So what does that say about your congress if they don't support the President Of the United States on this agenda?
Foreign policy does seem to be going into the dumper. IMHO - a lot of the problems are facilitated by the President's "lead from behind" style. As they say - when you do that the scenery never changes. Plus - the signal it sends to your adversaries just simply emboldens them. However, I do support Mr. Obama's efforts to disengage from our foreign military entanglements in Iraq and Afghanistan. It may not be possible to "have it both ways" - i.e., lead and withdraw at the same time. For that strategy to succeed, you need a leader who is particularly adroit in foreign diplomacy and has the respect of our allies and enemies in the region. The only recent President I can think of who had those qualifications was Bush the Elder.
Sp3, Can't say congress is not to blame either, I am just tired of obmam apologizing to the world. I also concede that the situation is difficult however, his current performance has bee lackluster at best.
President Obama can't get bills passed without Congress and Senate Approval. He had to pull teeth just to get approval for the use of Military Air Strikes against Syria. How do you expect the President to fix things if you give him the proper tools to work with? "Build a house, with no hammer and nails."
I believe the majority Republicans that are in Congress will lose their seats because of defiance not to get bills passed. Only because it is President Obama that is in Office. All of the attempt sabotage they (the Republicans)tried to do when President Obama was first in office didn't work, and when he won a second term, they should have just put away their personal difference and join in to help make our economy better. But no, they continued. Now it is re-election time for some congressional house members, and senatorial members. Lets see what happens now. You can expect a lot of them being voted out of office.
"He had to pull teeth just to get approval for the use of Military Air Strikes against Syria."
He could have done the strikes on his own. Just because he criticized Bush for doing it didn't prevent him from doing it. Shoot - 90% of the stuff he criticized Bush for in the foreign policy and diplomacy areas HE HAS DONE HIMSELF at some point during his Presidency. This article says Obama "surprised his staff" by going the congressional approval route - which clearly indicates that he had been planning to strike "on his own" all along.
This delay for "congressional approval" is some kind of a smokescreen. He sent fully loaded warships to the area without asking Congress and nobody - especially not Congress - made a peep about it. If he would have launched some kind of attack, there would have been the usual whining by the opposition (Republicans in Congress), but it wouldn't have amounted to anything.
No - he's stalling for some reason. It's probably a GOOD reason from his perspective. Maybe more intelligence gathering or coalition building behind the scenes.
As for the 2014 election - I still predict gains by the Republicans. Very few of their seats are in any serious jeopardy because their constituency BACKS THEIR ACTIONS - regardless of what the rest of the country thinks. I also think it will more difficult for the Democrats to motivate their base to turn out to "stay the course" - especially if the course is crumbling economic conditions at home and the appearance of a bumbling foreign policy abroad.
Is this true?
granville 2 minutes ago
I just read on another conservative news website that former judge Andrew Napolitano said that if Obama carries out a military strike against Syria under the current circumstances, he would be guilty of WAR CRIMES! So if he does go ahead with a military strike, and the judge's words are proven true, then impeachment proceedings against Obama should begin IMMEDIATELY!
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/...
That's what they said about Bush and Iraq. The technical side of it is that the President needs congressional approval to take this country to "war." The term "war" is the key - and it is defined differently according to which party holds the White House and who is doing the defining. The Korean "War" wasn't really a "war," as were several other "police actions" this country has been involved in since WWII. Presidents get around the requirement for congressional approval by not saying we're going to war. The opposition disagrees when the bullets start flying, and then "impeachment" starts being tossed around.
It's really no big deal, and Mr. Obama will never be impeached for any military action he involves this country in. Most of Congress - in their heart of hearts - believes our military involvement in Syria is long overdue. So anybody who wanted to impeach the President would never get anywhere near the votes needed to make it happen.