I think President Barack Obama means well. That’s to say that I think he wants the best for America and he wants everybody to be happy and prosperous. And I think he’s a nice guy. He’d probably be fun to hang out with, play golf with or drink a beer with. But I don’t think he’s a strong leader and I think lots of his policies are failing. Growing numbers of Americans feel the same way. People have lost faith in our president’s ability to deal with the problems he faces – whether foreign or domestic. This is borne out in polls, which show his approval at an all-time low. But it’s also borne out in his manner these days. The soaring oratory that captivated so many during his campaign and during his first term is gone. He now seems as if he is just going through the motions, saying what is expected of him, covering his bases. Sometimes, when I hear him speak, I get the sense that he wishes someone else was president. I think he still has strong convictions, but the passion for thos convictions seems to have dimmed. And those convictions aren’t lining up too well with average Americans. His convictions with regard to energy and the environment led to delay after delay in the building of a pipeline no matter how many jobs it would have created. If it was bad for the environment, it was bad for America. These convictions also led to the passage of regulations on coal-fired power plants which could increase energy costs for tens of millions of citizens and businesses because if it was good for the environment, it was good for America. It also led to billions of dollars in stimulus money pumped into failed green energy companies because if it was good for renewable energy, it was good for America. He has strong convictions with regard to immigration. But his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy of 2012, enacted via White House memorandum is at least partially responsible for the recent calamity at the U.S./Mexico boarder. He also has strong convictions about terrorism. Shortly after winning his first term in office, President Obama headed overseas to address throngs of admirers. He had a message back then, and I think he still believes that message today. The basic premise was that lots of groups in the Middle East hated us because we were always bombing and invading Middle East countries. So it only followed, that if we just started being nice to people in the Middle East – and everywhere else, for that matter – they’d stop hating Americans. The days of the imperialist, exceptionalist, world-peacekeeping U.S. were over. It was the dawn of a softer, gentler U.S. For his efforts, the president was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” The award was announced on Oct. 9. The committee noted Obama's promotion of nuclear nonproliferation and his promotion of a “new climate” in international relations, noting specifically his outreach to the Muslim world. This shift in policy became more and more apparent as time wore on, especially within the administration. Aside from the glaring exceptions of some drone strikes and a Seal Team 6 raid in May of 2011 that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden, it was if President Obama had instructed his people to avoid using terms like “terror,” “terrorist” or “jihad.” Remember the shooting at Fort Hood? Major Nidal Malik Hasan, shot 13 people to death and injured more than 30 others. Eyewitnesses said Hasan had taken a seat at an empty table and bowed his head for several seconds when he suddenly stood up, shouted “Allahu Akbar!” and opened fire During the investigation it was revealed that Hasan had been exchanging emails with a “senior talent-recruiter” involved in planning terrorist operations for al-Qaida. Nonetheless, the U.S. Department of Defense classified the shootings not as domestic terrorism, but as “workplace violence.” Then there was the Benghazi tragedy where a U.S. ambassador and four other Americas died after being attacked by small weapons and rocket-propelled grenade fire. Looking to all the world like a coordinated terrorist attack, the government characterized it as a spontaneous demonstration sparked by a dopey Internet video that made fun of Muslims. Last winter, during an interview published in the New Yorker, the president said this after being asked about terrorists in Iraq, Syria and Africa: “The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant.” He then tried to show a difference between a group like al-Qaida and what he perceived to be the problem – “jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.” After that answer, the interviewer pressed the president, “That JV team just took over Fallujah.” The interviewer, of course, was referring to a town in Iraq taken over by the terrorist group ISIL. The president said groups like that around the world are not really, “a direct threat to us or something that we have to wade into.” I understand the president would like nothing more than to be able to say the war on terror ended under his watch. Problem is, it didn’t. And the larger problem is, the war on terror likely will never end. I think most Americans get that now. They feel less safe today than they did when he took office, and they understand that terrorists really don’t care what the Nobel Peace Prize committee thinks. When the president took to the podium recently to talk about fighting Islamic extremism, he didn’t exude confidence. He exuded reluctant indifference. Most Americans agree with the president’s decision to enter the fray against ISIL. But I think it’s hard for Americans to see the president as genuinely committed to a war on terror. After all, he spent a lot of time and energy trying to convince us there is no war on terror, we’re safer than ever and that we have nothing to worry about.
