http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-demands-congress-clarifiy-us-military-intervention-in-syria-and-beyond/2013/09/06/3897e436-170a-11e3-be6e-dc6ae8a5b3a8_story.html?tid=pm_pop
as the world turns so does the question.
There was a moment Friday when the leader of the free world explained the awe and sympathy his job provokes among colleagues.
At the end of a Group of 20 summit in Russia, President Obama recounted a recent conversation he had had with another head of state, as the question of whether the United States would soon attack Syria loomed over the gathering.“I’m a small country, and nobody expects me to do anything about chemical weapons around the world,” Obama quoted his fellow leader as saying. “They know I have no capacity to do something, and it’s tough because people do look to the United States.”Then, shifting to his own voice, Obama said: “And the question for the American people is, ‘Is that a responsibility that we’re willing to bear?’ ”
i think it's outdated to assume we are all that and a bag of Fritos, as time changes so does the rest of the world, we are confronted with more sophisticated spying, those willing to sell out their gov't for misguided causes.
Russia, China, India and more all have nukes we may have more or not, last administration (Bush) successfully weakened our forces, we no longer really have the upper hand IMO because we waved the saber too many damn times, thumped our chest too many times, brag to much now those who previously feared not respected us have a dog in the race too, our threats fall on deaf ears because they too can threaten us and it's real.
At the heart of Obama's parable about the burdens of power is the reason why a second-term president has suddenly turned to an unpredictable, unruly and often-hostile Congress for a decision on war.He wants an answer to his question: What, after nearly a dozen years of war, is the country willing to bear? Obama appears willing, so far, to risk a severe setback to his presidential prestige to get an answer, even if it turns out to be — as seems quite possible — that the country will not support even a limited military intervention in Syria's civil war.His decision to seek congressional approval to attack Syria, where 120,000 people have been killed since Obama first called for President Bashar al-Assad to step down, baffled even his closest advisers. Obama made the decision on his own, less than two weeks after Assad allegedly used poison gas to kill 1,500 people, hundreds of them children.Now Obama is demanding that Congress — and, by extension, the U.S. electorate — clarify where, when and why the United States should act militarily — not just in Syria, but also in the next region roiled by atrocity.
absolutely brilliant, we elected him to run the country then get in his way or cry if we think it wrong or the opposing party decides it wants to do it their way, now given so many chefs let them all give their recipe and pick which should be the protocol, a good leader knows how to delegate responsibility. whatever happens will be result of collective decision with the Pres. doing what the people really say they want, not what republicans say they want.
they tried to turn to whole thing on him and he serve it right back, they can say it's not leading but they can't say it's not serving the peoples will, outBama'd again.
