Even though he was a United States Congressman in the early 1980s, has written several books, and is a pundit for Newsmax.com, John LeBoutillier was nobody until he began appearing with Imus last year.

Despite being a Republican, LeBoutillier not completely off the rails. Today, he shared his not-so-insane views on how the President ought to spend his political capital. First up: get Osama Bin Laden.

"Eight years and one month after this bastard hit this country, he continues to taunt us with videotapes and audiotapes, and for some odd reason this country allows it," said LeBoutillier. "What happened to the America that used to say, 'You're going to hit us? We're going to come back and get you!'"

That policy is eerily similar to the one employed by Imus in the Morning. LeBoutillier insisted it would unify Americans.

"I don't want our soldiers over there building schools in Afghanistan, interdicting the drug trade, running the government," he said. "It's all corrupt there, it's not going to change."

Killing Bin Laden, he added, would avenge 9/11, and significantly weaken Al-Qaeda, both strategically and psychologically. But instead of focusing on that goal, Obama is wasting his time and his political capital trying to pass health care reform, which LeBoutillier said is inextricably linked to Afghanistan.

"If he decides to put 30,000 more soldiers in Afghanistan, it's going to tick off the Left," he said. "And he'll also tick them off by dumping the public option."

Imus observed that Obama is a better-looking, more charming version of Jimmy Carter, which LeBoutillier did not dispute. He admonished Obama for dwelling on issues like the dispute between a Cambridge police officer and Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates back in July, and on trying to win the 2016 Olympics for Chicago.

"Fix the economy, get jobs—that's what people want," said LeBoutillier. "Instead all they hear is 'health care, health care, health care,' and the more they hear it, his ratings are going down, down, down."

A Harvard alumnus, LeBoutillier said it was the overarching liberalism and hypocrisy there that made him become a Conservative in the 1970s. As an example, he said his professors and fellow students would preach about the redistribution of wealth, and then hop in their Mercedes to drive into Boston for lunch.

Said Imus, "Works for me."

President Obama—and the entire country—are struggling over Afghanistan.

No one can decide exactly just what our mission is—or should be.

So here is what we—as a nation—should do:

The President calls into the Oval Office the Joint Chiefs, the Head of National Intelligence and the Director of Central Intelligence, the SecDef and Generals Petreus and McChrystal.

They all sit down and the President gives them their mission: “Gentlemen, here is what we are going to do: we are going to devote every dollar, every soldier, every intelligence asset, every drop of political capital—EVERYTHING—on getting and killing Osama Bin Laden. Period. Nothing else matters. If we have to go into Pakistan to get him, do it! We are in there secretly anyway.

“This was why we went to Afghanistan originally—and the American people want to know why—after eight years—we have failed to do what we said we would do.

“So, we are going to get him. This single action will decapitate Al Qaeda and render it a weakened, disorganized entity that will then no longer be a threat to us. There is no other leader who can rally that disparate group of killers. And we are not going to stand for a man who murdered almost 3000 people to taunt us in audio and video tapes—more than eight years after the 9/11 attacks.

“And then we are going to pack up and leave. We are not there to build schools or to stop their narcotics trade or to buck up an inherently corrupt society and a thoroughly crooked regime.

“We are not the world’s policeman. And we can’t afford to try to build another country when our own in in such disarray.

“If any of you cannot accept this new mission, then please say so now—and resign. We will find other officers who will embrace this policy.

“We seek justice for the murders of 9/11. And we will get it.

“And, if in two months we haven’t gotten Bin Laden, I may very well make changes in our senior military and intelligence leadership and keep making changes until this mass murderer is brought to justice.”

If the President said that—and meant it instead of paying lip service to this mission—then we would succeed. That is the mission Americans can unite behind.

————

At the same time the White House has declared war on Fox—with more passion than their commitment to get Bin Laden. This anti-Fox diatribe is a stupid political maneuver. Sure, the liberal “base” hates Fox, but Obama has those voters anyway.

Why not, if you are Obama and his surrogates, go on Fox as much as possible and try to woo and schmooze and seduce as much of that audience as possible?

Supposedly Obama believes he can win over anyone he talks to. That is why he wants to talk to Iran and Hugo Chavez and the North Koreans. But he won’t talk to the Americans who watch Fox?

Something is wrong here.

Obama has a thin skin, which is evidence that he was “given” the Presidency without really earning it. The same applied to G.W. Bush—who was a legacy all his life, cashing in on having the same name as his father.

Candidates who get high office the old fashioned way—they earn it—are not going to turn down air time and a chance to convince voters to vote for them!

Team Obama will rue the day they declared war on Fox.

John will be in studio on Fox Business Channel and on ABC radio - on Thursday @ 6:30 AM. Please listen or watch!

www.imus.com

The absurd decision to award an un-deserving President Obama the Nobel Prize for Peace made a mockery of a once-prestigious award. We can live with that. And we can tolerate the disappointment of those who actually deserved the award: brave dissidents in Vietnam and China who risk their lives standing up to oppressive dictatorships.

We can not however see an already off-track, floundering and indecisive President Obama emboldened by yet another injection of egomania because of this award.

The key here is how Mr. Obama will now see himself. If he shares the view that this was really an award to Mr. Anti-Bush, then he will keep things in perspective. He will then see that this was given to the successor to Bush—no matter who it was provided he/she was a total break from Bush. A normal person would just chuckle—and admit to himself and those close to him, “It’s nice. But I didn’t do anything to deserve this. I might not even accept it—because I didn’t earn it.”

But—and this is where we have to worry—he takes this prize and adds it to other recent gifts like TIME MAGAZINE’s Man of the Year award and two Pulitzers for the audio versions of his books and falls even more in love with himself then we will all pay for it.

If Obama reads this award as further proof that he is different or better or—his favorite term—transformative as opposed to other leaders then that will reinforce what we have already learned about him: on foreign and defense policy he is blindly naïve (pulling missiles out of Eastern Europe without getting anything in return from Putin), vacillating (his inability to get a plan in place for Afghanistan), and a poor manager (announcing the closing of Gitmo without having a plan in place to replace it with another facility).

After nine months of his Presidency, Obama has not been transformative at all. He has not changed policy on either Iraq or Afghanistan. But he has managed to infuriate the senior ranks of the Pentagon because of his dismissive, casual handling of Afghanistan. He has too many chefs in the kitchen; he has several foreign policy czars plus Biden and Hillary all talking to him. He is on track to emulate another U.S. President who won the Nobel—Jimmy Carter—he of the hostage crisis and a naive weakness that was exploited by America‘s enemies in the Soviet Union, Iran and Cuba.

Meanwhile, behind the din of the Nobel—and last week’s loss of the Chicago Olympics—both houses of Congress are moving toward bringing health care bills to the floor. The ‘public option’ will again be debated. This is going to be a cause of major political trouble for the Democrats.

The continuing deterioration of the jobs situation is the one and only political issue in this country. Despite that Obama continues to push the health care issue—and his ratings correspondingly fall.

There is a growing unease among all Democrats—liberal and moderate—that Obama may not be quite the Great Leader they hoped for. They are whispering that Obama is “all talk and no action.”

This Nobel Prize story threatens to embolden Obama that his way is indeed the divine way and thus the only way.

If that happens, then—ironically—he becomes another version of G.W. Bush all over again.

President Obama had a bad end of last week. The jobs report indicated that Obama’s Stimulus Plan—so far—hasn’t done squat. We haven’t even bottomed out yet; the nation’s economy is still ill—and shedding jobs—and now the talk is about extending unemployment insurance after the end of the year.

Hardly material to generate consumer confidence.

But the real capper to the week was the Copenhagen Fiasco—a total political disaster from start-to-finish.

You know what this whole Chicago Olympics in 2016 was? A paean to Obama—by Obama! This was a plan—by Obama—to immortalize himself by having the Olympic Games in his hometown as he ended his presidency—all conjured up beforehe was even elected!

As a friend of mine puts it “Obama has a problem with the vertical pronoun.” In other words, he is in love with the word “I.”

Listen to any of his speeches and you will hear that one word—“I”—used more than by any other POTUS.

Word out of the International Olympic Committee in Copenhagen was that the delegates were “put off” by both the President’s speech and the First Lady’s as well. Too much about “them” and not enough about “why Chicago was the best place to host the Olympics.”

The Obamas have fallen prey to a common problem among people who rocket to fame: they begin to believe their own press releases and press clippings.

Barack Obama is a young man. Elected at 46 - with almost no experience at all. It is easy to see how he has already lost his way. He can no longer distinguish what is best for the country from is best for himself.

And he is surrounded by enablers—these pathetic suck-up staffers who last week had the temerity to utter this phrase about why they were certain Obama’s quick four hour in-and-out IOC speech would do the job for Chicago: Obama is “the best brand in the word.” Other enablers are in the so-called mainstream-media. They are totally in the tank for the Obamas.

Boy, did they get their comeuppance or what?

Obama needs to understand the limits to his appeal: he is indeed the anti-Bush and anyone following Bush would get heaps of praise just for not being Bush.

But Obama’s ideas, thoughts and approach have not been judged to be mystical or prescient or the ideas of a genius. He is instead a mere mortal. And an inexperienced, surprisingly naïve one at that.