Obama 'a passenger on the ship of state'

Jennifer Rubin, house conservative blogger at the Washington Post, focuses on what may be the most effective argument against President Obama's conduct in office: his detachment, if not laziness.  In the context of Benghazi 9/11, she does not mince words:

The biggest scandal regarding Benghazi may be that the president was not at the helm on 9-11-2011 and was not directing the response to an attack. His aides insist he was getting updates, but the president is supposed to be more than an inbox for messages from his advisers. Was he peppering them with questions? Was he insisting they run through the available rescue options? The answer to both seems to be no, and for that dereliction of duty he needs to be held accountable. Maybe he would have been more accurate in his statements after the fact if he had had been plugged in and paying attention during the attacks.

Likewise, the president's apparent inattention to the deteriorating security situation in Libya suggests that he, once again, was not in command. He was a passenger on the ship of state. Hillary Clinton wanted to go in; let her keep an eye on it.

Thanks to mainstream media connivance, the American public has not focused much thought on the abandonment of an ambassador and his protectors, as they waited hour after hour for reinforcements that never arrived. The president, whose whereabouts that fatal evening are still unknown, is indeed guilty of dereliction of duty.  One has to wonder why the commander in chief was AWOL that evening, as four men under his command died. A mystery can usually be counted upon to spark public interest, but so far nobody has asked the president at one of his press engagements what the heck he was doing that was more important than managing the response to the 9/11 attacks.

Rubin attributes Obama's style to focus on image and disinterest in actual management:

...he's not interested in really being commander in chief; he just likes to play one on TV. He "ends" wars as if it doesn't matter whether they are won or lost, whether aims are achieved or not. Ending a war requires a single order; running a successful one requires constant attention and effort and expenditure of political capital. It also forces one to come to grips with the tough decisions his predecessor made.

AT's Ed Lasky has not shied from using the "L-word" - lazy. Political correctness demands that no person of African-American heritage may be labeled with the L-word, but in Obama's case, the show seems to fit. Golf, parties, bracketology, vacations, and absence during critical moments like 9/11/12 all suggest a poor work ethic.

Either way, the American people and the families of the four men slaughtered in Benghazi deserve to know just exactly what was more important than the Situation Room that evening.

Hat tip: Lucianne.com

Jennifer Rubin, house conservative blogger at the Washington Post, focuses on what may be the most effective argument against President Obama's conduct in office: his detachment, if not laziness.  In the context of Benghazi 9/11, she does not mince words:

The biggest scandal regarding Benghazi may be that the president was not at the helm on 9-11-2011 and was not directing the response to an attack. His aides insist he was getting updates, but the president is supposed to be more than an inbox for messages from his advisers. Was he peppering them with questions? Was he insisting they run through the available rescue options? The answer to both seems to be no, and for that dereliction of duty he needs to be held accountable. Maybe he would have been more accurate in his statements after the fact if he had had been plugged in and paying attention during the attacks.

Likewise, the president's apparent inattention to the deteriorating security situation in Libya suggests that he, once again, was not in command. He was a passenger on the ship of state. Hillary Clinton wanted to go in; let her keep an eye on it.

Thanks to mainstream media connivance, the American public has not focused much thought on the abandonment of an ambassador and his protectors, as they waited hour after hour for reinforcements that never arrived. The president, whose whereabouts that fatal evening are still unknown, is indeed guilty of dereliction of duty.  One has to wonder why the commander in chief was AWOL that evening, as four men under his command died. A mystery can usually be counted upon to spark public interest, but so far nobody has asked the president at one of his press engagements what the heck he was doing that was more important than managing the response to the 9/11 attacks.

Rubin attributes Obama's style to focus on image and disinterest in actual management:

...he's not interested in really being commander in chief; he just likes to play one on TV. He "ends" wars as if it doesn't matter whether they are won or lost, whether aims are achieved or not. Ending a war requires a single order; running a successful one requires constant attention and effort and expenditure of political capital. It also forces one to come to grips with the tough decisions his predecessor made.

AT's Ed Lasky has not shied from using the "L-word" - lazy. Political correctness demands that no person of African-American heritage may be labeled with the L-word, but in Obama's case, the show seems to fit. Golf, parties, bracketology, vacations, and absence during critical moments like 9/11/12 all suggest a poor work ethic.

Either way, the American people and the families of the four men slaughtered in Benghazi deserve to know just exactly what was more important than the Situation Room that evening.

Hat tip: Lucianne.com

RECENT VIDEOS