Amateur Hour at the White House

1. Three days after the "Tidey Whitey Bomber" (D.Pryor) failed to detonate, the President declared that our intelligence agencies had let us down and that he was going to investigate this "breach". Clenched jaw, frown on his face, he seemed genuinely angry. To me, this display seemed "made-for-TV". It is hard to tell with Obama, because he shows so little emotion publicly. But, this is besides the point.

The point I am making here is that throwing the "intelligence" community under the bus for this situation was probably not the master stroke his advisors thought it would be. If it is true that we had an intelligence breakdown of sorts (seems pretty obvious that there was some kind of breakdown), why would the President of the United States say so on national TV? Why would he call out those parties so publicly? To score political points is the answer. He needs better poll numbers and this was an easy target (public wanted a scapegoat and he gave us one). The problem with this strategy is that he needs us (the public) to have confidence in our intelligence capabilities. He needs us to think that the billions of dollars we are spending each year on the Federal Government are being spent well and that we are being protected by the "best of the best". And, that it is safe to fly.

Was it worth the poll numbers to undercut public confidence in American intelligence agency effectiveness?

2. The other thing the President said at that press conference was that he was going to "get those guys" who were behind the numbskull who tried to blow his own balls off on that Northwest flight. Okay, so I'm paraphrasing a little, but you get the gist. He sounded positively Bush-like. And, not very Obama-like. Again, a calculated statement, designed for maximum political effect. His handlers have recognized that we (the public) don't think he's tough enough and that we like toughness in our leaders. So, he has to do something to make himself seem tougher. And, making statements about getting the bad guys worked for Bush, so why not try it?

I suppose this is also a tacit concession that the whole "build it and they will come" idea of building bridges to talk . . . just won't work with some people (lots of people). Sadly, our country had paid a heavy price so the President could learn this lesson.

3. When in doubt . . . investigate. It always seems very proactive to declare that the President is investigating the problem and undertaking a major reassessment of capabilities, blah, blah, blah . . . So, now appear stories about President Obama spending the weekend (oh, the horror!) reading a "flood of new information" (WSJ, pA2) explaining how the security system failed. Hundreds of pages, blah, blah, blah. To top it off, the article goes on to reveal that the President is going to have a big meeting with lots of important people to discuss this matter, next Tuesday and that the President is going to lead the investigation. But, not to expect anything major for a number of weeks. Because these things take time, people. Enjoy your flight . . .

Does it seem rational for the President to lead an investigation into how the Dork Bomber (R.Woldenberg) got on that plane with explosives? Is he the best person to do that? What does it say about the leaders of our intelligence apparatus if he is leading this investigation? That he doesn't trust them, or that they are not competent enough to lead this? Do we want our President being the Investigator-in-Chief, or the Commander-in-Chief?

Again, this seems manufactured for an audience. Keep your eyes on the prize, people. President Obama needs better poll numbers. Next thing we'll see are stories about the President approving specific Predator strikes on the bad guys.

All for now . . .