be held indefinitely. 
He described this group as those "who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people."

"I want to be honest: this is the toughest issue we will face," Obama said.

Obama criticized what he said was an effort to politicize the issue, then went on to further politicize it.  Without any emperical proof whatsoever, he stated that holding prisoners in Guantanamo Bay is creating more terrorists around the globe.  He then criticized his opponents... "I know that the politics in Congress will be difficult. These issues are fodder for 30-second commercials and direct mail pieces that are designed to frighten. I get it. But if we continue to make decisions from within a climate of fear, we will make more mistakes," he said.

Obama said he had no intention of looking back and "relitigating the policies" of the Bush administration.
But at the same time, he strongly criticized former President George W. Bush's actions. "Our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions," he said

A child can be emotionally consumed with the idea of owning a puppy.  The high emotions often cloud or completely obscure good judgment when it becomes time to actually take care of the puppy.  This is the underlying theme to almost all of Obama’s initiatives, thus far.  One has to understand first, who Obama is; he is a lifelong academic who is mired in idealism and altruism.  Although it is hard to clearly identify his ideals as those shared by the late John Lennon, or the late Vladimir Lenin.  In academia, reality cannot reach through the walls and give a hard slap in the face to those within.  Academics hide behind the rule of law when it is convenient, but subjugate it when it restricts their idea of fairness or equity.  Obama can opine about the criminal justice system and rights of the terrorism suspects, but where he stands on the issue of contract law, vis-à-vis Chrysler and GM, is on the opposing side of the rule of law. 

The two simultaneous speeches clearly illustrate that Cheney was a leader on national security, and Obama has a lot to learn.  Obama can be self-righteous; he can be indignant to the Bush Administration, as he usually is; he can blame every crisis on an “inherited” mess, but until he faces a crisis like September 11, 2001 and what loomed immediately afterward, he will continue to be the boy who wants the puppy.

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it