Tom Cotton is a freshman Senator from Arkansas. He has an awesome pedigree. Cotton was born in Arkansas. His father served in Vietnam. He graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard and went on to Harvard Law School. After law school Cotton joined the Army and served two tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and was awarded the Bronze Star.
Cotton actually wrote something on the record while at Harvard, something Obama, despite being on the Law Review, really never did.
And he ain’t afraid. Not of the press, not of democrats and not afraid of dictators in Iran or the US.
Cotton authored a letter informing Iran that the Congress would have to approve any formal agreements or treaties. The letter can be seen here.
Cotton has taken a lot of fire for that letter, with the New York Daily News calling him a traitor. democrats (democrat being defined as someone with absolutely zero long term memory) conveniently forget a lot, some of which I’ve already covered, but there’s even more. In 1984 demcorats wrote to Daniel Noriega, undermining Ronald Reagan.
Cotton made clear the intention of the letter:
“We’re making sure that Iran’s leaders understand if Congress doesn’t approve a deal, Congress won’t accept a deal,” Cotton, 38, whose letter evoked a sharp rebuke from the White House, said Tuesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program. “Because we’re committing to stopping Iran from getting a weapon.”
Joe Biden laced into Cotton:
“This letter, in the guise of a constitutional lesson, ignores two centuries of precedent and threatens to undermine the ability of any future American president, whether Democrat or Republican, to negotiate with other nations on behalf of the United States.”
You can see already that Biden is wrong, but Biden is seldom anything other than wrong. If you leave out being a pervert, that is.
Cotton doesn’t suffer fools well and shot right back.
“Joe Biden, as [President] Barack Obama’s own secretary of defense has said, has been wrong about nearly every foreign policy and national security decision in the last 40 years,” Cotton said Tuesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” in a reference to former Pentagon chief Robert Gates, who ripped Biden in a tell-all memoir after leaving office.
“Moreover, if Joe Biden respects the dignity of the institution of the Senate he should be insisting that the president submit any deal to approval of the Senate, which is exactly what he did on numerous deals during his time in Senate,” Cotton said.
Barack Obama is a liar. He guaranteed that Iran would not get a nuke and of course, that guarantee was no better than any other Obama assurances.
Cotton is doing us all a big favor questioning Obama. Cotton is a hero. He’s got balls. I could see him as President one day.
I love this guy.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 40 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 45 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter who is in the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
I have been impressed by Cotton. Keep up the good work.
He’s doing someone a big favor. But who?
http://m.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/03/tom-cotton-may-just-have-undermined-his-own-cause/387382/?utm_source=SFTwitter
From Opinion Juris; GOP Iran Letter Might Be Unconstitutional. Is It Also Criminal?
The answer, then, is yes. What Cotton and the others have done goes far beyond a politically motivated act of total irresponsibility. All 47 Republican Senators have just committed a criminal act. What they groundlessly accuse Barack Obama of, they have actually done.
Basically, what Sen Cotton did was out Obama as not negotiating in good faith.
Now, either Obama was trying to fool Iran into stopping its refinement and coupling of weaponized nuclear material with some of their new missiles, or, Obama is the one on the side of Iran, wanting to fool Americans into thinking we were gaining a deal with Iran while Iran really went on creating nuclear weapons.
Since we have had over 30 years’ of history with Iran we KNOW Iran lies about whatever it says it is doing.
So, in effect, either Obama was trying to fool us or Iran was fooling Obama, because Obama wasn’t fooling Iran for an instant.
Sen Cotton’s letter to Iran was the only way to insure Obama would read it.
Did the Bush administration consult with Congress while negotiating the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government? Was Congressional approval sought before finalizing the agreement on behalf of the United States?
@Tom:
The Iranians have already said they will refuse the ten year deal Obama was trying to push. You guys keep missing the main premise, though. Obama is a LIAR and absolutely nothing he says one day means anything the next day. You can’t negotiate with someone like that and you certainly can’t trust him.
@Greg:
So what? democrats did the same thing in 1984. What happened to them? Kerry, McDermott and Bonior did far worse. democrats have set the standard.
Obama has spent six years beating the pulp out of the Constitution and bypassing Congress acting like an emperor. Now he whines in the face of the same kind of action.
Tough shit.
@Greg:
Don’t think they did old boy. Just another left wing talking point.
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/03/logan-act/
@drjohn:
How quickly the left forgets. Forgets John Kerry actually negotiating with the North Vietnamese while we were still at war. Forgets Ted Kennedy actually cutting deals with the Russians to thwart Ronald Reagan. Forgets scumbag Jim McDermott taking a trip to Iraq, paid for by Saddam, to warn Saddam of impending military action.
The 47 Republicans wrote a letter outlining our Constitutional system. The Democrats actually aided and abetted the enemy.
Greg and Tom
You two voted twice for a guy who called a sitting President “unpatriotic” and you talk about bad manners?
Really?
@Tom:
True, but that burden is shared by the executive branch and congress. If Obama’s administration doesn’t want to work with congress, they should expect no less.
@Greg:
Article 2 Section II of the Constitution lays out the way treaties are approved. According the the White House briefing, Josh Earnest said they had no intention of seeking the approval of the senate. That is a constitutionally criminal act, not groundless.
Yes. Just as he sought and won congressional approval to go to war with Iraq. You may not like that fact, but it is a fact nonetheless.
@drjohn:
There was a time when I would have said conservatives are better than this and we should adhere to the Constitution, always. But it appears that document holds no sway with democrats. They used to pick at the edges, but now they are just trying to gut it.
I urge every conservative, libertarian, or any person that truly believes congress and the executive branch must abide by the Constitution to look at this site:
http://www.conventionofstates.com/
Tom Coburn is one of the leaders in this movement. I know a lot of folks have questions about a runaway convention, but you can read the FAQs and get a good sense of what can and cannot happen during a Convention of States.
This day has been long in the coming. I think we can look back at least as far as Woodrow Wilson and see the abuses. Enough is enough.
@Tom: “It is not in the best interest of the United States to provide Iran any excuses to walk away from the table” If not getting a bomb, not now, not ever, is an “excuse” for Iran to walk, so be it. However, what is the benefit to make a bad deal? What?
@Greg: “. What Cotton and the others have done goes far beyond a politically motivated act of total irresponsibility” Indeed it does. Well beyond. What it does is address a serious national security issue and there is nothing political about it other than preventing a prima donna from making a political play while jeopardizing a region, a people and the world.
“Did the Bush administration consult with Congress while negotiating the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government? Was Congressional approval sought before finalizing the agreement on behalf of the United States? ” Was that a treaty or the business of the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces? Did Obama consult with Congress when he unadvisedly pulled all forces out of Iran and created this humongous ISIS crisis?
Is the left saying we should have blind faith in this administration’s ability to negotiate? After the Iraq SofF and Cuban results, the question is, why do even the blindest of liberals have any faith remaining? Do they have to SEE the mushroom cloud before they realize Obama is either the most incompetent of idiots or bound and determined to alter the world-wide balance of power in favor of our enemies?
@drjohn:
And here you very helpful demonstrate the point I’ve been making over and over, on the other thread and others: that many in the Far Right substitute pathological personal animus for Obama for reasoned analysis when it comes to just about anything happening in America right now. You don’t start with an issue, analyze it factually, albeit taking into account your personal philosophies and feelings on the subject, to arrive at a conclusion. You start with where Obama is on the subject and reverse engineer your opinion from there. Because if Obama is “a liar” that means we should always believe the opposite! If he’s a Muslim, that means we can’t trust him because he keeps telling us he’s not! Etc. Of course, this is tough for you, because it drives you into all sorts of ridiculous inconsistencies in your writing, such as your belligerent warmongering now on Iran contrasted with your Obama inspired hand-wringing over drone attacks and collateral damage in the Middle East. It’s really pretty rich to see you treat your principles like a rubics cube, shuffling them based on the day’s headlines.
@Tom:
H.L. Mencken (born 1880 – died 1956) was a journalist, satirist, critic and registered Democrat.
Mencken wrote the editorial below while working for the Baltimore Evening Sun.
“As democracy is perfected, the office of the President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be occupied by a downright fool and complete narcissistic moron.”
– H.L. Mencken, the Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
So it was written, and so it has come to pass….
@Greg:
Excuse me idiot, the Obama administration failed to get a SOFA agreement with the Iraqi government. Are you really that ill-informed, or is your animus overpowering your (feeble) intellect?
@Tom:
Ah, how those words of Obama ring in my ear. “If you like you health insurance, you can keep your health insurance. PERIOD.” “There is not a smidgen of corruption at the IRS.” and how can we forget all the things that Obama has learned about by reading them in the newspaper? You know, like Fast and Furious, the IRS targeting conservative groups, etc.
What ever he is, he’s not Christian. My guess is he is agnostic.
War mongering? Iran has been rattling its sword at us since 1979 and the failed Carter administration. Where have you been all these years? When they have “Death To America” rallies, what are you thinking they mean?
If given a chance, and taking into consideration Iran’s belief in the 12th Iman, you really think they are not just itching to start a war?
And how do you explain John Kerry saying that the negotiations with Iran are NOT “legally” binding? If they are not legally binding, what makes you think Iran will stick to any agreement made with Secretary Lurch?
@drjohn, #7:
So what? is pretty much the point. The Obama administration’s efforts to come to an understanding with Iran’s government isn’t much different than negotiations conducted by many different presidential administrations in the past. Executive agreements are one of the routine ways the United States formalizes understandings with foreign nations. Most agreements don’t take the form of formal treaties ratified by the Senate. Agreements that do take the form of formal treaties are not uncommonly preceded by such negotiations.
The problem here isn’t that Obama is overstepping any bounds or exceeding his authority. It’s that some members of Congress don’t agree with efforts to curtail Iran’s nuclear program through diplomacy, and have recently undertaken an effort to disrupt that process by means that are actually illegal.
@Aqua, #11:
I’ll repeat the above observation: Most agreements reached between the United States and foreign nations don’t take the form of formal treaties ratified by the Senate. The fact that they don’t have the gravitas or legal stature of formal treaties doesn’t keep them from being useful.
@Greg: No, you’re coming in late to the party. I know the NYT and others have pulled you strings, requiring you say “it’s illegal!”, but now you just sound like all the other reps who’ve been claiming Obama is breaking the law too. Imagine how you feel every time a conservative starts by saying “Obama broke the law when he…” you shut down.
The same now applies to you.
Clearly not a violation of the logan Act, but if the media keeps saying it over and over again, they can convince at least a few under-thinking citizens.
Like you.
@Tom: Uh, I think you’re pointing at yourself in the mirror. Obama was the answer to Bush, and so many were infected with BDS, a useful tool to anyone sleazy enough to use it. The lib voters found any and all phobias and scapegoats in the way of W.
Now you want to claim the conservatives are doing this with Obama, out of nowhere?
No. Somewhere in your subconscious, you know you are projecting on both Bush and Obama. So you now think there is something called ODS.
Obama’s Presidency has been rich n media coverage and propaganda, but many of us doubt the real contributions…and what will happen when he leaves. (messes to clean up).
That’s good sense.
@John2, #16:
The Bush Administration finalized the Status of Forces Agreement a month before Obama was sworn into office. They could have waited a few short weeks and left that to Obama, in which case they might have had some basis for blaming Obama for provisions and for a timetable that were unalterable except with the consent of the Iraqi government.
Your grasp of recent history would appear to be every bit as faulty as your manners.
@Greg:
Fair enough. And if is an executive agreement that were signed today, it would have an expiration date of exactly 680 days, just like the letter the senators sent stated.
@Greg:
IOW, Gullible Greggie is lamenting “Oh, no, Obama is so incompetent he could not renegotiate the S of F agreement. How do I spin his failure?”
@Thirteen:
Interesting quote. Thank you for sharing.
Obviously, I don’t know the details of your convictions on the issue, but I generally find it interesting when people (usually conservatives) feel that Obama should be called out as an outlier on some spectrum of abuse of authority, or incompetence, or disloyalty. I’ve never seen anyone marshal actual evidence to support these conclusions other than personal speculation like we see from Dr. John. Pointing out individual incidents for criticism isn’t enough unless we can build a powerful overwhelming case against Obama relative to his predecessors (a general case against executive power, acknowledging Obama being relatively consistent with his predecessors is an entirely different argument). What I’ve found is that people who think in absolute black and white terms – good and bad, liar and honest, right and wrong – are often driven by this viewpoint into dubious conclusions due to oversimplification. Related, I find these people are often driven to find contrasting pairs: Obama is absolutely wrong on Iran and Bibi is absolutely right, for example. Take this post for example – here we have the author telling us he loves Senator Cotton and nominating him for President based upon three months on the job his naive Obama trolling letter to Iran. This lack of critical thinking is really remarkable to me. I’m not saying it’s the sole province of the Right, but it certainly seems common. How many people convinced themselves GWB was a good ole boy cowhand while ignoring his biography. The same who reinvent Obama’s biography based upon similar cartoonish simplification. More dangerous perhaps than the sheer lunacy heaped on Obama is the hero worship of anyone on the Right who is held up in contrast. I don’t think anyone should blindly trust any national political figure – and I think believing anyone doing a job that hard is getting it more than 60% right or wrong is plain naive.
@Nathan Blue, #19:
The difference is that while conservatives assert that Obama has broken the law more times than I can remember, they have yet to prove their claims even once. What’s forbidden by the Logan Act, on the other hand, is simple enough for anyone to understand: No one but the designated representatives of the Executive Branch can lawfully conduct negotiations with foreign governments or their agents or representatives, nor can anyone attempt to defeat the measures undertaken by the Executive Branch.
To say that republicans have violated the Logan Act is not a talking point. It’s a factual observation of current events. They affixed their own signatures to the evidence and pretty much nailed it to the courthouse door.
@Aqua:
To piggy back on Greg’s response in 18. Also, in answer to your charge on another thread that Obama is handling this in some new unique manner:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2015/03/sen_tom_cotton_s_letter_to_iran_is_plainly_stupid_the_arkansas_freshman.html
@Aqua, #22:
The problem is not with the general truth of what they said. The offices of all elected U.S. leaders are temporary, and their policies are subject to change. The problem is with what they’re clearly intending to accomplish by saying it. In effect, they’re saying this:
“Don’t make any agreements concerning nuclear program curtailment with this man. We don’t respect him as our nation’s elected leader, and it’s our intention to disregard any such agreement the moment we’re able to do so.”
Say what? Have they totally lost their minds? That sort of assertion, if believed, could severely impair the nation’s ability to effectively pursue any sort of coherent foreign policy.
@Greg: No, saying the Reps have broken the Logan Act is a biased, partisan gimmick.
You’re pretty much the same as a birther, at this point.
@Thirteen:Mencken was certainly correct:
How could he have written such an accurate description of our ‘leader’?
This is funny: Greg says:
This is right after he quotes John 2 as saying that Obama didn’t reach a SOFA with Iraq, that Bush did, then Greg says that Bush did, in fact, reach a SOFA with Iraq a month before he left office and then he says John2’s grasp of history is faulty.
I would say Greg is the one with a ‘grasp’ problem.
@Greg: I agree that this is, in effect, what they are saying:
Many on the left did not respect Bush as their duly elected leader, in fact many still think he rigged things in Florida and never should have been president.
Many on the right don’t respect Obama as their duly elected leader, for many reasons. He’s a demagogue, puppet, whatever.
But he did win the elections. So now the left want unflinching obedience from the right, while they did not do the same during the Bush years. All those “He’s not MY President” bumperstikers…remember?
So the backlash is that many of us think the man in the Whitehouse is a fraud, and we’re not respecting him. Just like you and Bush.
It’s hilarious to see how the left can’t take any of its own medicine…
We are a divided nation, and no — we do not need to bow to an incompetent president just because “won”.
I agree that congress is undermining the authority of the whitehouse and I applaud it.
No doubt some people think that’s a cause for pride and celebration. The sentiment is probably widely shared among the governments of nations hostile to the United States.
@Tom:
Interesting that you say ‘reinvent’. I will agree that his biography was invented.
So…. you’re agreeing that it’s not by accident that Obama is doing it all wrong? You say it’s naive to believe that Obama could get it more than 60% right? (or wrong) So then to get it almost 100% wrong is a real challenge to him?
I do agree with your statement:
though I do doubt that is what you intended to say.
John Kerry explains the nature of executive agreements for the benefit of members of Congress who apparently slept through their high school civics classes: Senators grill Obama officials on Iran
@Greg: 25
I won’t bore you with naming all the instances again, that’s been done often enough. He is not breaking the law by negotiating with Iran, that’s the job of the Executive branch. however if he does not submit it to congress for approval then it is not an agreement. Not submitting it to Congress is his option, depending on whether he wants it to be an agreement or not. Since congress has not been involved in any negotiations with Iran, then they haven’t broken any laws either. A simple letter explaining how legal treaties are made by the US is just a courtesy to make sure both sides get a valid agreement. If a valid agreement is not the objective, then what is the objective?
However this statement:
is totally incorrect. Any member of Congress that does not want a negotiated agreement to be ratified can do whatever he needs to do to influence the other members of congress to vote no. Congress can not make an agreement without the exec branch and the exec branch can’t make an agreement without the approval of congress.
@Tom:26article 2 section 2:
This is a rather interesting statement:
I would like to point out that you and I are also free to sign any ‘nonbinding agreement’ that you wish. Non binding agreements are normally signed on toilet paper.
and then you enlightened us:
These deals are not binding on anyone or any country and are worth less than the toilet paper they are written on.
@Redteam, #34:
The Executive Branch can make agreements with foreign leaders without the approval of Congress. Presidents do so frequently. Unlike formal treaties, executive agreements don’t require Congressional approval. Executive agreements don’t have the same legal status as treaties—they’re not legally binding—but they’re still very a useful means of coming to practical understandings. Such agreements are necessarily taken seriously. There’s nothing trivial about them. Every issue that comes up between two nations cannot be addressed with a treaty debated and ratified by legislatures. That wouldn’t be practical or even possible.
@Greg: 27
Maybe they are actually saying this: Since we feel that this agreement is so important to both your country and to the USA, we want to makie sure that the agreement is equally binding on both countries and therefore it is important that it be done correctly so that there are no loopholes. Therefore you need to know that both the President and the US Senate have to agree on all the wording and content. Once our president has agreed with your people on a mutually agreeable pact, then he will submit it to the US Senate for their concurrance. We know that your country has rules for establishing binding treaties and we will allow the time as necessary for your approval process.
I think that’s what’s behind the letter, just to make sure that once we have a legal agreement, it will be one we’re all happy with.
I’m quite sure Obama is most interested in things being done according to the Constitution. Right?
@Greg: and it’s especially shared by the left in our country when a Republican is in office.
@Greg: 33 There is nothing in that link that has anything to do with Lurch explaining anything.
@Greg: 36
I said:
Let me correct that:
There.
And you said:
let me fix that for you: The Executive Branch can make agreements with foreign leaders without the approval of Congress but they are not legal or binding until after approval by 2/3 of the Senate. There.
I do recognize that you understand this:
well actually they’re not binding ‘legally or not’. As I pointed out, the value is usually less than the toilet paper they’re written on.
@Greg: Kerry has said that he is working on a “non-binding” agreement. So, what, exactly, are they talking about? Who is be bound to what? Sounds remarkably like the administration is merely wanting to do a lot of talking in order to say they are accomplishing something. You know…. like the past 6 years.
An “agreement” is only as good as its participants. So, this agreement, were it to be made, would be inherently worthless because both Obama and Iran possess the moral compass of Stalin and Hitler in regards to honoring “agreements” only as long as they themselves benefit from them.
@ Redteam:
I’ve followed with amusement your back-and-forth with Greg regarding this “letter” issue. It seems to me that you BOTH are stating the obvious. BOTH of you are stating correct information as far as you are going, and seem to imply that the other is wrong, and that’s not the case. The 47 Republicans’ letter was a correct statement of obvious facts, and those facts are not in dispute. What is alarming to me is that there are those among you who are saying that the purpose of stating that information was to EDUCATE the Iranians on the distinction between treaty ratification and preliminary negotiations to that end. The suggestion that this distinction would otherwise be lost on the highest officials in the Iranian government seems absurd.
The individuals conducting these negotiations are not amateurs collected from the idle crowds wandering the streets of Tehran. They are professionals with credentials comparable to our own, and the realities of treaty ratification are surely already well known to them.
In the bigger picture, Democrats are attempting to gain political capital by accusing the 47 Republicans of treason, and are also happy to have the letter to blame in case the negotiations fail. Tehran is attempting to use the letter to embarrass the United States by pointing out (correctly) that political turmoil in the USA is obviously jeopardizing any product that might result from their negotiating with ANY of our “agents”. And Republicans are attempting to insure that Obama fails, no matter what he does, even though, as the “letter” correctly points out, an agreement with an American president is fairly worthless unless and until it IS ratified by the legislatures of BOTH countries involved.
So you are happy that 47 senators insured that Obama cannot successfully negotiate with Iran? You feel that this was necessary because you are afraid that maybe SOMETHING good might have come out of it? Highly unlikely, don’t you think? All it really did was set a precedent for congressional interference with preliminary negotiations that are almost always initiated by the executive branch of government, not the legislative branch. I doubt that this will help the GOP in the long run.
@Nathan Blue:
Maybe. See ‘Jeff’s comments on the other thread. Any of it sound familiar, i.e. the wording, the argument, the emotion etc.?
@Greg #31:
“I agree that congress is undermining the authority of the whitehouse and I applaud it.”
“No doubt some people think that’s a cause for pride and celebration. The sentiment is probably widely shared among the governments of nations hostile to the United States.”
I agree with you here. Our electorate elected one man to be the executive, the president, the “decider”. They didn’t elect 100 senators for that purpose, nor the numerous idiots in the House of Representatives. Those clowns have different purposes. When the authority of the president is damaged, so are we all. I thought that Nathan knew better…
I’m just wondering what the GOP figures it’s going to do to stop Iran’s nuclear program, now that they have convinced Tehran that negotiating with America is pointless. We’re just about plum out of sanctions, and there’s not going to be any American “boots-on-the-ground” in Iran…
@George Wells: Thanks for the comments George, but you are wrong on a few items, let me point those out.
Greg says that the letter is a violation of the Logan Act. It clearly is not. Greg says that the ‘intent’ is to undermine the negotiations. He supplies absolutely nothing to support that guess. I state that the purpose is to educate the Iranian on what is required. The letter itself clearly states that is the reason. No evil intentions are evident as Greg states.
OMG! we have our Lurch, they have their Lurch? Two Lurch’s conducting a nuclear agreement? No way.
You are saying Repubs don’t want a treaty that guarantees there will be no nuclear weapons development. You are absolutely incorrect. I’m saying that the president should be above board and ensure that whatever agreement he reaches is acceptable to the people of America. That’s why the 67 senator approval is necessary. We would all love to have a successful open to the world agreement. Obama doesn’t even want the US congress to know what is in the potential agreement. If they don’t, how would we even know if they violated the agreement?
I don’t believe anything I’ve written relates to that statement at all. I am happy that the 47 Senators see that the Constitution is being circumvented by the Administration and is trying to insure that the proper procedures for success are followed. Do you think the US Senators should be informed of the details of the negotiations and that the agreement should be something acceptable to the American citizens?
@Greg: Not at all. That’s just more partisan rhetoric. I’m not sure why you bother.
@another vet: Ha. Wasn’t sure, but I see it now…
@George Wells: Ok. You think numerous congress-people are clowns. I think Obama is a clown. We can agree to disagree.
My point — and I’d say you’d agree with it for the most part — is that we live in a democracy that doesn’t hold true to one leader’s vision, but rather the gestalt of our collective constituencies.
That said, I find a difference between Bush’s decisiveness and Obama’s transformations.
Bush seemed committed to honoring the law (like it or not, Iraq and the rest of the ‘scandals’ were lawful, and not done in secret). He was about the office, not the man.
Contrast that with Obama: It’s all about “legacy” and him and being a symbol rather than a competent executive. I find most libs too biased to recognize just how crazy many of Obama’s actions to be. If you hate the Iraq War and water-boarding, you logically should hate child/women/innocents being killed by drones and executing Americans without due process and “lost” emails and all that. He has done many things Bush did not (bad things). Fact is, the opinion of presidential action from the left depends on if a Dem is in office or not. The same is true of the right, but on a much, much smaller level. The right is constantly challenging it’s members — actions are paramount, not the jersey they wear.
So yes. I think Obama is a bad president, and the product of nefarious leftist organizations, and bad ideology fostered in the temple and marketplace.
Or is he just “negotiating”?
Indeed, I seem to know better.
@George Wells: 44
George, apparently you’ve neglected doing your homework on American History. Yes, they elected one man to ‘head the executive branch’ of the government, he’s called the President, but he is not called the ‘decider’. No one in this country voted for him to be a ‘decider’, only to execute the government and laws as determined by the people through their elected representatives, the Congress.
It shouldn’t be a surprise to you, but the US is a Representative Republic. Each person votes for two persons to represent them in passing laws, One representative and One Senator. They want these people to decide whether to make a new law or not and to decide if a treaty with another country is a good deal for the US. If these representatives pass a law, the president can sign it or veto it or let it become law without a signature. If he vetos it, but the congress still wants it bad enough, they can pass it over his veto. The president is not allowed to make a new law, only faithfully execute the laws the congress passes. So whatever you think of the Senators and Reps, while they may be idiots, they are the ‘elected’ idiots that have the responsibility to do what those that elected them desire that they do.
I know of no president that has has his authority damaged by anyone other than himself. What ever damage Obama has suffered, he brought on himself. For all his ‘supposed’ education, he seems terribly ‘dumb’.
@George Wells: And for the record, George, you’re the only left-leaning poster here I respect. You have an opinion that has heart, and is honest. The others seem too contrived, to childish to seem more than anger or, more potently, vitriol spit from DNC volunteers with job of polluting boards like this (yes Greg, I’m talking about you).
Regardless, it’s the duty of us all to not take our identities from these political crises and politicians. We need to put them all through the ringer, because they work for us.