posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 06:17 PM
a reply to: Indigo5
Okay, first? George Walker Bush isn't the United States President. He has not been the United States President since Jan. 20 of 2009. He will never
be the President again. He's a mere private citizen and it's gotten years beyond where bringing up the last guy does anything but show extreme past
fixations. It'd be like blaming Bill Clinton because he didn't plant Bin Laden in a grave when UBL was at a Falcon camp during the second term.
Clinton didn't want to risk hitting a Gulf royal whose plane was parked there as well, ergo, in the line of fire. BAD Bill... HE did it! Blame him
for it all! (tongue in cheek)
That too could be said to be behind every decision President Barack Obama has made relating to Afghanistan and the Terror wars beyond (Including
Libya). It COULD be said...and it would be as absurd as running to Mr. Bush to blame or seek shelter with for every bad decision the sitting President
(of near 6
years now) chooses to make.
On the actual matter? in my view, Barack Obama isn't sympathetic to terrorists. He'd be a suicidal fool to be that way, as any of them would
consider him a prize beyond all dreams to target as an enemy. Few with a logical mind could debate THAT point. Hence, I don't see Obama being
corrupted to favor any terrorists. That's important to note.
At the same time, I believe this President is an "Ends justify the means" man, at *ANY* cost short of sacrificing his OWN policy and legacy goals.
It's not that I think he wants to see us hurt by NOT chasing down the terrorists. I just don't believe he sees it advancing his personal and direct
objectives, and so, not worth caring TOO much about either way.
In many ways, being personal and actually LIKING the terrorists would be a better thing to consider. At least it would show concern and hands on
control of policy. That is what I think is most lacking here. Policy runs itself, and we get chaos and disaster when policy runs itself. We've had it
for years now.