Speeches, rallies, primetime addresses, a sense across the country that something major was happening. remember when newt seemed to suggest he wasn t negotiating because clinton had ignored him on air force one. one of the all-time political gifts the public sided decisively with clinton and against the republicans, less than a year later clinton cruised to reelection, running against the gingrich congress. that, he said, had shut down the government. more recently there was obama versus the tea party in 2013. remember that one? ted cruz told republicans to close the government down and not to blink until obamacare was defunded. they held out for 16 days, but that was it. obamacare survived. although cruz s star with the republican base did rise. this shutdown is very real to the federal workers affected. but on capitol hill, around the country, this one is different, so far. it s a partial shutdown, only a quarter of the government, and also happening during the holidays. these are de
Congress, in fact, require that of the administration. indira, you were citing statistics about why you feel there is a need for continued involvement there. what would you say in terms of how much longer? look, i think there are arguments on both sides, but i think it s interesting that the two countries that were really celebrating the u.s. announcement of pulling troops out of syria were russia and iran. and what does that tell us? you know, the president claims that he pulled out of the iran nuclear deal because he wanted because he doesn t trust iran and he, you know, doesn t trust their motives. well, in fact, they are the biggest beneficiaries, in a way, along with russia, who s a big ally and supporter who s been propping up bashar al assad s murderous regime all this time. so you know, there s that whole problem that he s not taking into account. i do think it s something that should have been discussed more with the american people, more with congress, and deciding what
Happening any time soon. so, this could last a while. interesting in the comments from the president there in iraq, trying to bring nancy pelosi sort of to the forefront in this thing. it looks like somebody there who is looking for a foil. you think back to 2016. we talked about this last night, that very narrow margin of victory that trump had in 2016, how crucial the crucial ingredient there was how unpopular hillary clinton ended up by the end of that campaign. last two years the next two years of his presidency, he s had republicans running the house, had republicans running the senate. seems this is somebody who s eager to have the other party with a little bit more skin in the game here. yeah, but be careful what you wish for. you know, this is a very, very different house of representatives that he s going to be dealing with. and beyond the shutdown, there are things that every president wants and needs out of congress, and he s going to have to you know, he s not jus
Allies, or pentagon advisers. that s what policymakers call process, but that isn t a reason, he says, to reject the policy shift. david lunker goes on to point out, suspicious process is good, but it doesn t guarantee wisdom. endir ra, i just thought this was an interesting piece and i m curious your reaction to it, because essentially, what he s arguing is the process as it commonly plays out, he seems to be arguing, sort of inevitably leads presidents to defer to military voices, to defer to longer military commitments, and maybe by being ignorant of traditional processes, trump gets the country out of something that maybe the country wants to be out of. well, steve, i would argue it this way, that process is necessary but not sufficient. you need to have a process. the whole point of a democratic form of government, the way we do things, having a congress who advises and consents and having a cabinet that is there full of experts in an ideal situation to advise the president
Syria? this wasn t something that went through congress? i m wondering if it s kind of news to americans and if that s a critical piece here that s just been neglected? no, absolutely. i have been part of a group of members of congress who have been pressing hard, demanding that the president seek authorization from congress before engaging in military action in syria. that would give the president the responsibility of communicating to congress and to the american people, what is our objective in syria, what is necessary to achieve that objective, and then to persuade congress that it was a worthwhile investment of american treasure and american lives. the president doesn t have a strategy in syria, so pulling out may seem like a great idea in the absence of a coherent, thoughtful strategy with a set of objectives and really an articulation of how you re going to achieve those objectives. so, i think this has been something we ve been clamoring for, insisting on, and the president h