We used to all know the drill. The president would ask the three television networks for time to address the nation. He would appear in the oval office, somber but faintly smiling as if to say things are scary but we'll get through this alright. He would then dispassionately spell out the problem and explain to the American public the course of action he intended to take. When he was finished speaking the public knew what too expect in the coming days and usually a ranking member of the opposition party would briefly appear and say that after consulting with the president he endorsed the proposed plan of action and partisanship has no place in matters of national defense.
Enter President Obama where partisanship dominates matters of national defense. Is there any reason other than rabid partisanship that prevents the greatest teleprompter reader in history from addressing the American public and consulting with the Congress? It could be Congress would say no. The latest Reuters/Ipsos poll, taken August 19-23 found that just 25% of Americans would support US intervention in Syria even if chemical weapons had been used and 46% oppose any intervention whatsoever. Only 9% support unilateral action by Obama. I would suggest that's pretty thin.
Should Obama ignore the Congress and the will of the people I would hope the House leadership would have the gumption and truly, the sense of duty, and push an impeachment. There is no doubt in my mind it would attract more bipartisan support than a resolution authorizing the use of force in Syria. The impeachment may fail in the Senate but then Senators Begich, Hagan, Landrieu, Pryor, and Shaheen could explain their no votes in 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment