In a free society, one can expect the President of the United States to be on the receiving end of some pretty harsh words.
So it is not at all surprising that in the aftermath of the President’s primetime speech to reassure America of the strategy to confront ISIS and terrorism, the news pundits would have their own two cents to add.
But that commentary took an oddly specific turn this week when Fox News contributor Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters called the President a “total [bleep].”
Except Fox News missed the opportunity to bleep it as I just did, and the entire world heard him call the President a derogatory word used to describe the female reproductive organ.
I’m opting not to type the word here, but I think you can catch my drift.
Despite our society’s seemingly continual evaluation of what it means to be a man, to be called a “total bleep” on live TV must sting a little.
For there was no room to be confused about what he meant, and it reinforces a view that has occasionally leaked out from various military leaders about their Commander in Chief.
The Internet is flooded with memes of Russian President Vladimir Putin hunting bears shirtless posted next to President Obama riding a bicycle with a helmet and mom jeans on.
To say he has a macho image problem is putting nicely what Peters bluntly clarified on live TV.
Perhaps it is because President Obama comes across as an academic, but I don’t know that I can recall a President struggling with this same image problem.
W. Bush was all Texas, whether it was clearing brush on his ranch or just speaking with a little Texas swagger.
Say what you will about him, but I don’t think anyone would use that word to describe him.
That word might be used in relation to Bill Clinton’s presidency, but for a very different reason.
As the case was with W., no one seemed to question Clinton’s manhood.
Bush Senior was a WWII fighter pilot, and Reagan was larger than life.
Perhaps one could try and use that word for Jimmy Carter, but the devout man of faith is so darned nice I just don’t think you could pull it off.
The President is partly to blame himself for his slow and seemingly timid response to ISIS.
The speech he gave in prime time this week that prompted him being called a “total [bleep]” was actually one of his more forceful to date.
Had he spent more time during his Presidency giving us a little more Reagan and a little less Woodrow Wilson, we might not have this perception of the man.
However, it does appear that he is so determined not to go the route of George W. Bush that he may very well be missing moments when American leadership is needed.
I agree with the President when he says that a long and costly ground war is not the solution.
But the President seems to forget that this is still an actual war.
I am of the opinion that if ISIS were vanquished, as it could have been back when it was still the “JV” team, the attacks on Paris, Chattanooga, and San Bernardino would never have taken place.
Yes, terrorism would still exist, but when ISIS took on the restrained version of the American military this past year and lived to see another day, it gave inspiration and a homeland to some sick people with a twisted ideology.
Because when you take a punch from the biggest kid on the block and realize it doesn’t hurt as bad as you thought, you start to get a little more audacious.
And I hate to say it, but Obama doesn’t look like the guy who knows how to throw a good punch. I won’t go so far as Peters and call him a “total [bleep],” but if I have to pick a President to have my back in a street fight, I just might call on Woodrow Wilson before Obama.