Obama Dishonors Commander-in-Chief Role

My good friend Dana at Common Sense Political Thought left this comment at the blog (regarding the refusal of President Obama to visit the families at Fort Hood):

I don't know that I'd criticize President Obama on this one: he does have a full schedule, and the President of the United States can't always just drop everything.

I respect Dana immensely, and I'm proud and thankful of his daughter for her service, but there's really little debate on this: American soldiers have been killed on home ground in a premediated, religiously-motivated terrorist attack. The president needs to be with the families of the dead and wounded, and he needs to come out more forcefully against what has happened. The shootings have been described as an act of war by retired military personnel. And actually, I probably wouldn't have posted on the disagreement, but it turns out that Comrade Repsac3 has been trolling the comments this weekend, and he's piggy-backing on Dana's comments to attempt a "consensus repudiation" of American Power.

So, with all due respect, let's go to Flopping Aces:

The priority for the Commander In Chief, IMHO, would be to bypass any planned speech and immediately fly to Austin, Texas, act like a Commander in Chief, go to the site of the shootings, meet with senior staff, assess the situation and events that led to the shootings, speak to the troops, particularly the injured, demonstrate concern and take action based on the findings of your assessment. Such actions should include addressing the families of the fallen and the injured. Assure the American people that their military bases and the security of the bases are not compromised and all possible measures will be taken to tighten what already has been established to safeguard the safety of soldier.

But see also, Charisse Van Horn, "President Obama Handles Fort Hood Shooting With Kid Gloves":

There are many differences between President Obama and former president George Bush but none may be as glaring as President Obama’s handling of the Fort Hood shooting. There is no doubt that former president George Bush would have taken to the airwaves and held a special news conference.

Though President Obama has made three attempts to speak against the violence that transpired on November 5, 2009, he has yet to do so. In each of his remarks, he discussed the facts, the need for patience, and the grief that victims’ families are undergoing. He has yet to condemn the shooting, nor illustrate ways to prevent this from happening in the future.

And, David Horowitz, "Obama’s Ft. Hood Reaction is Far Worse than the Left’s Smear of Bush’s 'Pet Goat' Moment":

Will President Barack Obama be able to avoid negative attention for his initial reaction to the Fort Hood Massacre? His first speech after the killing of at least 13 soldiers on a US military base showed a complete lack of any presidential leadership. It may (and should) go down in history as far worse than the “Pet Goat” incident.

On September 11, 2001 President George W. Bush heard a plane had hit the World Trade Center when he was about to hear elementary kids read a book to him at a school in Florida. Bush had a whisper in his ear from Andrew Card about the plane while he was in front of a group of small children. At that point the complete picture of a full scale terrorist attack was not known. Bush knew something was happening, but he did not know how bad, and he did not want to frighten the kids in front of him.

The book the children read to him was called “The Pet Goat” and that incident has been used to attack Bush by the Left ever since ....

After meeting with the children and getting more information, President Bush gave a short but powerful press conference to the country. It showed great leadership and clarity on what was going on. You can debate if he should have immediately ran out on the kids and then made his speech, but there is no debating the strength of his first public words on the incident.

As the world watched he started out his speech:

“Freedom itself was attacked this morning by a faceless coward, and freedom will be defended.”

Plus, see AOSHQ, "The Narrative: Hasan Was Suffering From Mental Problems. Subtext: So Are All Soldiers And It's Bush's Fault":

Today President Shout-Out said we shouldn't jump to conclusions.

"We don't know all the answers yet. And I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts," Obama said in a Rose Garden statement otherwise devoted to the economy.

Funny but he was willing to reach conclusions within hours of the murder of abortionist George Tiller. Interestingly, it took Him 2 days to issue a statement when a Muslim terrorist killed a soldier at an Army recruitment office in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Seems some incidents call for restraint and others call for immediate conclusions.

Also, compare and contrast the media reaction.

Immediately Tiller's murder an act of domestic terrorism (here, here and here for just a few examples. Warning: liberal sites).

Now however, we must not even consider the idea that Hasan is a Muslim terrorist. Wouldn't want to spread fear and hate.

Just to be clear, jumping to conclusions is not what anyone is advocating. My problem with Obama and his courtiers in the media is that there are certain classes and subject which may not be speculated about but there are clearly some times when it's ok.

The media is most definitely jumping to conclusions, one unconnected to anything we know about Hasan while at the same time ruling out any consideration of a subset of the things for which there is evidence or at least indications.

So, folks can see why I might not be fully in sync with my good friend Dana. (And Repsac3 can hump a stump for all I care.)