First, here are two quotes from stories published by The Hill.





Members of Congress want President Obama to get their approval before he does any more in Syria. So, President Obama has not done much in Syria without congressional approval.

You might think that President Obama was doing good by seeking congressional support before doing more in Syria.

Well, you would be thinking wrong according to some conservative and/or Republican pundits. I have heard some of them complain that the POTUS hasn't ordered enough military attacks in Syria.

So which is it?

Is he to go against the wishes of Congress by ordering more military action in Syria without congresional approval ...


... or is he to go against the wishes of conservative/Republican pundits by waiting until he has congressional approval?

Seriously, some conservatives and/or Republicans are trying to put President Obama into a "damned if I do/damned if I don't" situation.

That's just not right.

the way I see it,,

whichever side believes he will do something they agree to, will probably not protest that he doesn't 'seek approval'

and whichever side believes he will not do what they want, will probably suggest that he does 'seek approval'

,,feels like another of those very predictable bipartisan perceptions,,

what's with that Part 2-Thingy?

I have another thread titled "Defending President Obama".

I left "President" out of the title of this thread to make it easier to distinguish it from the other.

I will watch his speech tonight. I don't expect anything new to be said. I know he feels backed into a corner in dealing with this because he has been avoiding doing anything in that region,like the plague, for the past year. I am not going to say that whatever is going to be done that it has to do with how they hope midterms will come out. Frankly I don't trust neither party on anything they do or say.

It may also be just short of a stroke of genius and a delivery on his original campaign's promise of "Change" and to break up the bipartisan gridlock that assures NOthing changes.


Even if the current POTUS does illegally "seize power" and "enact things like a dictator would"


the resultant and promised lawsuits DO draw even more attention to the issues no one wants to see tackled: healthcare, immigration, Middle East involvement, standing with Allies simply because that's "what we've always done", etc.


Makes it kinda hard to keep sweeping issues under the rug when you're suing the POTUS and/or voting to impeach him over 'em,


no?

One of the many complaints against Obama by both parties is that he won't make a decision. What Congress wants Obama to do is make a decision and submit it to Congress for approval. That is how the Constitution is structured.

He made a decision on healthcare and look where that got him.


Ironically, "his decision" on healthcare was the same "decision" Romney had made and been deemed a hero and darling of his party FOR making it.




*Odd*.

Not really. There are some things the States do much better than the Federal Government. The Federal Government really doesn't do much well.

Oh, I don't know about that. Prior to "Obamacare", 49 states (all but Massachusetts) were as adept at doing nothing regarding affordable healthcare for their citizens as the federal government was with doing nothing about it, too.

Getting SOMEthing done 'round Washington these days sure does seem to piss a lot of people off, to the point that they turn red in the face rather than DO any work. It's almost *like* they don't want to work for their money.


Damned Nanny State. Scratch that...damned Nanny Capitol.

Congress are the elected representatives of the people and pundits are paid to make stupid comments that get ratings and make revenue for their employers..

So what really is the point of your question that I quoted?


Moving on...

Interestingly enough, when Obama and the pundits were hell bent on attacking Syria in 2013 it was the people through their elected representatives that snuffed out foolish military action.

Ultimately it was Obama's decision not to attack based on public opposition and for that he should have thanked everyone that opposed his planned action. It saved him from having to explain why he helped ISIS take over the entire region and now has to go back with military action to undo what he had done.

It is not that farfetched to believe Syria would be the clusterphuck that Libya is on a much larger scale. At some point we will have to go back there and take down the Islamist militants that now control most of that country.


But, in the spirit of your thread I will concede that Obama was correct and does deserve credit for ultimately not making a catastrophic mistake by attacking Syria in 2013, toppling Assad and allowing the terrorists to take over the country like he did in Libya.

Kudos Mr President.. Job Well Done...