Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think it's only as high as it is because people simply want to support him. I cannot believe anybody with any degree of intelligence whatsoever truly approves of his handling. I say that because he wanted to attack but didn't. Wanted to get a vote but didn't. Wanted allied support but didn't get it. So no matter where you stand on any of those positions, he failed. If you support an attack, he failed because he didn't attack. If you didn't want to attack, he failed because he wanted to attack. If you think the US shouldn't rely on other nations, he failed because he didn't take unilateral action. If you think the US should build coalitions, he failed because he wasn't able to build one. If you think the President has the authority to attack, he failed because he wasn't willing to accept responsiblity and went to congress anyway. If you think congressional approval is required, he failed because he stated that he didn't need to go to them and only went because he wanted to. I see no way to approve of his handling of the situation. In all aspects of the situation he failed to achieve his goals. He either fails for having the wrong goals if you didn't agree with him, or he fails for not achieving his goals if you did agree with him. There is no rational way to say he handled the situation well.
So much for the "diplomatic victory" that city data liberals are crowing about. At least the American people aren't fooled by Obama's epic fail. It goes to show that some people will support this president no matter what he does.
Unfortunately there are those like McCain and Graham that fall into the 33% also. So what you have is the war at all and any cost crowd and those that don't want Obama to look bad even if it means supporting something they wouldn't if the president had a (R) after his name.
Operative words, "... in two new polls released Monday."
That's before Obama got Syria to voluntarily destroy its stockpiles.
Much like Iran voluntarily eliminated it's nuclear program? Seriously, what kind of mental midget would believe some of the things that the Obama loving morons on this forum repeat daily.
Although I can't speak for urbanlife78, it's clear that a poll from before the success happened is meaningless.
I know this math thing is really tough for some of you...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A Republican would get 2%
