President Obama, maybe in light of his horrendous interview
appearances on Univision and “60 Minutes,” is now planning three days of
debate prep. However, I sort of doubt there are aides who will ask the
president the sort of questions that might come up in the debate.
On the foreign policy front, here are a few questions they should be putting to Obama:
If Iran is much closer to getting a bomb than when you took office, isn’t your Iran policy a failure?
After insisting on a settlement freeze and showing more daylight
between the United States and Israel, there are no bilateral talks
ongoing, and the Palestinian Authority has gone to the United Nations
for a unilateral declaration. So isn’t your approach to the peace
process a failure? And why is it you haven’t cut off U.S. aid to the
Fatah-Hamas government?
China is more aggressive in Asia and more repressive internally than four years ago, so isn’t your China policy a failure?
You told Elie Wiesel and others at the Holocaust remembrance ceremony
that you would do everything possible to help the Syrians, but 20,000
are dead and Assad is still in power, so isn’t your Syria policy a
failure?
After Sept. 11, 2001, there were no terrorist attacks on the United
States, but during your administration there have been the
jihad-inspired Fort Hood massacre and the killing of four Americans in
Libya, so isn’t your anti-terror record worse than Bush’s?
A new book documents
“the Obama administration’s failed effort to negotiate terms for the
long-planned-for stay-behind military force” and accuses you of failing
to “engage in effective personal diplomacy at crunch time” and your
administration of engaging in “wild over-confidence” and “paralyzed by
infighting and poisonous civil-military relations.” Wasn’t the inability
to negotiate a new status of forces agreement another significant
failure on your part?
Then there is domestic policy. Here, aides should be preparing Obama for these sorts of queries:
Why is the recovery under your presidency worse than any other recovery since WWII?
You had big majorities in the Congress for the first two years, yet
you did not pursue immigration reform, entitlement reform or tax reform.
Why?
The public, by significant majorities, doesn’t like your health-care
reform, Congressional Budget Office updates show it does not adhere to
your promise not to add “one dime” to the deficit, and the CBO also
reports that some 6 million Americans, including those making well below
$200,000, will be hit by the statute’s tax, so why shouldn’t the
statute be changed or repealed?
If you can decide not to enforce all of our immigration laws or amend
the welfare work laws without Congress, why couldn’t a President Romney
decide not to enforce Obamacare or parts of the IRS code?
The Associated Press reports:
“A survey of U.S. chief executives shows a sharp drop in the number
of large companies that plan to add jobs or hire more workers. . . .
CEOs are worried about the impact of budget cuts and tax increases that
are set to take effect at the start of next year.” Was it a mistake not
to take up Congress’s offer to deal with the fiscal cliff earlier in the
year?
In 2010 you agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts when the economy was
growing more than it is now. If tax hikes are anti-stimulative, why not
extend the cuts again?
No comments:
Post a Comment