I've been watching the new president like a hawk the past six days, and to be blunt, his body language hasn't exactly inspired confidence. The guy is in over his head, and despite his audacious arrogance, I suspect he's starting to realize that.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there's already been at least a couple of sub rosa telephone calls to his predecessor, about this thing or that thing, since last Tuesday, seeking illumination.
Nothing wrong with that; everybody new in a job gets the jitters.
So that's eminently understandable, and merits no criticism or condemnation.
However, in case anyone's forgotten, we're at war.
My attitude used to be that in times of Great National Crisis, it's important for everyone to give his all, for resolution of the crisis.....and to give his all without paying any attention to what "other people" are giving (or not giving) too, for the common cause.
However, after several years of watching the Democrats, liberals, 0bamaites, and primitives, my attitude's shifted somewhat.
I'm no longer disinterested in my own selfish interests, and despite that it does me no honor to admit it, since this is now 0bama's war, I think it reasonable to demand that the Democrats, liberals, 0bamaites, and primitives give more to it, than me.
Even though our common survival is our common goal.
I used to not be this way, but I am this way now.
It's painfully obvious there's going to be some sort of attack on U.S. soil and U.S. civilians during the current administration. Not being God, I can't predict the nature or scope of it, but it's reasonable to assume it's going to make 9/11 look like a fender-bender on a residential street.
And I have no confidence 0bama is up to handling it all by himself; he's going to need help, lots of help.
There have been precedents for nonpartisanship during times of Great Crisis; one recalls that from 1939-1945, the second world war, the U.S. Secretary of War (Henry Stimson) and the U.S. Secretary of the Navy (Frank Knox) were Republicans.
(For historical illumination of the primitives, the U.S. Secretary of the Navy is no longer part of the presidential cabinet, but back then, it was, and it was usually the third-most powerful post in the cabinet. End of history lesson for the primitives.)
But 0bama is no Franklin Roosevelt, and the Democrats and liberals in Congress today are not the Democrats and liberals of 70 years ago. I am not at all confident they take national security seriously, nor would they, when this second, much larger, attack inevitably happens.
After all, 0bama's spent much more time on behalf of the interests of the abortion profiteers, than on the behalf of the interests of national security. And ditto for the Congress.
And so when this inevitable second attack occurs, I'm going to want something more; I'm going to want the assurance that the war is pursued by people who take it seriously, and who know what they're doing.
There is no Constitutional or legal precedence for such a thing, but given that half the country has problems with 0bama as president, and Congress being run by Democrats, I suspect that half of this country to feel similarly, in this second terrorist attack, and by the Will of the People and legal means, things will be altered.
After all, it's the Democrats, liberals, 0bamaites, and primitives who believe the U.S. Constitution is a "living," "evolving," document, and we might as well take their word on it.
If no terrorist attack, then nothing need be done; we can continue on as we are.
But if it were to happen, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, accompanied with bumbling incompetence of the White House, and the Will of the People called for, and the Constitution and laws allowed for, installation of a competent co-president to wage the war--0bama of course remaining in the White House, as president, but only as a figurehead--who would you like to see actually running things?
I just pulled the four names above out of my head; all of whom are confident and competent people on matters of national survival (Rumsfeld's "problems" were a media creation, not weaknesses of character). One can mention another choice, if there is one.
