The strategy is a long game. This fact seems to fly over your head. There is no short game policy that will achieve the goal. This isn't a sound byte, fast food scenario.
Clearly things have not gone well in Syria. The question is not how to do just solve what's going on in Syria - but how do you address the larger issue of Islamic Fanaticism that spreads and results in such destruction in that part of the world and make us feel less safe? It seems to me that we need a shift in the region there that is not happening. To me Obama's failure is not in how he is using the military, it's in how he is uniting the world.
Let me guess, only someone with an R next to their name can truly unite us. Dont worry though, those of us with actual intellectual capabilities have know for quite a while which side finds it politically beneficial to have team left and team right going after each other's throats constantly.
"Long game"? Excuse for lack of results. That sounds like code for "we don't know what the hell we are doing, or we are putting constraints on ourselves that are limiting our success".
Only someone with an interest in doing so. During his time in office, Obama has been more of a divider than a uniter and if you really were as intelligent as you seem to think you are, you'd be able to see it even if you support the president's ideology.
The Republicans really showed an interest in working with the president when their leadership had a meeting the night of his election in 2008 to plan how to make him a one-term president. McConnell even stated publicly that their #1 goal was to make Obama a one-term president. Honestly, I can't think of anything that Obama has done that is anywhere near as divisive as those two actions, feel free to share some though. Obama is far from perfect, but you guys have just created a caricature of him to rail against that is not even close to being grounded in reality.
Yet again proving my point. This presidency has been a divisive and polarizing one, who you blame it on depends on which pole you stand on. This president has made no efforts to really work with both sides, he's just said that he was doing so as he was giving those on the right (who have been in control of congress for most of his presidency) a chance to do things his way. The fact that you blame others for why things have gotten so divisive does nothing to change the fact that this has been a very divisive presidency. The president has consistently put his ideology ahead of compromise and unity. I don't think you can argue that point.
And yet you didn't even provide one example of this, just a bunch of empty rhetoric. There's only on side that has openly stated from day one their disinterest in working with the opposing party, the fact that you choose to completely ignore this is telling.
If you were half as intelligent as you seem to think you are, then I wouldn't have to do all the leg work for you. When Obama came into office, he didn't have to work with Republicans and he certainly had no interest in doing so, he just forced things through using the Democrat controlled house and senate. Once they were voted out, he still had no interest in working with Republicans which is why so little has been accomplished. The tone was already set early in his presidency so the opposition party wasn't very willing to work with him once they held the power of congress. Better politicians like Clinton worked with opposition congresses to get things accomplished for the betterment of the country, but Obama is a hard liner, he'd never do that. Again though, it doesn't matter who you blame, the fact is that the Obama presidency has been a divisive one. If his main goal was unity, that wouldn't be the case. He's much more of a hard line ideologue than he is a skilled politician and that's been part of the problem. Probably the largest part.
And yet again not one specific example. So Obama worked with a Democratic-controlled Congress to pass legislation and that made the Republicans mad and not want to work with him? That's seriously your argument? I seem to remember when the debate about the healthcare bill was going on that the Obama administration had an open forum on live TV where Republican legislators were invited to come in and give input about the bill. Instead nearly every one of them chose to come in and declare that the bill should be scrapped, not because they didn't have ideas to contribute, but because they were determined to not work with this president on anything. I will give the more sane Republicans credit in that they have been more willing to work with the president recently, as opposed to taking the country over the cliff with the Tea Party idiots, which is sadly refreshing. But nah just keep pretending that the Republicans were willing to work with this administration until he went and hurt their political feelings or whatever.
Ah how cute, a Democrat ideologue. Why didn't you just say that's who you were so that I wouldn't have wasted time on you thinking you were a real person? Anyway, I fully understand that you lack the ability to see this president's flaws and that you'll merely blame them on others, but more unbiased people have that ability. Hell Clinton managed to work with an opposition congress that impeached him! Anyway, you just keep chanting "Yes we can!" over and over again while the grown folk talk about this.
Classy as always, Bobby. Unfortunately, I did already know that I was arguing with a sociopath so the blame for this falls on me. See how accountability works?
That's the conclusion I have come to from reading most all online views related to anything political.
