Every week, or so it seems, President Obama is caught doing something less than savoury. A constant that has led to what has now become an age-old question in the 21st century; is Obama simply so un-experienced and naive and thus simply blindly walks into these situations free from intent, or does Obama know exactly what he is doing and thus is responsible for it all? A question that arises in part, because not only does it seem to be Obama's nature to end up in even deeper trouble than the week before, but also because he governs and views America and the Presidency in a very different way than even the most progressive President's in our history viewed it, making it difficult for Americans to grasp exactly what the President's motivations are when he does most everything. As for the answer to the question, well I think that depends largely on the context of the situation/action, but either way, whether out of naivety or intent, Obama is the President and the buck stops with him.
This week's stupid situation/action by the President, is one that is not so clear whether it was done out of naivety or intent. Since with the appointing of Barbara Bosserman, an avid Obama supporter donating $6,750 to President Obama and the Democratic National Committee since 2004, to head up the Department of Justice's investigation of the IRS scandal in which the IRS inappropriately targeted Tea Party groups due to their political viewpoints, one could look at it either way. Since on the one hand, Barbara Bosserman is a rightful member of the DOJ and has a right to her own political affiliations and viewpoints, and it may simply be a case of President Obama's DOJ naively picking the right person for the job. Who unfortunately later had been found out to have a conflict of interest and thus to be legally disqualified to head the investigation into the IRS scandal. Moreover, naivety is likely given that the IRS scandal has already done its damage to the President and the credibility of the IRS, so why would President Obama go out of his way to implicate himself and suggest that he had more to do with the IRS scandal then has been initially reported, by allowing his DOJ to appoint a staunch supporter of his as the head of the investigation.
However, on the other hand, given that the DOJ is the highest authority in the land when it comes to enforcing the law, it should have known about the conflict of interest already and taken Bosserman off the list of potential candidates to head the investigation of the IRS scandal from the beginning. Moreover, the stubbornness of both the DOJ and President Obama to refuse to remove her from head of the investigation, is uncanny. Since if it was a simple mistake and there was no intent behind appointing her to head the investigation specifically because she was a supporter of Obama, then why not just remove her and let someone else take over? A question, that has only one answer in many people's minds, because the President did in fact appoint her specifically, so that any further involvement on his part in the actual scandal by the IRS itself would be mitigated from coming to light, if not completely covered up.
This week's bad action by the President is one in which there is no doubt that the President intended to do it. Since with the appointment of several nominees to various positions within the government, during the Christmas recess when the Senate was out of town, by President Obama; is not only unconstitutional, but completely intentional. A way for the President to ensure that his people and his lackeys get the nomination, especially when it is most likely that if they were to go through the normal conformation process in the Senate, they would be turned down because of their extremists histories and viewpoints. With these appointments being viewed rightfully so by many, as just another way in which President Obama, since the Republicans were given control of the House by the people back in 2010, has sought to rule as a dictator, free from the constraints of congress.
In fact so inappropriate was this particular action that even the most progressive justices on the Supreme Court, including Elena Kagan (an appointee of Obama's), have been voicing their deep displeasure. With Kagan stating: "this is not the hourse-and-buggy era anymore. And that makes me wonder whether we're dealing here with what's essentially an historic relic, something whose original purpose has disappeared and has assumed a new purpose that nobody ever intended." Referring to the exception in the law, that the President can indeed make appointments during a recess but only when it is critical to keep the government running; with the problem being that President Obama's appointments were not critical and could have been confirmed by the Senate well into the new year and the beginning of the new 2014 session of congress.
The President's lack of leadership on the Iraq issue, coupled with Robert Gates new tell all book, severely undermines the President's credibility when it comes to him keeping faith with the Americans who fought and died to free Iraq from Al-Qaeda, and when it comes to keeping Iraq stable and thus America secure. Yet, while Obama is nowhere to be found as Al-Qaeda raises its flags over Fallujah and more and more of central and Western Iraq. To make matters worse Obama has decided that now is the time when he will begin to keep his 2008 campaign promise of closing the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp; beginning with the transfer of the most hardened and fanatic jihadis back to the Middle-East battlefield.
Beginning with the shocking release of one of Osama Bin Laden's bodyguards, after he spent 12 years in Gitmo, despite the fact that he has been labelled extremely dangerous by the military. Shocking, not only because he will most certainly return to the field and kill more American soldiers, but also because there was no legal need to release him. Since despite the fact that he has not been charged with anything and that the Obama administration has decided not to prosecute him for lack of evidence. Under the Supreme Court ruling in the Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld trial of 2004, it was ruled under the AUMF (Authorization for the Use of Military Force) that these detanies at Gitmo can be kept until the end of hostilities without the need for any charges being filed against them as long as they have due process; which is what this extremely dangerous terrorist who is about to be released under orders by President Obama has been getting.
Thus this is a decision made by Obama that is first and foremost, baffling and dangerous for the security of America and Americans, but one that also further goes to undermine the President's credibility when it comes to both his commitment to the troops and American security; as well as his ability to understand and act deftly when it comes to foreign policy, especially in the Middle-East, where he has had nothing but a less than stellar track record.