1. Seriously? I think Bush accomplished going to war with Iraq and Afghanistan with bipartisan cooperation, among other smaller things. That's QUITE an accomplishment, wouldn't you say? HOW on earth did he manage that?
Wrong, wrong, WRONG!!! The President works for US! Not the other way around. If I have questions of MY president, I expect him to show ME some respect. He is the elected official who works for me, not the other way around bud. :roll:
2. The correct decision is to NEVER negotiate with terrorists and put a PRICE on the head of Americans, soldiers or civilians. We go in, and we TAKE them back.
3. And AGAIN, other presidents have managed to come to compromise and do things with bipartisan cooperation.
Of course we have problems with lobbyists, this is not breaking news!!
So, all of this to argue that Obama IS a good president? What exactly IS your point anyway?
1. Why don't you investigate the causes for yourself? There are four primary reasons. The first was is that Bush convinced the American public that war was a good idea because Iraq sponsored terrorism against the United States and possessed weapons of mass destruction (neither true). He was willing to stake his Administration's reputation and legitimacy as a leader on it.
The second is that Democrats have less compulsion than Republicans to disagree with their opposition; they're a centrist party with a small liberal and conservative wings, tethered together by a slim majority of moderates who would freely vote for a Republican if they had to. 'Disagreeing' with Republicans or asserting themselves against Republican presidents 100% of the time isn't usually in their advantage because even their core voters aren't against Republicans 100%; just 60-70% of the time.
The third was that corporate America was intrigued by the possibilities of the war; a democratic Iraq could be a lucrative source of trade and capital investment, compared to an autocratic Iraq whose markets were closed due to sanctions. Corporate America enjoys representation in both parties.
The fourth is that the military and military industrial complex were intrigued by the possibilities of the war; an Iraq powered by democracy and Western modernization could be employed as a cats paw against Iran and help America influence the political future of the region.
By the way these last two reasons had some merit; however, Corporate America is out of control and frequently imposes on the safety and generosity of the broader American public. Policies that make them more powerful should be eyed very critically by the average American on the street. The last was even more promising, but the war was mismanaged; its goals may have even been unobtainable from the beginning.
As for the other point, I'm not wrong: a leader humbling himself before the people is an interesting exercise that all of them should be subjected to just for the sake of experiencing what it is like to be humble and small, but on the whole leaders that defer to those beneath them can't command the respect they need to lead; making a leader debase themselves or challenging and embarrassing them publicly undermines the entire point of having one at all. Like having a CEO around so you can blame him for when things aren't going well, and for no other reason than that.
2. You can't go in because (1) you don't know where they are (2) they can (and will) execute their hostages. Even if you know (1), the complexities of (2) might put the strike team in an area so dangerous they are at risk from assault at all sides, killing every single one of them and the hostage. The Taliban knows this, so they can afford to drive a hard bargain; terrorists usually know how to get the reactions they want (for example, Osama bin Laden wanted to draw the American military into the Middle East to inflame the region with anti-Americanism and compel Muslims to rise up in arms against Western-backed governments; Bush gave them exactly what they wanted). If Obama had allowed the soldier to die, then the Taliban could have used that to their advantage as well; it proves that America can't or wont do what is necessary to protect their own, a powerful message of propaganda that would have rattled Afghanistan's conviction that America can be a good ally.
At the end of the day, you can't refuse to negotiate with people who have the power to cause you harm *unless* you have an unqualified power to stop them. Despite its enormity and strength, the ability of the United States to fight back against terrorism is not unqualified.
3. Because of the political situation. For example, Abraham Lincoln was able to get the Democrats in the North to cooperate with him because the branch of the party that opposed him most fiercely had been incorporated into the Confederate States of America; an entire wing of Congress that had opposed Republican policies for decades disappeared overnight, leaving their chairs empty and leaving a power vacuum giving Lincoln more strength to control Congress than he would have otherwise enjoyed. Lincoln's presidency if the South hadn't seceded from the Union would strongly resemble Obama's, because every southern representative would have undermined him in every way they could until the situation changed and Republican presidents became less dangerous to their future; once they danger decreased, they could cooperate again.
Political situations differ from the time period; at times, it is useful and fully consistent with Republican goals to cooperate with Democrats. Until their party can safely be in a position to win the presidency again, however, it is highly in their interest to undermine the plans of any Democratic president that gets in their line of sight. Every time period has its own unique political situations, its particular set of the "realities of power."