Only in Washington would sending other men into harms way while you remain at home be called "gutsy"

RRD:It is not cowardly for a President to send others who have volunteered for Military Service into harms way.
Yet neither is it "gutsy".
At least not outside Washington D.C.
Yet in Washington--which regards negative polls as being more real than bullets--it is Obama who was "gutsy".
After all,the SEALS were "just doing their jobs",Obama--by contrast--was risking his.
What if the mission had been a disaster,like Operation Eagle Claw?
What if the SEALS had been massacred?
Just think of what that would do to Barack's polling numbers!
Look at what happened to Carter!
As disgusting as this is,it is,in fact,the way many inside the beltway think.
But some may say that it was "courageous" of Obama to risk American lives.
No,it was his job to risk the lives of American Soldiers to defend American civilians.But it is hardly "courageous".

Presidents do not kill the enemy.

Their soldiers do.

They may be praised for their wisdom in choosing generals,and their wisdom in making decisions.

They may be praised for rallying the people (as Churchill did).

They may also be praised for their willingness to defy public opinion to do what they believe to be right.

But they are rarely,if ever, responsible for the ultimate success of military operations.

Though they receive the credit nonetheless.

They shouldn't.

Those who risk their lives,should.

Posted via email from fightingstatism