Criticizing the President of the United States is not an easy thing. We have in this country a certain respect for the office, so we criticize, but with kid gloves. I have nothing to lose compared with others, so here goes.


There is a growing mistrust of the President in the area of national defense. The number one job of a President is to be Commander-In-Chief. The mistrust began with Benghazi, when two weeks after the attack, in front of the United Nations, Obama stated that the attack was the result of a video. We thought then and know now that he and Secretary of State Clinton knew that was not the case. We know both were being told it was a terrorist attack. And we know that the video story was bogus. But nevertheless, that was what America was told.


Then there was the "Arab Spring" where the US stood by as Egypt overthrew its leader and instead of a democracy being achieved as those who wanted freedom expected, the military took over the country. The Obama Administration threw President Mubarak under the bus and embraced the Muslim Brotherhood. The US refused to even say anything to support the freedom fighters. And we further stood by as students protested in the streets of Iran and were rounded up, jailed, tortured, and shot. Again we were silent. Libya was a replay and continuation of both scenarios and instead of the US giving even moral support, the President of the United States, and the Secretary of State washed their hands of any responsibility and stood by while Libya deteriorated into chaos. 


Since then, ISIS became the main issue. This was a developing and serious threat. The President called them a JV team, and undermined their importance. But we know now that at the very time he made that statement, the intelligence community was telling him just the opposite. ISIS was becoming a formidable force, and that was widely understood within the intelligence community.


As millions of refugees began spilling over into Europe as the result of the civil war in Syria, which is now known to be aggravated by the President not backing up his "Red Line" promise, Obama declared the US would take in thousands of refugees over the next two years. This created a fire-storm. Since that statement we have learned that ISIS is in possession of printers that can create American passports and have told us they intend to infiltrate this country and kill us. And they have. Still, President Obama refuses to back down from allowing refugees, who are potential terrorists, to enter this country from warring nations.


Even though Obama claimed that we would thoroughly vet these refugees, how do you vet people from Syria? There is no employer to call, no government in charge, no documentation that can be double-checked, and no one of reference. The CIA, FBI, and the head of Homeland Security all are on the record as saying they cannot guarantee a vetting process that would assure that refugees were not terrorists. Yet, Obama ignores these recommendations and still wants the thousands of questionable refugees here in the US.


Why? Is this total incompetence or a complete disregard for the safety of the American people?


And when France was bombed, and the world was shocked and mourning the innocent lives lost by mindless terrorists, Obama without notice, suddenly released five of the worst terrorists from Guantanamo, even though we have evidence that many of them re-enter the fight against America and aim to help kill us. 


Why? And why release them then, right after the French attack?


Now we hear reports that in most intelligence matters over the last few years, Obama refused the advice of many of his top generals, intelligence advisors, as well as the Defense Department regarding stopping the build-up of ISIS. If this is so, it is a blatant disregard for national security which the President of the United States is charged with protecting. That is his job. That is what he takes an oath to do. So how does President Obama explain his blatant disregard for his own experts, generals, and intelligence officers?




As I write this Bowe Bergdahl is going on trial for desertion. Yes, this is the same soldier Obama traded for five ruthless terrorists and held a Rose Garden news conference with his parents, which was never done before, and which raised eyebrows within the military. Obama justified this trade under the commitment “we will leave no man behind.” Yet, Obama never even picked up the telephone to call the President of Mexico to complain about the jailing of an innocent marine, left to rot, without a peep out of the Administration.


Why these contradictions?


The press and even his political adversaries are too kind to Obama. No one nails him on these decisions which undermine the nation. Many call him incompetent, some call him delusional. Others simply say it’s a mystery as to why he does many of these inexplicable things. The bottom line is, he has refused to tell the US in any great detail what principles are guiding his foreign policy. One commentator said "America is struggling with understanding what the President is trying to do".


Why not ask another more important question: where does the President stand? Why must we guess? Whatever the answer to that question and regardless of motives, we know one thing for sure: The world has gone from a relatively secure place to a warring mess that is now totally insecure. The American people now believe terrorism is the greatest threat to this country. Obama blames the media for not getting his message out. What message?


If I were Obama, and if my objective in foreign policy were to back away from being policeman of the world, reduce our military presence abroad, and focus on the US and its interests instead -- I would say so. But, in the seven years of his Presidency, he has kept the world guessing as to his intentions. He has confused and alienated our allies; said things he would do which he never did, and has distorted, undermined and confused the nature of what is happening. He has ignored most of the problems of the world and has ignored most of his top aides and military advisers as to how to handle them.


There is not an ally on earth that respects the US more today than when Obama took office. You can chalk it up to incompetence, or you can say he has some serious mental problems, or just say it's not his fault even though all of the decisions cited above have hurt America, not helped it. 


If he is really an isolationist, I could make his case for him. I would have announced to the world openly that the US has led the world for decades toward prosperity and freedom. The United States has spent lives and treasure to help to free nations of the world from dictators. It is now in America's self-interest to cut our ties both militarily and financially from the world, and we expect them to defend themselves. We will remain committed to our friends and will help wherever we can in the quest for both peace and prosperity. But it is time for our friends to take responsibility for their own destiny and their own financial well-being. We, the United States, will begin a slow but continuous reduction in subsidies to other nations, and reduce our military presence around the world. We will join with any nation that is attacked to help defend them, and contribute to any international pool of funds established in that effort. And we the United States will vigorously defend against any aggression on our citizens here and around the world. But, from this day forward we the United States will gradually step down from the world stage.


This is a doctrine. It establishes the ground rules going forward and gives fair notice to our allies as to our intentions over time. Many may disagree with it, but it is at least open, defined, and predictable.


What Obama has done is exactly the opposite. He deceived the world, as in Benghazi, confused the world as to his statements of the nature of the terrorist threat which contradicts the evidence of his own advisors; he broke promises as in "the red line" proclamation he never enforced; and he alienated our greatest ally in the mid-east, Israel. Lately his actions in foreign affairs has bordered on aiding and abetting the enemy. I know that’s harsh…but consider:


Obama entered into an agreement with Iran that would give them a hundred and fifty billion dollars as long as they promise not to get a nuclear bomb and not blow us up. The US got nothing really, and Iran hesitated signing a agreement but immediately test fired two medium range missiles that violated the agreement. Obama pledged we could “snap back” our sanctions into place if Iraq violated the agreement. The “snap back” is still waiting to be acted on, as is the “red line” threat.


President Obama on his recent trip to Paris, after the brutal attack on that city that week-end, told the world that it was global warming that was the threat to the world and to defeat terrorism we must clean up the environment!  He insisted that by cleaning up the world we will be fighting those that want to kill us. What such a response does, other than confuse the issue, is to change subjects away from the terrorists and to focus people’s attention on another entirely unrelated issue. Most serious thinkers’ jaws dropped when they heard this.


Now, fourteen people have been massacred in San Bernardino California by a couple inspired by ISIS. It was the worst terrorist attack in this country since 9/11. In all other terrorist attacks launched upon this nation, the nation came together immediately in a united front against the assault. Lately such assaults have been immediately followed up by a statement from the President of the United States, not to unite and face the threat, but to take other disconnected and unrelated actions.


President Obama knowingly changed the subject from terrorism to climate control in the Paris attack, and from terrorism to gun control in the most recent attack. He underplayed the importance of ISIS after the San Bernardino killings saying they could never seriously threaten this country.


Then instead of encouraging America to come together to fight terrorism, Obama immediately attacked the Republicans for blocking legislation on climate control and gun control. It was an act of turning the focus of this nation on Republicans being our enemy, not the terrorists. Hillary Clinton agrees. She called Republican's "the enemy" in a recent debate.  And this as Iran screams “death to America”, ISIS declares war on us, and Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are on the rise.


Whose side are these people on, anyway?


I will not attempt to ascribe a motive for this mish-mosh of foreign non-policy and sleight-of hand re-direction that characterizes the Obama Administration, but I will make a judgement about it: the Obama-Clinton policies have put Americans in jeopardy of attack here at home. And the decisions regarding Syria, not to respond when chemical weapons were used to massacre men, women, and children, and the decision to reduce our troops in Iraq after having won and secured that territory, has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Syrians and Iraqis abroad, led to the displacement of millions of others, and it has tilted the balance of power toward Iran and Russia. The world is a much more dangerous place than it has been in decades. And all of this is due to Barack Obama and his Administration.


Under George Bush we had a strategy of aggression toward terrorists. We kept them on their heels moving backwards, and chased them in to the hills of Afghanistan and Pakistan. They were too busy running to attack us. Today, under Barack Obama we are told that climate control, guns, and the Republican Party are the enemy and our attentions are focused toward them rather those that have declared war against us.


Obama claims to be fighting that war in skirmishes that if continued as a strategy will draw out the length of the war indefinitely. And during the decades it takes, winning one battle at a time, thousands and maybe millions of people will die. Imagine if we followed that strategy in World War ll. We ended that war in four years. Today we refuse to end this war that has been thrust on us – we choose instead to fight small battles and play defense the best we can. That’s a prescription for a hundred year war! And we’re losing it!


It is difficult to envision a worse set of decisions that could undermine the security of the US and the world than the ones made under this President. I know a lot of people. I have friends from the Left and the Right. None of them would have taken many of these inexplicable actions of the President of the United States.


Would you go in front of the UN two weeks after Benghazi and damn a video for the attack of that compound in spite of evidence to the contrary? Would you call ISIS a "JV Team" after receiving Intel from your top people to the contrary? Would you have traded five terrorists for one dubious soldier, now accused of desertion, without notice to anyone? Would you have removed all military presence from Iraq in spite of warnings from your top generals that it could lead to chaos? Would you have done nothing after the chemical massacre of those in Syria after promising swift action? Would you have called for thousands of refugees to enter this country from Syria in light of declarations from ISIS that they intend to infiltrate and attack America? Would you have gone to Paris after the worst attack on that country since WWII and declared global warming to be the greatest threat facing the world? Would you have demanded gun control after the San Bernardino attacks? And finally, would you have given a hundred and fifty billion dollars to a nation that yells “death to America”?


Perhaps you would have done one or even two of those things -- but all of them??!!


I for one don't trust this President and I sense the mistrust growing in this nation. We have many months left under his leadership. Let us not go quietly down that road.


Paul Nathan