It is a rather constant refrain at the moment that president Obama is willing to negotiate with Assad in Syria and the mullahs in Iran but not with Republicans in Congress. The conservatives point to it as proof of Obama's intransigence while the liberals claim it shows that the House GOP is not as willing to talk as the Iranians. So who is right? Let's look at the reality of the situation.
First, we have the phone call yesterday between the president of Iran and Obama. The media points out that it was the Iranian president whose staff reached out to the White House to arrange the call. Most reports do not mention that it was actually Obama who first broached the subject when he tried to arrange a face to face meeting in New York while both men were at the United Nations. The Iranian refused to meet, but he subsequently agreed to take a phone call. So Obama gets the "credit" for starting this interchange.
Then we have Syria. There, Obama announced that Assad had to go more than a year ago. The policy of the United States was regime change for Damascus. Next Obama and his people denounced Assad as a "war criminal" and likened him to Hitler. Only when Obama managed to get himself out on a limb threatening war with no allies and almost no support in Congress did he decide that it would be a good thing to speak to the Russians about a "settlement". As a result, Obama has in essence agreed that Assad will stay in power, there will be no threat of war by the West, and Syria will destroy some of its chemical weapons in exchange. No one thinks that all of the chemical weapons will be destroyed; the only question is what percentage of the stockpile Assad will hide. Even worse, according to news reports Russia has now given Assad a guarantee that Russian troops will prevent his ouster by a foreign power. (For those of you who do not realize, the Syrian rebels are often called foreigners by Assad.)
Finally, we have Congress. Here Obama has said that he will not negotiate. To be clear, Obama has said that he will not negotiate defunding Obamacare (no surprise there), a delay to the portions of Obamacare that Obama himself has yet to postpone (somewhat surprising), or any other measure that Congress wants to attack to a spending bill or a debt ceiling bill (truly surprising and probably not true.)
So Congress is not obstinate; it is not refusing to talk or to make a deal. It is Obama who refuses to talk. It is the same Obama who began talking to Iran after 35 years of silence even though there seems to be nothing to say to the Iranians. It is the same Obama who has been talking to Assad after announcing that America policy was that Assad had to go and was a terrible war criminal. Those people Obama talks to. Congress Obama won't speak to.
Through his entire presidency, Obama has used similar methods. He refused to speak to the GOP about healthcare when the Obamacare bill was being debated. They had one meeting in one and a half years and it was only used for Obama to lecture them about agreeing to the bill rather than hearing the concerns about what was wrong with the bill. He passed the stimulus without speaking to Republicans as well. When both measures turned out to be expensive failures, Obama still would not speak to the GOP.
Obama went to DC promising to be the "post-partisan president". He was off by one letter. He is clearly the "most partisan president."
America deserves better.
First, we have the phone call yesterday between the president of Iran and Obama. The media points out that it was the Iranian president whose staff reached out to the White House to arrange the call. Most reports do not mention that it was actually Obama who first broached the subject when he tried to arrange a face to face meeting in New York while both men were at the United Nations. The Iranian refused to meet, but he subsequently agreed to take a phone call. So Obama gets the "credit" for starting this interchange.
Then we have Syria. There, Obama announced that Assad had to go more than a year ago. The policy of the United States was regime change for Damascus. Next Obama and his people denounced Assad as a "war criminal" and likened him to Hitler. Only when Obama managed to get himself out on a limb threatening war with no allies and almost no support in Congress did he decide that it would be a good thing to speak to the Russians about a "settlement". As a result, Obama has in essence agreed that Assad will stay in power, there will be no threat of war by the West, and Syria will destroy some of its chemical weapons in exchange. No one thinks that all of the chemical weapons will be destroyed; the only question is what percentage of the stockpile Assad will hide. Even worse, according to news reports Russia has now given Assad a guarantee that Russian troops will prevent his ouster by a foreign power. (For those of you who do not realize, the Syrian rebels are often called foreigners by Assad.)
Finally, we have Congress. Here Obama has said that he will not negotiate. To be clear, Obama has said that he will not negotiate defunding Obamacare (no surprise there), a delay to the portions of Obamacare that Obama himself has yet to postpone (somewhat surprising), or any other measure that Congress wants to attack to a spending bill or a debt ceiling bill (truly surprising and probably not true.)
So Congress is not obstinate; it is not refusing to talk or to make a deal. It is Obama who refuses to talk. It is the same Obama who began talking to Iran after 35 years of silence even though there seems to be nothing to say to the Iranians. It is the same Obama who has been talking to Assad after announcing that America policy was that Assad had to go and was a terrible war criminal. Those people Obama talks to. Congress Obama won't speak to.
Through his entire presidency, Obama has used similar methods. He refused to speak to the GOP about healthcare when the Obamacare bill was being debated. They had one meeting in one and a half years and it was only used for Obama to lecture them about agreeing to the bill rather than hearing the concerns about what was wrong with the bill. He passed the stimulus without speaking to Republicans as well. When both measures turned out to be expensive failures, Obama still would not speak to the GOP.
Obama went to DC promising to be the "post-partisan president". He was off by one letter. He is clearly the "most partisan president."
America deserves better.
No comments:
Post a Comment