The Washington Post has this continuously changing graphic that tells you where your members of Congress are on Syria. Will President Obama's address change the political landscape in Washington, or the situation in Damascus? Does the second-term, president have a Bully Pulpit anymore?
"Bully pulpit" comes from the 26th U.S. President, Theodore Roosevelt, who observed that the White House was a bully pulpit. For Roosevelt, "bully" was an adjective meaning "excellent" or "first-rate" -- not the noun "bully" ("a blustering browbeating person") that's so common today. Roosevelt understood the modern presidency's power of persuasion and recognized that it gave the incumbent the opportunity to exhort, instruct, or inspire. He took full advantage of his bully pulpit, speaking out about the danger of monopolies, the nation's growing role as a world power, and other issues important to him. Since the 1970s, "bully pulpit" has been used as a term for an office -- especially a political office -- that provides one with the opportunity to share one's views.
Read more at http://www.merriam-webster.com/word-of-the-day/2010/05/20/#QrtmjWsJUIpUgm5X.99
The Fix on Syria
Chris Cillizza has a great political blog called "The Fix" which gives a lot of inside information to politics in DC. In the last year he has added video summaries such as the summary above on what is going on in Syria.
18 comments:
"America is not the World's Policemman, but when we can keep children from being gassed, we should act. That's what makes America Exceptional." -- President Obama
Your thoughts? Strong Presidential leadership address? But reliance on Russia and the UN to take action? Was this an address from the Chief Diplomat or the Commander in Chief?
I'll say it again, politics is easy. Governing is hard.
I think President Obama has showed incredible leadership throughout this entire ordeal with Syria.
I at least would like to give Obama the benefit of the doubt that from the beginning he was to put it loosely "calling Putin's bluff." I think if Putin hadn't done anything, Obama would have portrayed him as a villain, but instead forced his hand and is hopefully able to achieve a diplomatic solution. He played his cards well and used the threat of military action to force Putin into action.
I completely agree with his statement that we are not the world's policemen but when we have an opportunity to right a wrong, we should.
I don't think he is relying on anybody to do his job for him. I think he has created a situation in which he forced the UN and Russia to deal with their own problems and do their job.
I agree with James, it's good for Obama to see if Putin follows through. If Putin's intentions are honest, then that's great and hopefully this situation resolves itself, if not, then I hope we're ready to take the necessary action to stop Syria.
I agree with Obama that we should use our exceptional power to "keep children from being gassed". This is similar to a situation of bullying; we are all watching the Syrian citizens be violently oppressed, and if we do not take action against the Syrian government we are letting this bullying continue. We have the power to stop or at least control Syria's chaos, and we should fully utilize that power.
Obama has gone through this situation very logically and effectively. I don't think he has been relying on others too heavily; he had his own position first, he just wants to act on the popular opinion.
I disagree with Obama not launching a military strike on the Syrian regime. When the Syrian regime used weapons of mass destruction, that does not differentiate between soldiers and civilians, that is when other countries need to step in and prevent the loss of further innocent life. The diplomatic talk is just buying time for the regime to think of what to do next or to destroy the rebels as quick as possible, to maintain their hold on power.
As Uncle Ben from spider-man once said,"with great power comes great responsibility, and America has the responsibility to protect the innocent and give people a fighting chance to make their lives better.
I agree with what other people have said, I think it is important that America takes a stance of "we are doing this for humanity", rather than "we're the international police force." I also think it is smart that President Obama is not acting rashly before seeing if others will also act. Trying to do negotiate diplomatically first shows a lot of class and responsibility, as well as doing so alongside other nations.
I think that Obama's quote really helps prove to America and to the world that we aren't the world's "policeman". We're a country that is founded on the principles of human rights and these human rights should apply to every citizen of the world. I think Obama is playing both sides here. By finding a diplomatic solution apparently involving Russia, it shows that the United States first and foremost will approach this diplomatically. But by pushing the bill back for taking military action, I feel like Obama is playing his cards well. It shows the world that we still have the power to go forth with the military action but its pressure is driving diplomatic solutions which is the right way to go.
I agree with others on the matter of how Obama is handling the situation. If Russia follows through, then that will be great for Obama and the US. I do believe if Russia doesn't do what they say they will, Obama and the US will still take action. I like when it was said that Obama didn't mark the red line, humanity did.
I think Obama has handled the Syrian ordeal quite well. He has displayed great leadership and poise throughout this chaos. I just hope that Putin takes Obama's words to heart and removes all his chemical weapons.
I agree that Obama's initial caution with regards to military action against Syria has payed off. However, I personally do not trust Putin because of the numerous times Putin has said one thing then done the opposite. So I am not very optimist that Russia will fully enforce their promise to remove all chemical weapons from Syria. If that is the case, it will be interesting to see if Obama stays true to his word.
I completely agree with President Obama's statement "America is not the world's policeman" and that if innocent lives can be saved, steps should be taken to do so. But personally, I believe reliance on the UN is completely futile, as the UN has little to no power to actually intervene in a country where injustices are being committed. Additionally, I feel that the White House, as well as Russia for that matter, are missing the actual point here. The issue is not chemical weapons. Yes, the use of them on civilians is no doubt the most disguting thing a leader coud do to his people, but even IF Putin manages to get Syria to give up all chemical weapons, Assad is still there. The tyrant is still in power, and the Syrians are still an oppressed people. I'm not saying that I support the idea of a military intervention to oust Assad, but I think we need to focus more on the bigger picture of bringing justice to the Syrira as a whole, rather than only the use of chemical wearpons.
I totally agree with what has been said numerous times before. Obama's administration is in a tricky spot between the American public who does not want another fight for democracy, and having to deal with the aftermath,and our allies internationally. We are not the world's policemen, but taking a stance on Syria will show the Syrian government that there are strict policies of international diplomacy that must be followed. Obama is doing his job, and even though it seems cryptic and far fetched to carry out this reliance with Russia, I believe that this was the right approach. Jumping into Syria too quickly could have some major problems to both the Syrian public, and US skeptic. I think the address was powerful enough to keep complainers at bay, while still satisfying the general population.
I agree we are not the world's policemen. However, there needs to be something done about this crises. I completely understand the strategy of Obama's administration in cautiously avoiding any military conflict thus far, and I regard it as successful leadership, but this situation has gone too far. Therefore, now is the time to act; if the US could depend on Russian and UN support, that would be fantastic, but I am not greatly optimistic about Putin following through with his promises. A red line has been crossed, this fight is about human rights and safety, not just about international policing, which in my mind justifies the actions that would cause the US to engage in Syria.
I agree with Obama that "America is not the World's Policeman," but that we need to take action against these heinous crimes. However at this point, I don't know if any actions will be taken to stop them.
In my opinion, Obama did the right thing to go to Congress and let them decide. This sort of decision should not be made by one man, and I think it was a very responsible way to approach this issue. However that being said, by making this decision, Obama has made himself look weak in the eyes of both Russia and Syria. Obama had his red line, and instead of acting on it once it was crossed, we've let it sit as an empty threat. Although I agree with Obama's actions, it's never a good thing to have your enemies think you as weak and indecisive. We will just have to see if this possible solution with Russia is realistic, I for one am not holding my breath.
Hopefully this incident won't lead to a war between the U.S., Syria, and Russia. We are just starting to get out of one war, there's no need to send our troops back.
I think Obama has demonstrated some great leadership around this Syria problem. It is something that affects everyone, and by going to congress he exercised our democracy, and got the popular opinion. In his speech, Obama used a lot of pathos (speaking to the audience) about how great of a country we are, and also stressing children. No, we are not the world's policeman, but being a country with values as great as ours, why shouldnt we help humanity?
I think that Obama made a strong address. I think that strength does not come from the United States exercising its muscle without support from other nations. Strength by a president is not demonstrated by acting without input from Congress. Sometimes strength is building consensus. Obama's address was a mixture of both Commander in Chief and Chief Diplomat. The Commander in Chief is not always necessarily taking direct action. Sometimes, its not acting, but waiting for events to unfold, and to see which is the best way to go about it. Sometimes it is waiting to receive international consensus. We are not the World's Policemen, however, being a country that thrives on good morals and values, I think that it is crucial to develop the best possible way to go about solving these complicated issues, and make sure that we do not do more harm than good. For example, if we do not think our actions through, and possibly overthrow the Syrian government, then who is going to take over? Would this be worse than the present situation? For this reason, it is important to seek international support so that whatever comes next, we can be able to handle with help and support.
I completely agree with President Obama's statement that we are not the world's policeman but when we can save lives, we should do what's right and take action. After learning about the atrocities of the Rwandan genocide and how America at the time pondered on whether to take action or not and ended up not taking military action in Rwanda makes me not want something like that to happen again. I'm not saying the Syria conflict is anywhere near that level, but I am saying that if we don't take action then more innocent children in Syria will die from their own people. However, I don't agree with Obama relying on the UN and Russia to take action because they might not agree to take action and because meanwhile, the Syrian regime is preparing for their next step to do whatever it take to maintain power.
I think Obama is acting both as a diplomat and Commander in Chief. While he doesn't have the bully pulpit that Roosevelt did, he still has influence over the American people. He gave a powerful, convincing address to the nation and I agree with most of what he said. We don't want to be the world's police but at the same time we have a responsibility to stand up and take action when a regime kills innocent civilians with chemical weapons. We cannot simply sit on the sidelines and allow the Syrian civil war to just play itself out. If we do that, what kind of message are we sending to countries like North Korea and Iran who are currently on the brink of violating international law? Obama makes great points in his speech that I think will change the minds of some citizens, however it's likely that Congress will still vote against military action in Syria. That's where diplomacy comes in. Since Obama decided to ask Congress for approval instead of pulling a Bush, he must another solution. If there is a way to cooperate with Russia and solve this problem without using the military, it would be ideal but also very difficult. The reason Russia is so invested in protecting Syria is because they have ports there.
Post a Comment