Seriously??? Seriously??? Seriously???
I'll never understand why people make such profanely ridiculous statements about political figureheads they don't happen to like. You don't have to like Obama and I'm not asking you to like him. You don't have to agree with a single one of his policies. I'm not asking you to agree with any of them.
But, think about what you're saying for a second... Let's break your statements down bit by bit to get a taste of the irrational:
To date, Obama is responsible for more deaths of high-ranking Al-Qaeda members in three years than Bush was during his entire Presidency. That, of course, may be attributed to a number of things. It could mean that Bush's plan was a non-linear one, where maybe we killed or captured a few terrorists per month and then towards the 7 or 8 year mark we had an exponential rise. That may not have been an intended consequence of the plan but maybe that's how it worked out. And, maybe Obama took over as that plan was starting to peak out and so Obama was able to take responsibility for a number of the kills or captures.
Regardless of whatever your feelings are, that's a pretty fair sentiment to make, don't you think? The key here is that if that's what happened, then it was either up to Obama to change things when he took office or to keep them the same.
And, wouldn't you know it, this was all over the news the past week or two:
Obama's Anti-Terror Program is More or Less Bush's.
There have been several people, probably a little more left-leaning than others, who claim that Obama's anti-terror policies are better/harsher than Bush's. I suppose that's possible but let's say, for the sake of argument, that they're approximately equal to one another.
That brings us back to your original statement. Did Bush's policies coddle terrorists? Because his policies are more or less Obama's policies. In fact, Obama has taken a lot of heat over this and rightfully so. But, not for the reasons you suggest. A lot of the heat directed towards him is coming from not having closed down "Gitmo," for not having a timetable really set up to get out of Afghanistan, and for bombing Pakistani neighborhoods to smithereens.
Obama has sent SEAL teams to take out Somali pirates, Osama bin Laden, and he is quasi-responsible for assisting the Libyan rebels in overthrowing Gaddafi and his subsequent death.
So, no, I really don't think terrorists are being "coddled" under his administration.
So, let me get this straight... After making an arrest like this, the FBI is going to call Obama directly and ask, "Hey boss, what are we going to do with these five troublemakers who were planning to blow up the bridge?" Obama is going to say, "Well, I'm sure they were good kids just out to raise a little trouble and meant no real harm. Slap them on the wrists and send them back out on the street."
A week from now, these guys will be walking the street. If that's how you think our justice system works, you're sorely mistaken.
It is true that ultimately the FBI and other investigatory agencies do work for Obama. Other than an outright pardon, the President doesn't really have a lot of say in the judicial process of these guys. They were charged with their crimes already, they'll go to a judge and jury and they'll be tried. The Administration really won't have a lot, if anything, to do with it.
Saying they do is like saying Bill Clinton was behind the execution of Timothy McVeigh. Not true. He was only president during the OKC bombings - and, yeah, he may have condemned it but he wasn't the one who tried him, found him guilty, and sentenced him to death.
He's on record as supporting the Occupy Wall Street movement but not a bunch of anarchists plotting to blow up a bridge and potentially murdering a bunch of people. There is a tremendous difference and equating every member of the Occupy Wall Street movement to anarchist terrorists is simply a false equivalency. One could say that every Tea Party member is a gun-toting, Bible-thumping redneck with half a brain because of what goes on at their rallies. It doesn't make a lot of sense to cast a blanket like that on a group of people because all it does is equate them with a severe form of negativity and, thus, anything (even if it's actually productive) can turn into a bad idea. That's the exact poison floating around our Congressional halls right now.
Really? What does their chain of command look like? How many times have they deployed to a hostile zone under heavy fire? How many times have they been sent in to take care of some truly dastardly people so that we don't have to watch buildings burn and people die on the news in any of our major cities?
Calling them his army is a disgrace to the Army itself. They have little leadership, no real movement other than a disdain for the top 1%, and you have the audacity to call them an 'army?' Maybe they're like the hippies of the 60's. Were they Johnson and Nixon's army or were they just a large following of people more into counter-culture movements and rebellion than political gain?
Your attitude and your logic are the very poison that is sweeping through the political field in this country. Instead of making statements of gross exaggeration and illogical distaste, why not simply use a more logical form of criticism and hone the arguments you'd like to make. It's so much easier to call Obama a "stupid fathead" like some third-grade playground argument than it is to really criticize him. But, he's not without criticism and truly justifiable criticism is healthy. Simply sitting here and calling him names and trying to attach ridiculous labels to him is childish and stupid.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
