Our Defensive President

Finally, the President held a press conference! It was the first in 8 months. Unfortunately, we learned no more information about Libya and the Petraeus scandal for two reasons. First, the media really did not ask very good questions and secondly, the President side stepped the questions. The President did however get defensive over the Libya discussion just as he did in the second Presidential debate. This, to me, is an omission of guilt. Just as kids get defensive when they are guilty of some wrongdoing, the President is also acting childish. His defense of UN Secretary Rice may seem noble to some, but he put her in that situation in the first place. This was supposed to be Rice’s trial run at being Clinton’s replacement for Secretary of State when she steps down. The President challenged Republicans “To go after him, not Rice!”. Then come clean Mr. President and answer the questions put forth to your administration for the past two months and stop being a defensive child. The Republicans have already gone after you, but your only response is to get defensive. The timeline and contradicting stories do not bode well for the administration, but I predict he will wiggle out of trouble.

My guess is that an investigation will reveal that the President is not in any way guilty of any wrongdoing or had any direct knowledge of the misleading stories about the attack. It will also reveal he had no knowledge of the deteriorating security conditions in Libya. And it will be revealed he had no knowledge of the Petraeus scandal even though national security interests had been compromised. In other words, the outcome of this probe will be similar to outcome to the Fast and Furious probe that vindicated both Holder and Obama saying they had no knowledge of the program.

This is convenient, and liberals will say Republicans are creating issues out of nothing. The fact of the matter is if the President did know anything about security issues in Libya; if he did not know anything about the misleading stories on the issue; and if he did not know the head of the CIA may have been compromised then this should still raise alarms. And we can say the same if the President and Holder did not know anything about the Fast and Furious program – this should set off alarms.

If the outcome is that the President was not in the know, it tells us Obama and Holder are not doing their jobs and it tells us the reason they are not doing their jobs is because the government is too big. If Holder and President cannot keep up with major national security issues and programs, then government is too big. Holder is responsible for thousands of employees in the DOJ and Hillary Clinton is responsible for thousands more in the State Department. If they cannot keep up with all the doings in their departments and consequently relay this information back to the President or the proper authorities at the White House – then their departments are too big. This is a problem and is a good example of what happens when any group, organization, or company get too big. It creates bureaucracy, waste, and fraud and with that many items, important items, fall in the cracks because the chain of command fails. If a CEO claimed ignorance to failures within their company they would be fired. It is that plain and simple. Claiming ignorance is sometimes the worst admission of guilt.

So, even if Obama is exonerated of any wrongdoing, keep in mind it says he is not doing his job because government is too big and bureaucratic. And it vindicates conservative beliefs of what happens when government gets too big.