Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucco
It was a bit embarassing, I do agree.....I am really torn.
What was embarassing is how this has been bungled....not sure if I can say ALL...but close to ALL foreign affairs, but this Syria thing. Hearing Kerry say they know, we all suspected, that there were other chemical attacks for which we did not even get upset and did nothing including even condemn them. Hearing him backtrack a number of times about boots on the ground. He DID however come back to it a few times to make a point about no boots, but left me wondering why the intial wandering around. The whole thing is a mess.
I surely would love to say....the heck with it, but I am one who thinks we need to support the President...he may not be the guy I want, but still the President. I think politics was played to get to this point big time and that makes me mad, [COLOR="rgb(244, 164, 96)"]but I think we still have to support him and he has put his neck out there.[/COLOR]
Did you hear, and this was an open hearing, how we have been screwing up the aid and support for the rebels....do you hear Kerry differentiate between the rebels by region ? What a mess this is......to me, it shows you cannot ignore it and hope it all goes away. Next President will need to address the neighboring area which has been ignored. No wonder, after hearing today, that Israel is ticked.....cannot imagine what they will hear in the private meetings.
The last few years have left us so poorly respected that this is something I think we need to do or as bad as it is now, the perception will become worse. What a mess to even get to today.....what a tangled web.
|
Speaking broadly and generally, yes, we should support the president regardless of whether he was our choice in the election. BUT, when it comes to specific "decision points".....our nation and constitution are centered on a system of
separation of powers, and the system of
checks and balances:
"Checks and balances
To prevent one branch from becoming supreme, protect the "opulent minority" from the majority, and to induce the branches to cooperate, government systems that employ a separation of powers need a way to balance each of the branches. Typically this was accomplished through a system of "checks and balances", the origin of which, like separation of powers itself, is specifically credited to Montesquieu. Checks and balances allow for a system based regulation that allows one branch to limit another, such as the power of Congress to alter the composition and jurisdiction of the federal courts." (See specific powers for Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches at: )
Separation of powers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also, the separation of powers and checks/balances are there to make the elected officials
accountable to the people. Right now, if 8% of respondents are for attacking Syria, and 92% say "Stay OUT of it", for the president to go forth on his own (alleged, debatable) authority and against the vote by Congress, his actions would be ignoring and circumventing the will of the people expressed thru their representatives who debated this very day in the senate committee, with for example Sec. of State Kerry (respresenting the administration) debating Sen. Paul (representing the people in his constituency). I think the vote of Congress must stand and not be ignored by the executive branch.