"
PRESIDENT OBAMA’s declaration of war against the terrorist group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria marks a decisive break in the American constitutional tradition. Nothing attempted by his predecessor, George W. Bush, remotely compares in imperial hubris."
"Mr. Bush gained explicit congressional consent for his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. In contrast, the Obama administration has not even published a legal opinion attempting to justify the president’s assertion of unilateral war-making authority. This is because no serious opinion can be written." (read the whole thing)
The last thing Obama wants to do is to put it on paper, he doesn't want to put the ring on the finger. Salient that after the speech declaring war, Obama's advisors took to the air waves to contradict it.
Thursday on CNN's "The Situation Room With Wolf Blitzer," Obama White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice said the president's actions against ISIS are "very different" from America being at war.
Rice said, "I don't know whether you want to call it a war or sustained counterterrorism campaign. I think, frankly, this is a counterterrorism operation that will take time. It will be sustained. We will not have American combat forces on the ground fighting as we did in Iraq and Afghanistan which is what I think the American people think of when they think of a war. So I think this is very different from that. But nonetheless, we'll be dealing with the significant threat to this region, to American personnel in the region and potentially also to Europe and the United States. And we'll be doing it with partners. We'll not be fighting ourselves on the ground but using American air power as we have been over the last several weeks as necessary."
Is like after proposing to make Iraq and Syria his, Obama is going about doing everything he can to undermine it.
35 comments:
He's trying to cover himself, but he forgets Stantz' Law:
I've worked in the private sector. they expect results.
If this doesn't stop them, and we have bodies on the ground here, "I tried", won't get him much slack.
"I don't know whether you want to call it a war or sustained counterterrorism campaign. I think, frankly, this is a counterterrorism operation that will take time. It will be sustained... we'll be doing it with partners. We'll not be fighting ourselves on the ground but using American air power as we have been over the last several weeks as necessary."
Gee, sounds a lot like Dubya's campaigns in Iraq and A-stan.
Whoda thunk?
They didn't take my advice to call it police action.
This is the party that, when it does pass legislation, passes it on party line vote in the dead of night using questionable maneuvers.
Harry Reid(D- corrupt) ignores hundreds of House bills all while the major media neglect to inform the public about his ongoing stunts. All while they paint a picture of bogus "Republican obstructionism". So NYT - which is it?
All while the major pro-democrat party apparatchiks that run the major media networks are creating pro-Hillary primetime TV shows that will act to sway and massage masses of stupids to vote for her. Because, woman.
Betrayal of the constitution? Get in line behind the weaponizing of the IRS, Democrat Senators writing laws that will end free speech, An Attorney general who is completely lawless and spends his time defending common thugs who rob convenience stores. We live under the constant threat that Obama will lawlessly convert millions upon millions of people who are here illegally into citizens - without any scrutiny. and btw - these people might belong to terrorist orgs or violent drug gangs. The democrat party state to state conspired to give illegals the right to driver's licenses and thus the ability to vote. Happened here in CO. It's the law now.
Abiding by the constitution? Please NYT - nice of you to notice, but that ship has sailed.
The US Air Force will be dropping bombs for Shiite victory! Best of all, from Hussein's standpoint, the command center will be in Teheran! The main thing, far and away the most important thing is that the United States must not triumph over Hussein's beloved Dar Islam.
"I won"
Isn't that the answer to everything?
I think the speech was just a stalling tactic.
Obama is not going to war anymore than Ray Rice is going to get a husband of the year award.
That's what you get when there are muslims in the White House - maybe someday a non-muslim will be in charge, assuming someday actually arrives.
Well I hope the courts sort this one out.
If Obama doesn't put it in writing, what is there for the courts, or anybody else for that matter, to sort out?
A speech is not enough.
Tough when you realize that's his only weapon.
The last thing Obama wants to do is to put it on paper, he doesn't want to put the ring on the finger.
Vey good metaphor, Lem. You are quite good at the English language.
And you, CL, are quite good with sly humor.
Above all else, more important that national security, is the protection of Obama. The left placed all their wedding rings in the anti-war hate-Bush/Blame-Bush basket. Against the advisement of every advisor and military expert and strategist, Obama pulled everyone out of Iraq. We had won the peace, finally - despite Harry Reid's crass political opportunism. Obama needed to keep his promise to his radical fringe base, and so he lost the peace in Iraq. No matter. Manipulations, word games, blame and speeches will fix it.
The reminder that Bush actually followed the rules must be difficult for the NYT to admit.
Responsibility for this war is something nobody wants.
Obama ran on the platform that if we just pretended there was no war, there would be no war.
It was all just a delusion propagated by Bush.
He back pedaled furiously during his speech the other night. But, this is one point he can't succeed without completely alienating his followers.
That should read:
... this is one point he can't concede...
Thank you Chickl... I think.
Obama was perfectly happy to the president of his political base. ISIL threw a monkey wrench into the works.
OpEd used to mean opposite page of the paper's editorial.
Damn, Lem, now you are teaching me English.
Thank you.
Obama’s also scaling back from the “war” talk because he’s got a big problem with many Democrats who think the same as James Foley’s mother, who said this to Anderson Cooper on CNN:
"This whole strategy to eliminate ISIS and the terror threat is important, obviously, so perhaps part of the strategic way of doing that is to bomb them, and to engage in force. But that only caused Jim's death…I guess all I'm trying to say is that our government needs to be shrewder, smarter, willing to negotiate with these people who hate us, so that we can find better ways to rid ourselves of terror."
Yeah, how'd that work out for her boy?
Muzzie mums are proud that they send their precious baby goat fuckers to kill us.
We worry we might hurt their feelings.
We sure could use a backbone over here.
"...our government has to be shrewder, smarter, willing to negotiate with these people who hate us..."
Okay, I'm cutting this mother whose son has just been beheaded some slack. The intellectual giants in the White House and Foggy Bottom have no such excuse. Their stupidity, which, like Schmendrik's goes right to the bone, is born out of the denial of human nature. No, humans are just something malleable that can be perfected. For them murder isn't in mens' hearts, ALL mens' hearts. So there doesn't have to be a thou shalt not kill commandment and there doesn't have to be an army and a police force to defend against what is in all mens' hearts because it isn't. The problem you see is INEQUALITY. Solve that and all will be unicorns and rainbows forever. And then these schmucks gain the levers of power and then all hell breaks loose.
The Foley family was left to fend for their son alone while Team Bumble focused on keeping up appearances. That's the priority. Appearances. That and fundraising. Utterly and obviously despicable.
Obviously, I would not agree with Mrs. Foley that the U.S. should focus on negotiating with terrorists BUT I do understand why that is her perspective. Countries which negotiated got their people back. Countries which dithered did not. That's the contrast she sees. She has not seen an example of a nation that simply stomped in and took their people back from these savages. And, at least for the next two years, she's not going to see one. Obama will not conduct this operation to win but soley for appearances. Our money will be spent funding and equipping future terrorists, developing the terrorist Farm Team (or J.V., if you will).
solely
General Paton once said: "A good plan, executed today with great violence, is far better than a perfect plan executed six months from now." Once notified by the JCS that they knew where Foley was located and that they were ready to launch an operation to extricate him immediately, Obama dithered for 30 days waiting for the "perfect plan" that wouldn't produce any casualties that might adversely affect the Donkeys in the elections, thereby letting the intel grow stale.
May that rotten psycho gutless bastard rot in hell..
I've gotta say, you guys were far-sighted for taking note of Obama's lawlessness.
Personally, I think ISIS should burn itself out and serve as a reminder to the region of how backward Caliphate revivalism really is. And if those countries want to do something about it, let them. I'm fucking sick and tired of a bunch of lazy Arabs telling us that it's our job to protect them and do their military bidding. Enough of it. If they care, let them do the fucking job.
We can accept that ISIS could become a threat strong enough to damage us, in which case we should bomb them the fuck back to kingdom come once they start to. But until then, fuck 'em. Those journalists know the risks they take, and if we can't resolve every single violent, local act with a low-risk rescue attempt or a retaliatory strike here or there, well I guess the world's a tough place.
Allowing ISIS to serve as a shining example of what barbarism and backwardness is all about is in the long run our most important recruiting tool for freedom.
Can we cut the heads off reporters over here? I can think of a few candidates.
I honestly wonder if Obama's rage at ISIS is based on thinking, "That sure ain't my brand of Islam."
"That ain't what the Islam I know is all about."
Fuck Obama. He's not an Islamic scholar or religious leader. Again, that's their own fucking problem. Let the Muzzy Islamoids sort out what their religion is or is not all about and show the world how they intend to make that plain to everyone.
What a fucking bastard Obama is. He's even depriving the Muzzy Islamoids a chance (and a reason) to show everyone what they're really about and what they really intend to do about all this end-of-the-world-under-a-violent-and-despotic-banner bullshit. And he apparently intends to do it above the law. What a fucking asshole.
" I thought the conventional understanding was you couldn't win with air power only,..."
It worked pretty well in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Imagine the even greater success if we had that fancy molotov cocktail in 1941.
Susan Rice said the president's actions against ISIS are "very different" from America being at war.
Well then, what is it? Is it peace, because peace is "very different" from war. Peace with bombs, is that it?
Those people lie about everything. Everything.
Post a Comment