Declaring War – Kind Of *Open Thread*


Boy, I am sure all of those Obama sycophants, including the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, are drinking themselves into a stupor today to deny the move Obama is making. Then again, maybe Code Pink is now seeing red that Obama, the “I was against the War even though I wasn’t in the US Senate but made people think I voted against it when Clinton voted for it,” has put forth a WAR powers request. You gotta admit, there is a certain amount of humor to be found in all of this considering the blathering on for YEARS Obama and his minions did. I am sure the Nobel people will tie themselves up in knots claiming that “war is peace” and all that.

But, it seems the world has just not gone along with Obama’s lofty rhetoric, as The Hill reports:

The White House will ask Congress to approve military action against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) that bans “enduring offensive ground operations.”

Administration officials briefed lawmakers on Tuesday about the emerging language, which is intended to win over Republicans.

GOP lawmakers had balked at earlier language considered by a Senate panel in December that banned ground troops in combat operations with some exceptions, such as self-defense and rescue missions.

What is unclear is whether Democrats wary of voting for a new war will withhold their support for the updated language, which even some Republicans acknowledge is vague.

“It’d be interesting to know exactly what that ‘enduring’ means, but I have to see it,” said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has called for language that would allow ground troops in order to give the military maximum flexibility to go after ISIS.

And that is where the “Kind Of” comes in: what, indeed, does that mean? It seems to be more slight of hand from the Administration as The Hill continues:

One congressional aide familiar with the new language acknowledged it could be a difficult sell with Democrats.

“That’s the whole debate on flexibility … that is the rub,” the aide said.

The White House briefed House Democratic leaders Tuesday evening, but rank-and-file members, including liberals critical of language approving ground forces, were keeping their powder dry as they awaited the final details. […] (Click here to read the rest.)

But that isn’t the only “rub,” as Ed Morrissey of Hot Air points out:

[…] The use of the term “enduring” seems like a slap at Bush in more than one way. Before becoming President himself, Obama repeatedly criticized Congress for giving the executive a blank check to wage war in Iraq with the AUMF. Bush also called the war in Afghanistan, which operates under a separate AUMF that will not be affected by this proposal, “Operation Enduring Freedom.”

So what will this be called? “Operation Unenduring Obligation”? […] (Click here to read the rest.)

Um, yeah, that is some catchy title, huh? Ed Morrissey’s piece also included a link and quote to an informative article by Josh Rogin of Bloomberg News about the impact this resolution will have as it stands now:

[…] The president’s AUMF for the fight against Islamic State would restrict the use of ground troops through a prohibition on “enduring offensive ground operations,” but provide several exemptions. First, all existing ground troops, including the 3,000 U.S. military personnel now on the ground in Iraq, would be explicitly excluded from the restrictions. After that, the president would be allowed to deploy new military personnel in several specific roles: advisers, special operations forces, Joint Terminal Attack Controllers to assist U.S. air strikes and Combat Search and Rescue personnel.

Under the president’s proposal, the 2002 AUMF that was passed to authorize the Iraq war would be repealed, but the 2001 AUMF that allows the U.S. to fight against al-Qaeda and its associated groups would remain in place.

The new statute would authorize military action against Islamic State and its associated forces, which are defined in the text as organizations fighting alongside the jihadists and engaged in active hostilities. This means the president would be free to attack groups such as the al-Nusra Front or Iraqi Baathist elements who have partnered with the Islamic terrorists in Syria or Iraq. There are no geographic limitations, so the administration would be free to expand the war to other countries.

The president’s proposed AUMF would sunset in three years and would not give the president the unilateral authority to extend the authorization. That means the next president would have to come back to Congress for a new authorization in 2018, if the fight against Islamic State fighters lasts that long. […] (Click here to read the rest.)

In other words, it is limiting in a number of ways, not just for this president, but for the next president.

And considering the enemy we will be fighting, is it realistic to expect that ISIS can be destroyed in three years? But even more, as Lt. Col. Ralph Peters noted on “America’s Newsroom” on Fox, why in the WORLD would the AUMF include a TIMELINE, thus telegraphing to our enemies – again – how long we will be there? It really doesn’t make much sense, but then again, Obama has proven that foreign policy really ISN’T his strong suit. Yep, that lack of experience rears its ugly head once again. His “on the job training” has not been very successful as far as I can tell. But that’s just me.

What do you think of the AUMF put forth by the Obama Administration? The parameters it intends to convey? The impact of telling our enemies how long they need to keep their heads down? Feel free to share your thoughts, and whatever else is on your minds today.


Tags: , , , , , ,

19 Responses to “Declaring War – Kind Of *Open Thread*”

  1. foxyladi14 Says:

    Heads Up.
    He is giving a speech!!!! 👿

  2. mcnorman Says:

    It’s only for three years. Who does that?

    • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

      EXACTLY – what a ridiculous thing to do. That is precisely what Lt. Col. Ralph Peters was talking about this morning:

    • foxyladi14 Says:

      Someone that will be out of office, and doesn’t give a Hoot. 😡

      • mcnorman Says:

        These people live in an alternate universe. What do they honestly believe? They will be remembered by those that actually read and study history as a bunch of narcissistic delinquents who were given the keys to the asylum by the hoardes that live off the citizens. They cannot change the coming disasters like zerocare. Anyone with any semblance of memory will remember the good ole days with clarity and ease. Ugh.

  3. foxyladi14 Says:

    Baking Cookies or Hate?? 🙄

    • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

      Hate and IGNORANCE taught to them by adults. Claiming that Mike Brown “didn’t do nothing,” and was killed because of the color of his skin despite ALL the facts and evidence to the contrary is teaching propaganda, not SOCIAL JUSTICE.

      WTH is wrong with these people?!?!

    • mcnorman Says:

      Hate. I have a friend who lives in Oakland. The nastiness that is stirred and served is taught early on. Sad.

  4. foxyladi14 Says:

    I hope he does a better job of ending he war this time. :facepalm:

  5. foxyladi14 Says:

    Today. 🙂

  6. Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

    Good for Legal Insurrection for pushing the Southern Poverty Law Center on the ABSURD classification of Dr. Carson as an “extremist”:

  7. HELENK3 Says:

    just to start the day off right

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: