International relations scholars and historians haven’t gotten everything right, but their voices are underrepresented at the principals level in Washington.
because that is congress congressional prerogative. and you know what? the united states did not start a war in syria. even after all those members of congress were screaming that we ought to. we did not get involved militarily in syria because congress not only didn t vote to do it, they never took it up. they don t want to actually put their money where their mouths are. they just want to carp about it. when it came time in syria, they did not want to take a binding vote on what to do, they preferred to just yell about it on tv. when president obama called the question, it was over. under the constitution, congress is actually required to get out of the armchair and make binding decisions on military matters. we are seeing the worst of the armchair quarterbacking right now on bowe bergdahl and on the benghazi arrest and on iraq. but if you want to see this debate get much better really fast, if you want to see our foreign policy politics in washington get much less petty, not tv tal
the united states did not start a war in syria. even after all those members of congress were screaming that we ought to. we did not get involved militarily in syria because congress not only didn t vote to do it, they never took it up. they don t want to actually put their money where their mouths are. they just want to carp about it. when it came time in syria, they did not want to take a binding vote on what to do, they preferred to just yell about it on tv. when president obama called the question, it was over. under the constitution, congress is actually required to get out of the armchair and make binding decisions on military matters. we are seeing the worst of the armchair quarterbacking right now on bowe bergdahl and on the benghazi arrest and on iraq. but if you want to see this debate get much better really fast, if you want to see our foreign policy politics in washington get much less petty, not tv talking points, not self-contradictory chicken price partisan diversions. r
even after all those members of congress were screaming that we ought to. we did not get involved militarily in syria because congress not only didn t vote to do it, they never took it up. they don t want to actually put their money where their mouths are. they just want to carp about it. when it came time in syria, they did not want to take a binding vote on what to do, they preferred to just yell about it on tv. when brb called the question, it was over. under the constitution, congress is actually required to get out of the armchair and make binding decisions on military matters. we are seeing the worst of the armchair quarterbacking right now on bowe bergdahl and on the benghazi arrest and on iraq. but if you want to see this debate get much better really fast, if you want to see our foreign policy politics in washington get much less petty, not tv talking points, not self-contradictory chicken price partisan diversions. right? if you want to see this become real, real decision-mak
chuck hagel on nuclear issues and other things, looking at kelly ayotte not seeming to know very much about what she was talking about and we ve been told to expect so much from her, seeing ted cruz come in there and try a sort of like cable news-style stunt against chuck hagel that really fell flat, i mean, seeing john mccain amid his essentially his competition for the front-runner on foreign policy and national defense issues in the republican party, really it seems like he is still the guy who speaks for them with any level of credibility. and he is absolutely fixated on saying that the iraq war was a good idea. and i wonder what you think that has as an impact in terms of broader republican foreign policy politics. well, i think it keeps it a very narrow band. i found it very odd that in today s hearing you had so much discussion of iraq and a war that has already happened and been shut down. very little mention of afghanistan, in which you still have 66,000 u.s. troops deploy