I agree with the "votes...present" bit. There's a huge difference between thoughtful deliberation, which I think we lacked in our previous administration, and indecision. Obama seems to be indecisive based on what is or is not popular as opposed to what is and is not right. Convictions are necessary in the oval office. GWB didn't share mine, BO doesn't seem to have any. I almost prefer the former.
What role does the public play in your worldview?Obama seems to be indecisive based on what is or is not popular as opposed to what is and is not right. Convictions are necessary in the oval office. GWB didn't share mine, BO doesn't seem to have any. I almost prefer the former.
Can you be more specific in your question? I'm happy to try and answer it.
Your criticism is he is indecisive based on what is or is not popular, as in looking to the public (via congress?) before engaging in military action abroad. So, what should the actual involvement of the public or congress be? Should the President take action according to his convictions and dictate to the rest of the country? I don't think anything is going on in Syria that warrants emergency action, personally, but I'm open ears.
There should be a distinction between the public and congress imo. We send our representatives there to govern, not to take a poll of what is popular at the moment and then govern off of that. What if 80% of the country was against entering Europe during WWII? Ideally, our congress is composed of men and women that are more intelligent and capable than the average of our citizenry. If not, then god help us. Have you taken a look at the average citizen? Turn on your TV, the programming there is a result of what appeals to them. I don't think the President should look to the populace for guidance on issues. This is what elections are for. Only congress can "declare war" so it's right to seek their approval. We have only had 5 such approvals though, it's my understanding that Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and many other conflicts we have termed "war" are actually termed "Military Engagements." -These still seek the approval of congress though.
Pffff, the klown koledge in the white house makes the GWB guys look like, well, an adult administration. Take a look at how GWB handled the run-up to Afganistan and Iraq - 30+ countries signed up on each, especially heavily weighted towards NATO allies and middle-eastern countries. Versus what we saw in Libya and Syria. Remember how startled we were when Turkey wouldn't let us stage and invade into Iraq? Would that surprise ANYONE today? I won't even go into Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the disastrous disposition of forces agreement with Iraq, the "reset button" with Russia, etc. Like someone said seven years ago: Best case is the Carter administration. Looking that way. -XC