So, recently Bill Orielly, berated the president for not taking action quickly enough when the threat of Isis, began to become clear to the media, which is something of an oddity because usually the media are spot on in most situations, right?
There are some indications or rumors depending on where you stand politically, that action should have been taken months ago, so there is something to the idea that action should have been taken earlier, but what was interesting was that after two or more weeks of calls for action from everyone.
It finally happened, at least more action than what has occurred to date.
The funny thing is that after washington did take some action Bill, again berated the president for taking too long to take action, which some people found a little disheartening.
The catch 22 thing, but was there something to it?
Could be, if you were given a two week notice that hey were going to take some action soon and you moved your resources around then by the time the action happened you might be somewhere totally different.
Now that could be disturbing and it is likely exactly what may have happened in this case.
The element of surprise cannot be discounted.
In any action there is the element of surprise and it is the most lucrative element in many cases.
Taking action and making decisions must be a quick process and when you fail to do that in a timely manner sometimes it can backfire and produce lots of stinking clouds but not much else.
Perhaps Bill is right, but the prospect of an indecisive leader is something far more disturbing.