America can’t have it both ways; just as it was in the past, sometimes what is good for our country has to be done when it’s unpopular. History will always redeem decisions made by leaders, but usually the redemption and honor comes posthumously or by a popular leader’s validation of the decision. Neither happened here.

Obama stepped up to the mic, and this “whipper snapper” announced Osama bin Laden’s death almost as if his administration was pro-war and supported the efforts in the Middle East. What it comes down to is that the military found bin Laden on his watch, that’s all. Now whether it was ignorance or arrogance, I don’t understand the accolades that he is getting for this from his campaign days he slammed Bush for the war efforts, and flagged the race card after he got the Democratic nomination.

If anyone should cry wolf, it should be Bush, not the other way around. And I bet if Bush was black, then what argument would the liberal media and politicians have to say on his administration? And as he has done before, Bush has not released any statements of “I told you so” nor has he gloated on conservative media, and in that, walking in the true class of leadership you can’t buy or pass down.

Today, it’s Libya. Now, let’s see. Are we there to unearth Moammar Gadhafi’s Weapons of Mass Destruction? Or is it to bring liberation and democracy to the Libyan population? Oh, no, this time, it’s to keep Gadhafi from “killing his own people.” The missions just keep changing, don’t they?

When you’re in the driver’s seat, it matters not how much the lies pile on top of one another. All that is necessary for such lies to succeed, writes Paul Craig Roberts, “is for the government to have its story ready and to have a compliant media. Once the official story is in place, thought and investigation is precluded.” As is now conventional, the capper at the top of the lies is the one that claims that even the most contemptible actions are performed “for the sake of national security,” that is, in defense of our homeland. Who could have a problem with that?

Paul Gottfried, in describing the ease with which the supposedly leftist Barack Obama incorporated all those conservative patriotic rhetorical themes into his January State of the Union address, shows how the phony “vision” thing is accomplished, whether by Republican “patriots” or by cynical neocons, or by even more cynical liberals.

As President Barack Obama has made the ultimate decision to send forth 30,000 additional armed forces to fight the insurgency in Afghanistan (a duplication of the 20,000 plus troops that former President George W. Bush sent to counter the insurgency in Iraq), the United States has signaled to the international community that victory in this region is necessary and imperative.

During the theatre of war, public support can be fatigue and fragile at times. It is important to remind people why Afghanistan is crucial in today’s time. It is the painful reminder of the terroristic attacks against our sovereign nation on September 11, 2001 that engaged us in a conflict against an ideology. An ideology that promotes evil over good and the right to take another’s life if their religious or political identity is different from yours.

Not only is the U.S. security interest at stake, but the whole world should be concerned about Afghanistan. If the Taliban is allowed a permanent safe haven in the Middle East and overthrow the government, it weakens the U.S. foreign policy and makes our nation vulnerable to future attacks.