I don't like this. Nope Nope Nope. AUMF for ISIS

[oobydoobydoo]

Well we're in it no matter what we want. On one hand I do not like the consequences of taking action as a lot of innocents will die, but on the other I do not want more people being killed by the likes of ISIS. Since we are involved I think it best to be restrictive up front. Once this horse is out of the barn there's no getting it back.

I think Obama wants troops to help the Iraqi Security Forces invade Mosul. They can't use the kurds, because nobody except the US likes the kurds, and they can't occupy it with bombs. So the solution, is to use "troops".... what exactly that ambiguous term refers to I am not sure. I think it is just a placeholder for "whatever Obama wants".

This whole thing is very "un-Obama". Bowing to political pressure to invade an arab country? Maybe he is just pissed at Netanyahu, and feels like kicking around in his sandbox and helping Hezbollah in retaliation for Netanyahu's ridiculous congressional panhandling? This will definitely not make Netanyahu happy at all. ISIS is a huge distraction to his wanton abuses of human rights and Hezbollah would be freed up to retaliate against Israeli airstrikes even more effectively if they were removed.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think Obama wants troops to help the Iraqi Security Forces invade Mosul. They can't use the kurds, because nobody except the US likes the kurds, and they can't occupy it with bombs. So the solution, is to use "troops".... what exactly that ambiguous term refers to I am not sure. I think it is just a placeholder for "whatever Obama wants".

This whole thing is very "un-Obama". Bowing to political pressure to invade an arab country? Maybe he is just pissed at Netanyahu, and feels like kicking around in his sandbox and helping Hezbollah in retaliation for Netanyahu's ridiculous congressional panhandling? This will definitely not make Netanyahu happy at all. ISIS is a huge distraction to his wanton abuses of human rights and Hezbollah would be freed up to retaliate against Israeli airstrikes even more effectively if they were removed.

As I've said it may be that Obama is acting with best intentions and will use his authority properly. Once involved in an action what does that really mean? One thing it allows is an option to try more aggressive actions which might backfire because we can always escalate to extricate, but when that backfires it will be awful. Anyone who remembers VN can tell you what can happen. Consequently I feel it more responsible to limit authority up front. Mission creep is more likely to happen if it's understood to be provided for.

 

[ivwshane]

Im not clear on what powers this would give Obama that he currently doesn't have...the 2001 resolution is still in place?

None, this is purely a political move.

 

[ivwshane]

Was LBJ the last Democratic President to ask for one of these authorizations?

And do declassified NSA documents demonstrate that he deceived Congress and the public to get it?

You can read for yourself from the U.S. Naval Institute:
Or, you can read the declassified NSA documents from the National Security Archive.


WAR is a racket. It always has been.
We have been sending young Americans over to the middle east to fight for 13 years now...

And what have we won? And what more does Obama expect to win with this new authorization?

This old dog soldier thinks that enough defense contractors, politicians, and politician's friends have gotten rich from 13 years of war. And that too many young Americans have died.

Its almost like my drill sergeant told me: "What man learns from history, is that man does not learn from history."

Uno
Sentry Dog Handler
US Army 69-71

I better rethink my views, I agree with unokitty on this

 

[MiniDoom]

why the hell does american always have to lead these missions? where the fuck is china or russia? enough american blood already.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

None, this is purely a political move.

Never underestimate the power of purely political moves. If it came to it "I sought and was given this power explicitly to deal with ISIS" would be heard, and the question of legitimacy under the old AUMF which is in doubt by many, would be moot.

A Biblical lesson

1 Samuel 8 Contemporary English Version (CEV)

The People of Israel Want a King
8 1-2 Samuel had two sons. The older one was Joel, and the younger one was Abijah. When Samuel was getting old, he let them be leaders[a] at Beersheba. 3 But they were not like their father. They were dishonest and accepted bribes to give unfair decisions.

4 One day the nation’s leaders came to Samuel at Ramah 5 and said, “You are an old man. You set a good example for your sons, but they haven’t followed it. Now we want a king to be our leader, just like all the other nations. Choose one for us!”

6 Samuel was upset to hear the leaders say they wanted a king, so he prayed about it. 7 The Lord answered:

Samuel, do everything they want you to do. I am really the one they have rejected as their king. 8 Ever since the day I rescued my people from Egypt, they have turned from me to worship idols. Now they are turning away from you. 9 Do everything they ask, but warn them and tell them how a king will treat them.

10 Samuel told the people who were asking for a king what the Lord had said:

11 If you have a king, this is how he will treat you. He will force your sons to join his army. Some of them will ride in his chariots, some will serve in the cavalry, and others will run ahead of his own chariot.[c] 12 Some of them will be officers in charge of a thousand soldiers, and others will be in charge of fifty. Still others will have to farm the king’s land and harvest his crops, or make weapons and parts for his chariots. 13 Your daughters will have to make perfume or do his cooking and baking.

14 The king will take your best fields, as well as your vineyards, and olive orchards and give them to his own officials. 15 He will also take a tenth of your grain and grapes and give it to his officers and officials.

16 The king will take your slaves and your best young men and your donkeys and make them do his work. 17 He will also take a tenth of your sheep and goats. You will become the king’s slaves, 18 and you will finally cry out for the Lord to save you from the king you wanted. But the Lord won’t answer your prayers.

19-20 The people would not listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want to be like other nations. We want a king to rule us and lead us in battle.”

21 Samuel listened to them and then told the Lord exactly what they had said. 22 “Do what they want,” the Lord answered. “Give them a king.”

Samuel told the people to go back to their homes.

Footnotes:

The people wanted a king and they got one and all that went with it. I do not propose to let Obama send our sons to war quite so easily as he might wish.

 

[ivwshane]

Damn Obama is good! This authorization repeals the original 2003 authorization and limits this to three years.

He's basically ended the war on terror and allowed those that need to appear strong (but don't personally support the war) on fighting the war on terror with their constituents by giving them an out by voting for this measure. With this move he also puts the power to declare war back in the hands of congress. And he did all this while putting the war hawks in a corner where they either have to vote for this or risk "betraying" their base. Anyone who sees this for what it is and tries to call out this move will end up exposing their own motives.

At least that's how I took the speech he just made.

 

[MiniDoom]

Damn Obama is good! This authorization repeals the original 2003 authorization and limits this to three years.

He's basically ended the war on terror and allowed those that need to appear strong (but don't personally support the war) on fighting the war on terror with their constituents by giving them an out by voting for this measure. With this move he also puts the power to declare war back in the hands of congress. And he did all this while putting the war hawks in a corner where they either have to vote for this or risk "betraying" their base. Anyone who sees this for what it is and tries to call out this move will end up exposing their own motives.

At least that's how I took the speech he just made.

what happens in 3 years if the war's still being fought?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Damn Obama is good! This authorization repeals the original 2003 authorization and limits this to three years.

He's basically ended the war on terror and allowed those that need to appear strong (but don't personally support the war) on fighting the war on terror with their constituents by giving them an out by voting for this measure. With this move he also puts the power to declare war back in the hands of congress. And he did all this while putting the war hawks in a corner where they either have to vote for this or risk "betraying" their base. Anyone who sees this for what it is and tries to call out this move will end up exposing their own motives.

At least that's how I took the speech he just made.

Well...that's certainly one way to look at it. lol

 

[blastingcap]

why the hell does american always have to lead these missions? where the fuck is china or russia? enough american blood already.

Sometimes I feel like we should arm the Kurds to the teeth and tell them to simply hold the line but not recapture Mosul. Basically don't do Iran's work for Iran.

Then we pack up and leave.

Iran panics and sends its actual army into Iran and Syria, not just proxies.

Let Iran and Daesh kill each other like they deserve.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Damn Obama is good! This authorization repeals the original 2003 authorization and limits this to three years.

He's basically ended the war on terror and allowed those that need to appear strong (but don't personally support the war) on fighting the war on terror with their constituents by giving them an out by voting for this measure. With this move he also puts the power to declare war back in the hands of congress. And he did all this while putting the war hawks in a corner where they either have to vote for this or risk "betraying" their base. Anyone who sees this for what it is and tries to call out this move will end up exposing their own motives.

At least that's how I took the speech he just made.

So he gets to do what he wants while making anyone who opposes his actions appear either unpatriotic or partisan.

Well that's comforting.

 

[ivwshane]

what happens in 3 years if the war's still being fought?

Congress, not the president, will have to reauthorize military operations.

 

[waggy]

Damn Obama is good! This authorization repeals the original 2003 authorization and limits this to three years.

He's basically ended the war on terror and allowed those that need to appear strong (but don't personally support the war) on fighting the war on terror with their constituents by giving them an out by voting for this measure. With this move he also puts the power to declare war back in the hands of congress. And he did all this while putting the war hawks in a corner where they either have to vote for this or risk "betraying" their base. Anyone who sees this for what it is and tries to call out this move will end up exposing their own motives.

At least that's how I took the speech he just made.

ROFL i was wondering how you would spin it. Where is harvey we need another song.

 

[ivwshane]

So he gets to do what he wants while making anyone who opposes his actions as either unpatriotic or partisan.

Well that's comforting.

He already gets to do what he wants, he already has the authorization he needs.

Calling people partisan or unpatriotic already happens and isn't anything new so I'm not sure what your issue is there.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

He already gets to do what he wants, he already has the authorization he needs.

Calling people partisan or unpatriotic already happens and isn't anything new so I'm not sure what your issue is there.

Well if you want to legitimize anything he does you've done so. That I were to kick you in the head does not make it right to have others line up and do it. Well by your words maybe it does. Justification of wrongs because others did them first isn't a good moral argument.

 

[Knowing]

With Jordan massing troops we have to do something to combat the group of people we armed in Syria.

Interesting that he waited until after the midterms and Yemen going tits up. Do we not have enough drones? Certainly Lockheed could use a cash injection.

I also checked ThinkProgress and couldn't find an article on the front page.

 

[Fern]

This is the "What you or anyone thinks is irrelevant, this gives me the explicit right to do what I wish" authorization.

We've seen Obama's track record.

He's going to do what he wants regardless of the law, the law's wording and anything else.

Fern

 

[Fern]

It appears that Obama wants to cover his ass after his Libya debacle.

Yeah. I see no real point to this other than political cover of some sort and likely some future spin about how this is some Obama victory. Our politicians are only serious about playing politics against each other.

Look, if Obama wants to send in troops no piece of paper, or lack thereof, is going to stop him.

This is the "circus" part of "bread and circus". Where's my bread now?

Fern

 

[Fern]

Damn Obama is good! This authorization repeals the original 2003 authorization and limits this to three years.

He's basically ended the war on terror and allowed those that need to appear strong (but don't personally support the war) on fighting the war on terror with their constituents by giving them an out by voting for this measure. With this move he also puts the power to declare war back in the hands of congress. And he did all this while putting the war hawks in a corner where they either have to vote for this or risk "betraying" their base. Anyone who sees this for what it is and tries to call out this move will end up exposing their own motives.

At least that's how I took the speech he just made.

FacePalm;

Jeebus man, Congress will end up rewording this however they like.

And he hasn't ended the WoT. Take a look at the news.

Nobody is any "corner". As I said, Congress can reword
however they like. You seem to think Obama is now Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader who control legislation.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

Well if you want to legitimize anything he does you've done so. That I were to kick you in the head does not make it right to have others line up and do it. Well by your words maybe it does. Justification of wrongs because others did them first isn't a good moral argument.

I get it, we all get it, you dream of a fantasy land and wish to live in a world where legislation is passed by experts who know what they are talking about, you want politicians to not lie and to be honest with Americans, you want them to not play political games and you want our elected officials to not do bad things just because someone else was already doing it.

Yeah I want that too, the difference of course, is that I don't live in a fantasy land, I live in reality. My hope is that some day you too will live in reality and understand it's evils and ignore the small stuff while focusing on the big picture. Do you have a ride? Or are you content in your ever growing disappointment of reality and are determined to stay in fantasy land?

 

[ivwshane]

FacePalm;

Jeebus man, Congress will end up rewording this however they like.

And he hasn't ended the WoT. Take a look at the news.

Nobody is any "corner". As I said, Congress can reword
however they like. You seem to think Obama is now Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader who control legislation.

Fern

I guess you aren't too familiar with congresses track record on war powers.

 

[oobydoobydoo]

If Obama wants to send american kids to die in Syria he should send Sasha and Malia along with the goddamn family cat, idk strap a bomb to it or something. CBIED. If it's all that important he should sacrifice too, sick of all the warmongering. It is the worst part about him as a president, IMO.

 

[nageov3t]

Damn Obama is good! This authorization repeals the original 2003 authorization and limits this to three years.

He's basically ended the war on terror and allowed those that need to appear strong (but don't personally support the war) on fighting the war on terror with their constituents by giving them an out by voting for this measure. With this move he also puts the power to declare war back in the hands of congress. And he did all this while putting the war hawks in a corner where they either have to vote for this or risk "betraying" their base. Anyone who sees this for what it is and tries to call out this move will end up exposing their own motives.

At least that's how I took the speech he just made.

not really...

this would repeal the 2003 Authorization of Use of Force against Iraq, but leave in-tact the nebulous 2001 Authorization of Use of Force against al-qaeda and any/all associates anywhere in the world (eg: the thing that has been used to justify killing American citizens without a trial, spying on American citizens by the NSA, bombing ISIS in the first place, etc)

 

[ivwshane]

not really...

this would repeal the 2003 Authorization of Use of Force against Iraq, but leave in-tact the nebulous 2001 Authorization of Use of Force against al-qaeda and any/all associates anywhere in the world (eg: the thing that has been used to justify killing American citizens without a trial, spying on American citizens by the NSA, bombing ISIS in the first place, etc)

Well that is true.

 

[Fern]

not really...

this would repeal the 2003 Authorization of Use of Force against Iraq, but leave in-tact the nebulous 2001 Authorization of Use of Force against al-qaeda and any/all associates anywhere in the world (eg: the thing that has been used to justify killing American citizens without a trial, spying on American citizens by the NSA, bombing ISIS in the first place, etc)

Yeah. We don't need the 2003/Iraq AUMF. I don't understand why we need this one given the existence of the 2001 "nebulous" AUMF. Seems redundant to me.

Fern