6
6
0
Two days ago, Senator Tom Cotton drafted a letter to the leaders of Iran, claiming that any deal struck with President Obama had a shelf life of only two years.
Do you think this was appropriate under the current situation, both domestically as well as internationally? Was there a better way to handle this?
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-09/republicans-warn-iran-and-obama-that-deal-won-t-last
Do you think this was appropriate under the current situation, both domestically as well as internationally? Was there a better way to handle this?
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-09/republicans-warn-iran-and-obama-that-deal-won-t-last
Politics
Iran
Nuclear
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 48
2
2
0
The true question is can Iran be trusted to honor its agreement. You must remember that ISLAM does not allow muslims to agree to terms of subversion with infidels. In short muslims are required to convert or kill the nonr believers or impose a tax against them. The caliphate is to be established and islamthe only religon allowed for the workd. All aspects of ISLAM not just approve of but demand taqiyya, lying or deceit of the infidel to conceal ISLAMs true intent. With this in mind can we trust Iran to honor a deal with us?
(2)
(0)
MSG David Chappell
Col Ted your argument is partially correct if you only take portions of islamic doctrine. Many of us involved in islamic law study understand that the koran us not the defining law just a portion. You need to get a copy of Umdat as-Salik wa 'Uddat an-Nasik (Reliance of the Traveller and Tools of the Worshipper, also commonly known by its shorter title Reliance of the Traveller). This is the defining book of law and where I reference all aspects of my argument.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
MSG David Chappell Master Sergeant; You are, of course, referring to a 14th Century interpretation of a 7th Century book and one which is "paramount" to one of the six (or possibly seven) school of Islamic Law.
The Muslims recognize that any "interpretation" of the Qur'an is subject to human error (while the Qur'an [like the Bible to Christians] is not).
You might also want to note that the book clearly states that:
"Allah Mighty and Majestic has willed that most texts of the Sacred Law be probabilistic as evidence because of a wisdom He demands, namely, to give people more choice and leave room for minds to use ijtihad in understanding His
word and that of His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace)."
In other words, it admits to the possibility of its own fallibility.
Let's just take a look at Q5.9 to see how "definitive" the book is. Q5.9 says:
"FORCE OF ARMS
qS.9 The eighth degree is when one is unable to censure the act by oneself and requires the armed assistance of others. Sometimes the person being reproved may also get people to assist him, and a skirmish may ensue, so the soundest legal opinion
is that this degree requires authorization from the caliph (def: 025), since it leads to strife and the outbreak of civil discord. Another view is that there is no need for the caliph's permission."
In other words, some people think one thing and others think something else.
It has been a common practice (ever since someone invented religion) for practitioners to only take "portions" of the doctrine (otherwise there would be only one "Christian" church).
The issue is NOT whether a small group of "co-religionists" accept a certain interpretation of a select extract of the overall doctrine, but whether ascribing that provable condition to the remainder of the people who adopt a different interpretation of a different select extract of the overall doctrine is productive.
[Don't bet the rent that it is.]
Now, if you want to be specific in your references (rather than saying "It's all in this 1,234 page book - YOU go and find it.") we might yet have a productive debate.
The Muslims recognize that any "interpretation" of the Qur'an is subject to human error (while the Qur'an [like the Bible to Christians] is not).
You might also want to note that the book clearly states that:
"Allah Mighty and Majestic has willed that most texts of the Sacred Law be probabilistic as evidence because of a wisdom He demands, namely, to give people more choice and leave room for minds to use ijtihad in understanding His
word and that of His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace)."
In other words, it admits to the possibility of its own fallibility.
Let's just take a look at Q5.9 to see how "definitive" the book is. Q5.9 says:
"FORCE OF ARMS
qS.9 The eighth degree is when one is unable to censure the act by oneself and requires the armed assistance of others. Sometimes the person being reproved may also get people to assist him, and a skirmish may ensue, so the soundest legal opinion
is that this degree requires authorization from the caliph (def: 025), since it leads to strife and the outbreak of civil discord. Another view is that there is no need for the caliph's permission."
In other words, some people think one thing and others think something else.
It has been a common practice (ever since someone invented religion) for practitioners to only take "portions" of the doctrine (otherwise there would be only one "Christian" church).
The issue is NOT whether a small group of "co-religionists" accept a certain interpretation of a select extract of the overall doctrine, but whether ascribing that provable condition to the remainder of the people who adopt a different interpretation of a different select extract of the overall doctrine is productive.
[Don't bet the rent that it is.]
Now, if you want to be specific in your references (rather than saying "It's all in this 1,234 page book - YOU go and find it.") we might yet have a productive debate.
(0)
(0)
MSG David Chappell
COL you do realize that the "14th century interputations" was again approved by all the scholars and major islamic universities. This is the problem in islamic belief, we in a modern society can't believe that this could be true and muslims encourage this disbelief (taqiyya) to cancel their true intent. What research and studies have you been involved in to form your opinion? I ask due to my colleagues and my cooperative research with them. You would recognize 40 of the 50 I am sure.
(0)
(0)
MSG David Chappell
The best thing that can happen is the negotiation falls apart completely it is a bad deal you don't take a bad deal just to have a deal that's ridiculous
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I'm not saying either way that what they did either way was right or wrong, but we do see a history of this being done on both sides. The hypocrisy is real and shows why neither party should be voted for anymore. Extracted from an article elsewhere that gives seven instances of the Democrat Party doing similar to the above during a Republican President's time in office. I assume the Republican Congress members whined and complained then as well.
Senators John Sparkman (D-AL) and George McGovern (D-SD). The two Senators visited Cuba and met with government actors there in 1975. They said that they did not act on behalf of the United States, so the State Department ignored their activity.
Senator Teddy Kennedy (D-MA). In 1983, Teddy Kennedy sent emissaries to the Soviets to undermine Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy. According to a memo finally released in 1991 from head of the KGB Victor Chebrikov to then-Soviet leader Yuri Andropov:
On 9-10 May of this year, Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.
What was the message? That Teddy would help stifle Reagan’s anti-Soviet foreign policy if the Soviets would help Teddy run against Reagan in 1984. Kennedy offered to visit Moscow to “arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.” Then he said that he would set up interviews with Andropov in the United States. “Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews…Like other rational people, [Kennedy] is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations,” the letter explained. The memo concluded:
Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president.
House Speaker Jim Wright (D-TX). In 1984, 10 Democrats sent a letter to Daniel Ortega Saavedra, the head of the military dictatorship in Nicaragua, praising Saavedra for “taking steps to open up the political process in your country.” House Speaker Jim Wright signed the letter.
In 1987, Wright worked out a deal to bring Ortega to the United States to visit with lawmakers. As The New York Times reported:
There were times when the White House seemed left out of the peace process, uninformed, irritated. ”We don’t have any idea what’s going on,” an Administration official said Thursday. And there was a bizarre atmosphere to the motion and commotion: the leftist Mr. Ortega, one of President Reagan’s arch enemies, heads a Government that the Administration has been trying to overthrow by helping to finance a war that has killed thousands of Nicaraguans on both sides. Yet he was freely moving around Washington, visiting Mr. Wright in his Capitol Hill office, arguing his case in Congress and at heavily covered televised news conferences. He criticized President Reagan; he recalled that the United States, whose troops intervened in Nicaragua several times between 1909 and 1933, had supported the Somoza family dictatorship which lasted for 43 years until the Sandinistas overthrew it in 1979.
Ortega then sat next to Wright as he presented a “detailed cease-fire proposal.” The New York Times said, “Mr. Ortega seemed delighted to turn to Mr. Wright.”
Senator John Kerry (D-MA). Kerry jumped into the pro-Sandanista pool himself in 1985, when he traveled to Nicaragua to negotiate with the regime. He wasn’t alone; Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) joined him. The Christian Science Monitor reported that the two senators “brought back word that Mr. Ortega would be willing to accept a cease-fire if Congress rejected aid to the rebels…That week the House initially voted down aid to the contras, and Mr. Ortega made an immediate trip to Moscow.” Kerry then shilled on behalf of the Ortega government:
We are still trying to overthrow the politics of another country in contravention of international law, against the Organization of American States charter. We negotiated with North Vietnam. Why can we not negotiate with a country smaller than North Carolina and with half the population of Massachusetts? It’s beyond me. And the reason is that they just want to get rid of them [the Sandinistas], they want to throw them out, they don’t want to talk to them.
Representatives Jim McDermott (D-WA), David Bonior (D-MI), and Mike Thompson (D-CA). In 2002, the three Congressmen visited Baghdad to play defense for Saddam Hussein’s regime. There, McDermott laid the groundwork for the Democratic Party’s later rip on President George W. Bush, stating, “the president of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war.” McDermott, along with his colleagues, suggested that the American administration give the Iraqi regime “due process” and “take the Iraqis on their face value.” Bonior said openly he was acting on behalf of the government:
The purpose of our trip was to make it very clear, as I said in my opening statement, to the officials in Iraq how serious we–the United States is about going to war and that they will have war unless these inspections are allowed to go unconditionally and unfettered and open. And that was our point. And that was in the best interest of not only Iraq, but the American citizens and our troops. And that’s what we were emphasizing. That was our primary concern–that and looking at the humanitarian situation.
Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). In 2002, Rockefeller told Fox News’ Chris Wallace, “I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.” That would have given Saddam Hussein fourteen months in which to prepare for war.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In April 2007, as the Bush administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him. There, according to The New York Times, the two “discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel.” Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Zaid Haider, Damascus bureau chief for Al Safir, reportedly said, ‘There is a feeling now that change is going on in American policy – even if it’s being led by the opposition.”
Senators John Sparkman (D-AL) and George McGovern (D-SD). The two Senators visited Cuba and met with government actors there in 1975. They said that they did not act on behalf of the United States, so the State Department ignored their activity.
Senator Teddy Kennedy (D-MA). In 1983, Teddy Kennedy sent emissaries to the Soviets to undermine Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy. According to a memo finally released in 1991 from head of the KGB Victor Chebrikov to then-Soviet leader Yuri Andropov:
On 9-10 May of this year, Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.
What was the message? That Teddy would help stifle Reagan’s anti-Soviet foreign policy if the Soviets would help Teddy run against Reagan in 1984. Kennedy offered to visit Moscow to “arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.” Then he said that he would set up interviews with Andropov in the United States. “Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews…Like other rational people, [Kennedy] is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations,” the letter explained. The memo concluded:
Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president.
House Speaker Jim Wright (D-TX). In 1984, 10 Democrats sent a letter to Daniel Ortega Saavedra, the head of the military dictatorship in Nicaragua, praising Saavedra for “taking steps to open up the political process in your country.” House Speaker Jim Wright signed the letter.
In 1987, Wright worked out a deal to bring Ortega to the United States to visit with lawmakers. As The New York Times reported:
There were times when the White House seemed left out of the peace process, uninformed, irritated. ”We don’t have any idea what’s going on,” an Administration official said Thursday. And there was a bizarre atmosphere to the motion and commotion: the leftist Mr. Ortega, one of President Reagan’s arch enemies, heads a Government that the Administration has been trying to overthrow by helping to finance a war that has killed thousands of Nicaraguans on both sides. Yet he was freely moving around Washington, visiting Mr. Wright in his Capitol Hill office, arguing his case in Congress and at heavily covered televised news conferences. He criticized President Reagan; he recalled that the United States, whose troops intervened in Nicaragua several times between 1909 and 1933, had supported the Somoza family dictatorship which lasted for 43 years until the Sandinistas overthrew it in 1979.
Ortega then sat next to Wright as he presented a “detailed cease-fire proposal.” The New York Times said, “Mr. Ortega seemed delighted to turn to Mr. Wright.”
Senator John Kerry (D-MA). Kerry jumped into the pro-Sandanista pool himself in 1985, when he traveled to Nicaragua to negotiate with the regime. He wasn’t alone; Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) joined him. The Christian Science Monitor reported that the two senators “brought back word that Mr. Ortega would be willing to accept a cease-fire if Congress rejected aid to the rebels…That week the House initially voted down aid to the contras, and Mr. Ortega made an immediate trip to Moscow.” Kerry then shilled on behalf of the Ortega government:
We are still trying to overthrow the politics of another country in contravention of international law, against the Organization of American States charter. We negotiated with North Vietnam. Why can we not negotiate with a country smaller than North Carolina and with half the population of Massachusetts? It’s beyond me. And the reason is that they just want to get rid of them [the Sandinistas], they want to throw them out, they don’t want to talk to them.
Representatives Jim McDermott (D-WA), David Bonior (D-MI), and Mike Thompson (D-CA). In 2002, the three Congressmen visited Baghdad to play defense for Saddam Hussein’s regime. There, McDermott laid the groundwork for the Democratic Party’s later rip on President George W. Bush, stating, “the president of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war.” McDermott, along with his colleagues, suggested that the American administration give the Iraqi regime “due process” and “take the Iraqis on their face value.” Bonior said openly he was acting on behalf of the government:
The purpose of our trip was to make it very clear, as I said in my opening statement, to the officials in Iraq how serious we–the United States is about going to war and that they will have war unless these inspections are allowed to go unconditionally and unfettered and open. And that was our point. And that was in the best interest of not only Iraq, but the American citizens and our troops. And that’s what we were emphasizing. That was our primary concern–that and looking at the humanitarian situation.
Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). In 2002, Rockefeller told Fox News’ Chris Wallace, “I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.” That would have given Saddam Hussein fourteen months in which to prepare for war.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In April 2007, as the Bush administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him. There, according to The New York Times, the two “discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel.” Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Zaid Haider, Damascus bureau chief for Al Safir, reportedly said, ‘There is a feeling now that change is going on in American policy – even if it’s being led by the opposition.”
(2)
(0)
CPT Zachary Brooks
This kind of dealing with foreign nations in a non supported method, no matter who perpetrates what, is embarrassing and all involved should be ashamed.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Jimmy carter after he left office undermined the president by negotiating with a hostile country. Nancy pelosi has done the same but now it's an issue?
(2)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
Absolutely! And CPT Zachary Brooks outlined a whole host of similar transgressions in his post above this one
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Just more politicking.
Democrat dominated Congresses have done the same under Republican Presidents so it's nothing new. Though it's still shameful to see the need to public deface the leader and showboat. But I'm not mad about it because it's the sort of thing one expects from Congress.
If pro is the opposite of con . . . you know the rest.
Democrat dominated Congresses have done the same under Republican Presidents so it's nothing new. Though it's still shameful to see the need to public deface the leader and showboat. But I'm not mad about it because it's the sort of thing one expects from Congress.
If pro is the opposite of con . . . you know the rest.
(2)
(0)
MSG William Wold
March 2012; On Nationwide TV, Pres Obama chastised the Democratic congress for not getting the Keystone Pipeline bill passed so he could sign it. Then the now Republican Congress passes it, gets to the President's desk, and he veto's it. I am so sick and tired of the political posturing; it has nothing to do with what is good for this country, it's which party can embarrass the other more, and make them look bad. BTW Cotton says he did not sign that letter; maybe he thought of it. Cotton is an Iraq veteran BTW. One of the very few prior soldiers in Congress.
(2)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
Pipelines are the cheapest and safest means of transporting oil, gasses, water, and other liquids. Their pro's far outweigh their cons. Without the pipeline we risk an increasing number of train, and truck spills as we have seen in the recent past. Also, it's no secret that people like Warren Buffet, who is a campaign contributor, and has the President's ear, is making a lot of money transporting that Canadian and US oil down to refineries in the south by train. The environmental impact studies have been completed, and we've already built thousands of miles of other petroleum pipelines in this country SINCE the Exel pipeline was proposed. If pipelines aren't safe, why is the President allowing other pipelines to be built? The answer is clear. The President doesn't want the pipeline built for political considerations. There are no valid safety issues. One can look back to the horror predictions about the Alaskan oil pipeline that never came to pass.... about disrupting the migration of the herds etc. All turned out to be unfounded and alarmist, just like the unjustified arguments against Keystone exel.
Since you asked LT :-)
Since you asked LT :-)
(1)
(0)
MSG William Wold
LT L S Like said in another posting, this is only childish tug of war between party's. What the one problem I see with all these responses to different questions on RallyPoint is people first go look at the others personal information, make a determination of their "worthiness " to even make a comment on the particular issue, therefore their judgment of the comment is shrugged off, or accepted.
The point of bringing up the pipeline was solely an example of political posturing. 3 years ago ( March 2012) Obama wanted this pipeline in the worst way, jobs, and other stuff he stated at the conference on public television. Republicans were using procedural tactics to block it so the Democrats couldn't get it to the floor for a vote.
Now because the "other party" passed it and sent it to him, he veto's it, solely because it is a Republican bill.
Again, not in consideration of it is for the good of the country or not; but only because it's a Republican bill. He has made it perfectly clear he will not work with Republican's and he will veto any bill they send forward (that was right out of his mouth on nationwide TV also)
So the Republican's, all within their right as senators within the constitution, are now being called traitors, when they are actually finally standing up and doing their job.
I could care less about the pipeline as there are already several in place, already doing what it supposedly was supposed to do. All these pipelines are interconnected, it's just a matter of turn the correct valve to get the oil to go exactly to where that "new" pipeline was supposed to go. I'm thinking; I may be wrong but that the Logan bill was passed so there wouldn't be any more Jane Fonda's antics.
Thank you for noticing my data. . It's fun enjoying the fruits of three years Active Duty, and 31+ years of National Guard and Reserves, and 30 years working full time in the Port of Tacoma. BTW I'm goin fishin'.. What fun you going to have today, run 5K with a pack?
The point of bringing up the pipeline was solely an example of political posturing. 3 years ago ( March 2012) Obama wanted this pipeline in the worst way, jobs, and other stuff he stated at the conference on public television. Republicans were using procedural tactics to block it so the Democrats couldn't get it to the floor for a vote.
Now because the "other party" passed it and sent it to him, he veto's it, solely because it is a Republican bill.
Again, not in consideration of it is for the good of the country or not; but only because it's a Republican bill. He has made it perfectly clear he will not work with Republican's and he will veto any bill they send forward (that was right out of his mouth on nationwide TV also)
So the Republican's, all within their right as senators within the constitution, are now being called traitors, when they are actually finally standing up and doing their job.
I could care less about the pipeline as there are already several in place, already doing what it supposedly was supposed to do. All these pipelines are interconnected, it's just a matter of turn the correct valve to get the oil to go exactly to where that "new" pipeline was supposed to go. I'm thinking; I may be wrong but that the Logan bill was passed so there wouldn't be any more Jane Fonda's antics.
Thank you for noticing my data. . It's fun enjoying the fruits of three years Active Duty, and 31+ years of National Guard and Reserves, and 30 years working full time in the Port of Tacoma. BTW I'm goin fishin'.. What fun you going to have today, run 5K with a pack?
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
PO3 (Join to see)
1LT L S Here's a little excerpt from the Wikipedia article regarding "Internet Memes"
"An Internet meme (/ˈmiːm/ meem) is an activity, concept, catchphrase or piece of media which spreads, often as mimicry, from person to person via the Internet.[1] Some notable examples include posting a photo of people lying down in public places (called "planking") and uploading a short video of people dancing to the Harlem Shake."
**I don't honestly believe you didn't know what a meme is...However I enjoy posting replies with answers to questions...It makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside**
"An Internet meme (/ˈmiːm/ meem) is an activity, concept, catchphrase or piece of media which spreads, often as mimicry, from person to person via the Internet.[1] Some notable examples include posting a photo of people lying down in public places (called "planking") and uploading a short video of people dancing to the Harlem Shake."
**I don't honestly believe you didn't know what a meme is...However I enjoy posting replies with answers to questions...It makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside**
(1)
(0)
SPC James Mcneil
I'm here! Where's the party? I mean... It looks like the concept of memes has been explained...
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Does this POTUS ever consult congress on anything? Any deal the president makes with Iran needs to be ratified by the senate.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Are we tracking that President Obama is a "constitutional" lawyer by trade? He has also used the "least" executive order when compared to the last TWENTY ONE presidents, democrats and republicans alike.
(1)
(0)
CW2 Joseph Evans
None of which matter to his detractors. Then again, most of them depend on hearsay when discussing over two hundred years of Constitutional case law and tend to focus on the letter of an executive order that is being enforced rather than the original author or the signature on the one currently in effect.
Many of them also like to cite that the reason there aren't more Vetoes to his credit is the way Congress has been unable to get any bills to his desk for consideration... Yeah, he has a lot of haters.
Many of them also like to cite that the reason there aren't more Vetoes to his credit is the way Congress has been unable to get any bills to his desk for consideration... Yeah, he has a lot of haters.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
One more thing...why did THREE reputable law firms decline representing congress to sue POTUS for constitutional violations?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
MAJ (Join to see)
Your political history is significantly lacking if you think Obama's treatment is outside the norm. Americans have a long standing history of backstabbing, deceit, ethical depravity, etc. It is part of what makes our system grand, the checks and balances so no one branch gains superiority over the other. Churchill said it best. "It has often been said that Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried."
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
War with Iran is probably our best option
It may be the only way to block Iran from gaining nuclear weapons.
(1)
(0)
CW2 Joseph Evans
Israel already has nukes... Count on a preemptive strike from them as soon as politically expedient.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Regardless of their "personal" feelings towards Pres. Obama, that was the wrong answer. As a team, we should ALWAYS present a united front. As Soldiers, if we had done something as unprofessional as this, we'd face some type of reprimand. Not understanding why Congress gets away with so much.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Seems more like a childish vendetta. BTW, POTUS is a constitutional lawyer. With all that knowledge of the constitution, why would he do that?
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Childish Vendetta or Patriotic duty to preserve the country from a nuclear armed pro-terrorist state. It's both the same depending on which side of the political spectrum you are on.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
In terms of team, America has never really been a team unless there was a common threat to unite us. That is one of the major strengths to a democracy we can argue our own ideas even when the leaders don't agree with us. The whole argument I may not agree with you but I'll defend your right to say it. The disagreement is what enables us to have a stable Government, without it the only way to argue is with the point of a spear so as much as individuals and political parties on both sides don't like it we as a country need diversion and opposition to the ruling party. And of course it applies to the republican side as well.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I totally understand your perspective. Heck, Nancy Pelosi pulled a similar number on Pres Bush Jr. Regardless of the political party, I think it's poor form and unprofessional to do that. :-)
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google