I had desperately hoped to see a sign from this President, as he weighed the question of whether or not to initiate strikes against Syria, that he is the exceptional leader I have consistently felt him to be.  As he spoke in the Rose Garden today, explaining the two elements of the way he feels we should move forward, I was amazed to observe that he has the ability to surpass even my very high expectations.  

His two-pronged approach to the issue, as described in his remarks today, are one, to communicate his resolve to apply harsh consequences to the Assad regime for the murder of over a thousand of its citizens with poison gas, consequences in the form of missile strikes; and two, to acquiesce to demands that he bring the US Congress into the decision-making process.  

You may not agree with the first part.  Obama's position is that actions taken by Assad in Damascus, using chemical weapons against Syria's own civilian population, including hundreds of children, constitute crimes against humanity so horrific and unique from other types or levels of warfare, that they cannot be ignored.  The President was clear he believes we have an imperative to respond to these actions, separate altogether from any consideration of intervention in Syria's civil war, and separate from the question of regime change.  

You may feel otherwise.  But his decision to withhold an executive order to strike unless and until he has the full support of Congress is beyond reproach.  For those of us who feel on the one hand both skeptical and disempowered by the prospect of another American president making a case for military action, but on the other hand cognizant that what happened in Damascus cannot be ignored, Obama has presented what is perhaps the only acceptable proposition:  if we're going to respond to this somehow, let's decide how to do it together. 

How else would you want a president to resolve a question like this, other than each of us meeting personally with him at the White House to explain exactly what we want to have done? 

Reports from behind the scenes at the White House tell us that over the last 24-48 hours the debate between the President's Cabinet members, national security team and other staff and advisers has been robust, and there was significant sentiment against seeking the support of Congress before taking action. I've read about similar processes occurring in this administration's Oval Office and Situation Room deliberations during the couple of days leading up to the decision to start air strikes over Libya, and before giving the "go" to authorize the operation to get bin Laden.  This President apparently demands a frank diversity of opinion, and afterwards may make a decision flouting the advice of even his closest advisers.  In this case it appears there was much agreement about the need to go forward with strikes against Syria, but a variety of points of view about how far to bring Congress into the process.  Obama went with the approach that relinquishes ultimate control of the final decision.  It should be noted that since Congress does not reconvene until September 9, and he is not asking them to return early to address this, he has chosen not to cheapen his argument for consequences for Assad by implying there is a crucial need to act immediately.  He has also clearly not agreed to seek the approval of Congress as a way to shrink from stating his OWN opinion - his point of view could not be clearer: we should launch missiles at military targets in Syria in order to enforce international norms against the use of chemical weapons.

Whatever you think of that, now your argument must go to Congress.  And make no mistake, members of Congress do read your letters and emails, and do track your phone calls.  Whether the legwork is done by staff, and commentary is sorted into piles of rough agreement, or your communication is discovered to be so compelling, articulate or pertinent that it lands on the Congressperson's desk, none of them are ignored (see my post "Yes, They Do Read Your Letters!" 11/19/11.)  Cynicism about whether they do that to inform campaign messaging or whether they actually care is understandable.  But the argument "they don't care what I have to say" is drastically undermined if you don't say anything.  Over the next ten days, you can spend many hours debating this on Facebook, at the dinner table, or in your own head, but remember that the "representative" part of representative democracy doesn't work without your direct participation.  So take ten minutes out of your facebook time between now and the 9th to contact your Senators, www.senate.gov, and another ten to weigh in with your Representative at www.house.gov. 

MSNBC correspondent Chuck Todd, coming on camera to comment after the President's statement, pointed out how extraordinary it is for Obama to make a decision to seek the approval of Congress before taking action.  Todd noted that for roughly 40 years, since Dick Cheney was pulling strings in the Ford administration, Presidents have continuously sought to concentrate ever more power in the Executive Branch.  The fact that Barack Obama just took a stand in another direction reminds me once again that we are watching a presidency with deep historical significance.

From today's remarks, "...but, having made my decision as Commander in Chief...I am also mindful that I am the President of the world's oldest constitutional democracy.  I've long believed that our power is rooted, not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

 - Julie Boler

Yes, liberals are giddy.  After eight years of Bush, and many more during which the very word "liberal" was considered slander, we gloat too much about our victories.  We appear to wish death upon the GOP.  In our less realistic moments, perhaps we do.


But we also know that a robust two-party system is vital to the integrity and effectiveness of the democracy.  We know that the push-pull of different political orientations; the vigorous debate that must transpire to get at a truth; and the balance created by having a variety of viewpoints represented over time - those things comprise the genius of the great American experiment.

That is why the failure of the current Republican Party to offer intelligent and helpful debate is felt by some of us as a loss. 

Liberals do feel giddy about this uniquely gifted president, his improbable success, and his ability to brilliantly, unapologetically promote bedrock liberal principles.

But contrary to popular conservative opinion, we don't worship President Obama.  Governing is a human endeavor.  We don’t expect or perceive perfection.  It is a task too complex and critical to leave subject to the fallibility of one person's leadership, or to ask one party to shoulder alone.

At no time has everyone on the left been unified in evaluating the president's effectiveness or judgment.  Even amongst ourselves we have a diversity of opinion on matters of national importance.  We don’t have all the answers.  So it’s actually a matter of unfairness for the entire Republican Party to get so bogged down in wound-licking and reactionary dogma that even its smartest members cede the voice of their party to the wing nuts.   It isn't fair.

Gun violence is complicated.  Poverty is complicated.  Drone use is complicated.  Questions about the ideal purview of government are complicated.  Questions about the proper role of the Intelligence community in Defense endeavors are complicated.  The modern economy is complicated. 

So when particularly sobering problems emerge, forcing our giddiness to evaporate, even those of us on the left who are generally highly partisan and self-righteous about our ideas recognize the need for all hands on deck.  It then becomes infuriating to see the disarray, shallowness, and nastiness that presently rule the GOP.

On Monday, NBC investigative journalist Michael Isikoff broke the news about a memo that reveals the Obama administration’s communication failures and programmatic ambiguity regarding its use of drones to combat homeland security threats.  Critical questions about how and when drones may be used against American citizens are unanswered.  
Questions like, how exactly is it determined that an American citizen has become an enemy combatant?  Would such a person have an opportunity to surrender before being assassinated?  Can such a person be killed on American soil?  As Isikoff pointed out Monday evening on The Rachel Maddow Show, the administration has been effectively unable to say that current guidelines don’t allow for an American citizen, living in a US city, to be killed in bed at night by government operatives.  But because what passes on the right these days for reason is actually a paranoid, lunatic fringe-type thinking, we can’t have a real discussion about it.

The most obstinate partisan must acknowledge the fact that no matter how much you trust the people in power now, within a few years the people in power will be a whole new group of folks, with the same power. 

I have tremendous faith in this administration.  I trust Barack Obama.  But participatory government is our duty in this country, so we should ask these questions, and they should answer.  No administration can get everything right.  I believe the President when I hear him express his intent to improve the transparency and codification of these processes.  I believe him when he describes the challenge of managing on-going and imminent threats while simultaneously trying to draft publicly vetted rules of engagement for a frontier mode of defense.  (A mode of defense that, in my mind, has great promise as a tool to help us delay or avoid full-scale war.) 

I have found it hard to broach this topic outside liberal zones, in politically-mixed groups.  I am stopped by a feeling of protectiveness about the President that springs from the relentless, unwarranted, vindictive scrutiny of him by the right.  I'm not talking about the honest pressure for transparency and ethical rigor that can and should come from an opposition truly loyal to the cause of democracy.  That kind of pressure is good. That kind of pressure is what we need.  

A party that has allowed high-ranking members to go uncensured for meeting the very night of Mr. Obama’s first inauguration to strategize ways to oppose him at every turn, including voting against his favored legislation even if it is in sync with their own positions.  A party still represented by both elected and unelected officials who openly, repeatedly vowed during his first term to put the welfare of the republic at temporary risk if it helped the cause of "making Obama a one term president."  A party that recently reelected a national chair who claimed during his first tenure that Obama's presidency would cause "an end to our way of life in America." 

These examples illustrate the hyper-critical and one-dimensional Republican view of Mr. Obama; they don’t even touch on all the other Stupid Republican Tricks that expose a readiness to abandon our time-tested system of judiciously prosecuting policy proposals.  Tricks like putting creationists on the House Science Committee, proffering "self-deportation" as a legitimate immigration reform device, employing a willful misinterpretation of the "you didn't build that" Obama campaign quote as a major campaign theme, or deeming the taunting of Iran a useful foreign policy approach.  

These doings, along with many others, all demand that countless hours of pointless, inane, mental energy be spent on faux issues or backwards policies while pressing problems are at hand.

Shouldn't thoughtful criticism be the responsibility of everyone?  

Yes, citizen members of the party in power should be expected to push themselves to critique and challenge their chosen administrations, publicly and forcefully.  But we should also be able to rely on the opposition party to be constructively skeptical and civilly unsympathetic.

Republicans.  Pull your selves together.  We need your help on this drone thing.