Obama's Lack of Leadership In War on Terror

The NY Post’s Michael Goodwin calls out Barack Obama for his “half-hearted war on terror.”

But for now, Clapper’s sarcasm about intelligence gathering describes a nation that wants to be safe, as long as it’s not too much trouble and doesn’t require sacrifice.

Something has to give. If Obama won’t do it, those who hope to succeed him must talk honestly and straight to the public.

They must state a simple truth that goes like this: My fellow Americans, we can’t have it both ways.

Unfortunately, clever as it may be, what Goodwin’s latest does, or doesn’t do, is state the obvious, even if it’s implied. Obama came into office promising bold new leadership. As far as any so called war on terror goes, there’s been none. It’s one thing to not win a war due to poor leadership. Obama’s problem is, he couldn’t even surrender effectively and now he and America are being dragged back into it, whether we want to be, or not.

The quote of the week comes from James Clapper, the director of national intelligence. Noting that criticism of surveillance programs forced the government to “throttle back,” he told The Washington Post that means “we are accepting more risk.”

Tapping a deep well of sarcasm, he continued: “We are supposed to keep the country safe, predict anticipatory intelligence, with no risk, and no embarrassment if revealed, and without a scintilla of jeopardy to privacy of any domestic person or foreign person. We call that ‘immaculate collection.’ ”

Bingo!

Clapper’s mission-impossible statement is more than justified, and not just in matters of intelligence gathering. He might have been talking about the public’s view of fighting terrorism, too.

Americans are against terrorism, wholeheartedly. And want to do something about it — halfheartedly.
As such, the public has been in sync with the president, meaning we have the government we �deserve.