One of the reasons I started this blog and link to several "conservative" websites (and it continues to grow) is that "conservatives" put so much crap out on the internet as part of a planned strategy to confuse and trick Americans.  They quote and cite one another, repeat the same meme over and over again (very Nazi like of them) even after it has been disproved, and just plain mislead the America public.  They form all of these shadow organizations with great sounding names with "Institute" or "Foundation" in them but they are all the same.  That is their goal - mislead, repeat the deception until you can convince people it is true, and reward each other four your deception.

In a column in Townhall, John Hawkins, a professional blogger (not that there is anything wrong with it) cites 5 amateur mistakes by Obama.  Actually, he does not call it amateur.  Instead, he uses more demeaning and insulting language - true to his mentor, Rush Limbaugh:

Since he has been elected, Barack Obama has been like a four year old wearing water wings and desperately trying to reach the edge of the pool. In other words, he has been completely out of his depth.

Man, that is amazing consider we just had a President who clearly demonstrated he lacked the ability to be President.   As for Hawkins proof, he points to 5 mistakes:

1. Honduras
2. Russia Missile Defense Shield
3. Trying the 9/11 conspirators in New York
4. Clash for Clunkers
5. Bowing

Hawkins' description of each is so filled with misinformation and ignorance (Rush would be proud) that he demonstrates who the real amateur is - Hawkins himself because of his inability to make an honest and intellectually sound critique.  Let's go over some of his many mistakes.  First, Honduras:

After Fidel Castro wannabe, Manuel Zelaya, started trying to engineer a rigged vote to overthrow democracy in Honduras, the rest of the government there sprang into action and bounced him right out of the country. . .

Puzzlingly, the Obama Administration then switched course on a dime and made it known that they'd accept the results of the election whether Zelaya was back in charge or not. In light of the change in American policy, Honduras went ahead with their elections without giving power back to Zelaya.

First of all, there is absolutely no evidence that Zelaya tried to engineer a rigged vote - that is just plain made up.  Second, even if you assume Hawkins to be correct, Zelaya tried to overthrow democracy by calling for a vote to determine whether there should be another vote for a constitutional convention which may allow a President to run for additional terms.  And this is overthrowing democracy?  Are you kidding me?  If amending the Constitution to allow the President to run for additional terms is overthrowing democracy, then why are we giving so much aid to Colombia since President Uribe is attempting the same thing.  Also, Argentina's democracy was overthrown during the Menem years and no one even realized it.  What a deceptive moron!  Finally, America seemed to switch its position because the elections were going to happen anyway (regardless of the coup which only demonstrates how needless the coup was), the elections were to be honest, Zelaya was back in Honduras and Zelaya refused to resume the Presidency (deciding to protest instead). 

Next up, pulling the missile shield out of Eastern Europe and moving it to the Mediterranean:

It's bad enough that Barack Obama, in a display of cowardice that would make Neville Chamberlain wretch, unhesitatingly tossed the Poles and Czechs over-the-side on missile defense in an effort to appease Russia. Keep in mind that when we first went into Iraq, Poland was one of only three other nations to actually put their troops in harm's way to help us. . .

It's almost as if Obama has no coherent strategy, no idea what he's doing, and is so far over his head that he doesn't know which way is up.

The person with no idea what he is doing is Hawkins.  Oddly, okay not oddly, Hawkins fails to mention who the missile shield was to protect Europe from - Iran, not Russia.  We were needlessly antagonizing Russia by the inefficient deployment of the missile shield in Eastern Europe.  The Obama Administration moved the shield to the Mediterranean where it is better equipped to halt an Iranian strike, and Hawkins is complaining over something that even the Polish and Czech people did not support.  Again, what a deceptive moron.  I can go on and on, but I will end with the 9/11 trials in New York (the bowing stuff is just plain petty):

No one seems to be able to give a coherent explanation for the decision making process behind this. Other terrorists are being put on trial at military tribunals, so why not Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? Why put someone through the American system of justice when both the President and Attorney General are publicly assuring everyone that no matter what happens, he can't be found innocent and released? You think putting KSM in front of a military tribunal, where at least, theoretically he could be found innocent looks bad? Well now, we're risking intelligence secrets getting out, increasing the risk of a terrorist attack on New York, and making it possible KSM might be acquitted on a technicality for a hearing that makes the greatest system of justice in the world look like a show trial cooked up by North Korea.

Here is a coherent explanation for you Hawkins.  The 9/11 conspirators committed their crimes in New York since they were involved in the attacks on 9/11.  Other terrorists being held in Gitmo committed different crimes, many on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq and not in the United States, which is why they are being tried before a military tribunal.  Did we not try others involved with 9/11 in civilian courts in New York?  Was there a terrorist attack then?  Did state secrets get out?  Was their a legal technicality (as if there would not be a legal technicality in a military tribunal) that freed them? Finally, the complaint of show trials.  As I have noted before, it is the job of the Executive Branch to prosecute crimes.  They are not neutral arbiters, so they can and do say that they are confident that they will win.  That does not make it a show trial.  In fact, "conservatives" really want a show trial because they falsely believe that a military tribunal will guarantee conviction and a civilian trial does not.  So, by demanding a military tribunal to hear these cases - are they not promoting the "show trials" they are accusing Obama of.  Do these people even think about what they write for more than 30 seconds?  Again, what a deceptive moron!

Darn, I had gone off today.  But, it is necessary.  Hawkins is nothing more than baby-Rush.  People are free to challenge and question our political leaders.  In fact, I think it should be encouraged.  But, if you are going to throw insults at our leaders and make wild and misinformed claims, then you better at least have the intellectual gravitas and honesty to make coherent critiques.  Otherwise, you will be nothing more than a hack columnist for Townhall whose only goal in life is another B.S. talk radio/propoganda show.