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

[nageov3t]

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

realistically, there's pretty much no connection between Al-qaeda or anyone targeted by the 2001 AUMF and ISIS if anyone ever actually wanted to challenge this usage of force, but no one in Washington DC seems to care much.

 

[Jhhnn]

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

Well that's comforting.

Gawd. How quickly we forget just how we got into Iraq in the first place- 9/11 fashioned into a bludgeon against all "enemies", foreign & domestic.

With us or against us, remember?

The notion that you're trying to cast Obama into the same mold is laughable.

I really don't know quite what to think just yet, but I'm a bit haunted by something that was said way back when all the usual ravers were gung-ho to invade Iraq- "You broke it, you bought it."

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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?

Ahh, yes. I remember you in your earlier incarnation when you said the same thing about the Vietnam War, where you knew the Communists threatened you and you threw stones at protesters. The liberals opposed you then, and I hope they oppose you now. The small stuff of the destruction of death and war. I never took you for a Bush supporter, but now I do. Evils? You've seen nothing. I had hoped you were sarcastic, but now I see you.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Gawd. How quickly we forget just how we got into Iraq in the first place- 9/11 fashioned into a bludgeon against all "enemies", foreign & domestic.

With us or against us, remember?

The notion that you're trying to cast Obama into the same mold is laughable.

I really don't know quite what to think just yet, but I'm a bit haunted by something that was said way back when all the usual ravers were gung-ho to invade Iraq- "You broke it, you bought it."

Hello! I'm afraid you are only the second apologist, you really must try harder. If you paid attention and thought a bit I you would see this wasn't that Obama would abuse this, but then he could, and the authority goes on to his successor, the one you'll adore if a Democrat and abhor for being a Republican if they do the same thing. You would have been against Nixon and waved and cried and embraced LBJ for Vietnam. Of course you can't help it. If Obama were to start a war ten times the size of Iraq, you'd duh vert as you say. Note I did not say he would. It's far more likely you'll throw yourself over a puddle so he won't wet his feet.

 

[Jhhnn]

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 it's put up or shut up, which is the last thing Repubs want. They much prefer sniping from an ever changing platform, of course, while owning nothing.

 

[Fern]

Originally Posted by Fern
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.

At a private meeting of the House Republican Conference on Wednesday morning, Speaker John Boehner urged his members to "keep your powder dry," according to sources in the room, intimating that they should not outright reject the AUMF before they have a chance to change it.

He later told the press that the president's text is only the first step in what will be a long legislative process, complete with committee hearings and markups. But he added his own apprehension about what Capitol Hill sources described as a chorus of irreconcilable demands from far-flung ideological pockets of House members.

Sometimes I wonder why I bother with you.

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

Hello! I'm afraid you are only the second apologist, you really must try harder. If you paid attention and thought a bit I you would see this wasn't that Obama would abuse this, but then he could, and the authority goes on to his successor, the one you'll adore if a Democrat and abhor for being a Republican if they do the same thing. You would have been against Nixon and waved and cried and embraced LBJ for Vietnam. Of course you can't help it. If Obama were to start a war ten times the size of Iraq, you'd duh vert as you say. Note I did not say he would. It's far more likely you'll throw yourself over a puddle so he won't wet his feet.

Dodgitty-dodgitty-dodge!

With straw man attributions as to what I might do in the event that mass delusion of fantasy breaks out.

Repubs apparently prefer the current situation, where they can blame Obama no matter which way he goes. They can even talk out of both sides of their mouths simultaneously, their preferred method of action.

Whatever happens next, they have to own it, and they hate the idea with a passion.

It's not like the original AUMF wrt Iraq at all- the stage set by 9/11, the Terrarist! color wheel spinning madly, bloodlust, fearmongering & false attribution acting as a drumbeat across the media, jammed ruthlessly up against a midterm election.

Shee-it, Sherlock, the next election is almost 2 years away. It's not like Obama is holding a gun to their heads.

 

[nickqt]

Dodgitty-dodgitty-dodge!

With straw man attributions as to what I might do in the event that mass delusion of fantasy breaks out.

Repubs apparently prefer the current situation, where they can blame Obama no matter which way he goes. They can even talk out of both sides of their mouths simultaneously, their preferred method of action.

Whatever happens next, they have to own it, and they hate the idea with a passion.

It's not like the original AUMF wrt Iraq at all- the stage set by 9/11, the Terrarist! color wheel spinning madly, bloodlust, fearmongering & false attribution acting as a drumbeat across the media, jammed ruthlessly up against a midterm election.

Shee-it, Sherlock, the next election is almost 2 years away. It's not like Obama is holding a gun to their heads.

Just remember. When they start throwing accusations, it's just a mix of cognitive dissonance and projection.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Dodgitty-dodgitty-dodge!

With straw man attributions as to what I might do in the event that mass delusion of fantasy breaks out.

Repubs apparently prefer the current situation, where they can blame Obama no matter which way he goes. They can even talk out of both sides of their mouths simultaneously, their preferred method of action.

Whatever happens next, they have to own it, and they hate the idea with a passion.

It's not like the original AUMF wrt Iraq at all- the stage set by 9/11, the Terrarist! color wheel spinning madly, bloodlust, fearmongering & false attribution acting as a drumbeat across the media, jammed ruthlessly up against a midterm election.

Shee-it, Sherlock, the next election is almost 2 years away. It's not like Obama is holding a gun to their heads.

My dear boy, you really should write a book entitled "The Apologist guide to excusing evil".

Instead of preventing harm done you embrace the means. You are so fixated on Obama and defending his ass you don't realize that he may or may not become embroiled in something which goes beyond what he intended. Do you really believe that Kennedy and Johnson wanted the better part of a million soldiers and years of war? Sure you do. Well they got it anyway. Only a fool would want to give such permission to ANYONE in light of American history over the last 60 years or so. But you don't care what suffering it causes because if a Republican gets in control and does harm the blood should be on you hands as much as them because you permitted it for the sake of Obama. No evil not excused, for the Greater Good of course.

Note the distinct lack of support for your position? That would be those on the left who are suspicious. That Conservative Republican who is the Democratic whip asks the same questions as I have. What do these terms really mean and what can be the result? Conservative behold thyself.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Repubs apparently prefer the current situation, where they can blame Obama no matter which way he goes. They can even talk out of both sides of their mouths simultaneously, their preferred method of action.

Whatever happens next, they have to own it, and they hate the idea with a passion.

Oh geez.

The "they have to own it" is not the Repubs, but rather the members who vote for it or against (unless they pull an 'Obama' and just vote "Present").

Some members want to authorize more. I'd guess John McCain would opt for authorization for full scale invasion.

Some members want to authorize something short of ground troops.

Some won't want to authorize anything. There's an election coming up and they don't want to be seen as authorizing any 'war'.

If I was Boehner I'd just send Obama's version through for a vote instead of spending a bunch of time and effort on monkeying around with the language. It's not as though Obama has ever felt constrained by any "language" anyway (unless he wanted to, and for only that amount of time he wanted.)

The Obama admin has already publicly claimed the 2001 AUMF gives them whatever they want.

And personally, I think this is a case of 'placing the carriage before the horse'.

If this is to be done correctly, not like that's every been a constraint on our govt, an AUMF should take into account the President's strategy. There is no strategy (other than float around for 2 yrs until he's out of office and it's someone else's problem).

This would be a good opportunity for Boehner to ask Obama exactly what his strategy is.

Fern

 

[BoberFett]

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.

I think ivwshane just jizzed himself.

 

[Jhhnn]

My dear boy, you really should write a book entitled "The Apologist guide to excusing evil".

Instead of preventing harm done you embrace the means. You are so fixated on Obama and defending his ass you don't realize that he may or may not become embroiled in something which goes beyond what he intended. Do you really believe that Kennedy and Johnson wanted the better part of a million soldiers and years of war? Sure you do. Well they got it anyway. Only a fool would want to give such permission to ANYONE in light of American history over the last 60 years or so. But you don't care what suffering it causes because if a Republican gets in control and does harm the blood should be on you hands as much as them because you permitted it for the sake of Obama. No evil not excused, for the Greater Good of course.

Note the distinct lack of support for your position? That would be those on the left who are suspicious. That Conservative Republican who is the Democratic whip asks the same questions as I have. What do these terms really mean and what can be the result? Conservative behold thyself.

Gawd that's lame. I've taken no position for or against this. I did point out that it's the result of our own actions, pointed out the means used to engage in the invasion of Iraq in the first place. In that, we are responsible to some degree or another. It's the law of unforeseen consequences as it applies to Neocon foreign policy.

We're now faced with a concrete choice that I really don't have the means to judge accurately. What I'm sure of is that it's a put up or shut up moment for Repubs, one relatively unclouded by electoral considerations. They were all gung-ho to own the invasion of Iraq, so let's see if they're now willing to own an honest to God decision made necessary by that & by their continuous sniping since the day the Daesch first hit the headlines. No more blaming Obama. Have at it, gentlemen- I'm confident that he'll abide by Congress' decision, whichever way it goes.

 

[Jhhnn]

The "they have to own it" is not the Repubs, but rather the members who vote for it or against (

Republicans have strong majorities & control the agenda in both houses. They rarely split much over any legislation, their headset & leadership being what it is. They can put it on a shelf & there's nothing anybody could do about it. But that would look bad, particularly after all the raving, wouldn't it?

They obviously don't need Dems to pass any measure in the House, & all they need in the Senate is for Dems to let it come to a vote. They'll own it either way, and it's high time they owned something real.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Gawd that's lame. I've taken no position for or against this. I did point out that it's the result of our own actions, pointed out the means used to engage in the invasion of Iraq in the first place. In that, we are responsible to some degree or another. It's the law of unforeseen consequences as it applies to Neocon foreign policy.

We're now faced with a concrete choice that I really don't have the means to judge accurately. What I'm sure of is that it's a put up or shut up moment for Repubs, one relatively unclouded by electoral considerations. They were all gung-ho to own the invasion of Iraq, so let's see if they're now willing to own an honest to God decision made necessary by that & by their continuous sniping since the day the Daesch first hit the headlines. No more blaming Obama. Have at it, gentlemen- I'm confident that he'll abide by Congress' decision, whichever way it goes.

But you have taken a position, a pro Obama one. You are confident he'll abide by Congress' decision. He was of the opinion that he didn't need their approval. So he's asked for it finally, and that's a good thing. I'm also sure he'll abide by Congress decision, either this approval or the former one. It would be extremely difficult to violate the AUFM in practice as the minority whip notes there is no definition for "enduring offence". I happen to agree with the liberal Democrat. You haven't had time to give an opinion on the topic because you have been jumping on Obama to guard him. Well if Republicans own the future, those who propose or support such broad language own it forever, or for three years, whichever is longer. It doesn't matter if you love or hate Obama, this is utterly foolish, and belief in his virtue does not change the substance or language of the authorization. I don't trust any President with such broad power, liberal or conservative or Democrat or Republican. Obviously you aren't so particular.

 

[Fern]

Republicans have strong majorities & control the agenda in both houses. They rarely split much over any legislation, their headset & leadership being what it is.
-snip-

No. They're split in many areas. Examples include immigration as well as this situation.

My suggestion remains: Put what Obama sent over up for a vote and move on to something meaningful. This is nothing but political show. Don't buy the 'ticket' and just skip the 'performance'.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

Ahh, yes. I remember you in your earlier incarnation when you said the same thing about the Vietnam War, where you knew the Communists threatened you and you threw stones at protesters. The liberals opposed you then, and I hope they oppose you now. The small stuff of the destruction of death and war. I never took you for a Bush supporter, but now I do. Evils? You've seen nothing. I had hoped you were sarcastic, but now I see you.

lol wut?!

 

[ivwshane]

Sometimes I wonder why I bother with you.

Fern

You would think that someone so well versed in republican talking points, such as yourself, you'd be well aware of their game plan. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

 

[IronWing]

Don't buy the 'ticket' and just skip the 'performance'.

Fern

While that might be wise for the Reps, it won't happen. There's a primary to posture for.

The best hope, which also won't happen, is that Congress shelves the proposal, Obama says his hands are tied, and we sit out a war for a change. We can dream.

 

[ivwshane]

My dear boy, you really should write a book entitled "The Apologist guide to excusing evil".

Instead of preventing harm done you embrace the means. You are so fixated on Obama and defending his ass you don't realize that he may or may not become embroiled in something which goes beyond what he intended. Do you really believe that Kennedy and Johnson wanted the better part of a million soldiers and years of war? Sure you do. Well they got it anyway. Only a fool would want to give such permission to ANYONE in light of American history over the last 60 years or so. But you don't care what suffering it causes because if a Republican gets in control and does harm the blood should be on you hands as much as them because you permitted it for the sake of Obama. No evil not excused, for the Greater Good of course.

Note the distinct lack of support for your position? That would be those on the left who are suspicious. That Conservative Republican who is the Democratic whip asks the same questions as I have. What do these terms really mean and what can be the result? Conservative behold thyself.

You don't even know what our position is since your post contains so many straw man arguements!

 

[ivwshane]

I think ivwshane just jizzed himself.

I bet that got you excited! Lap it up

 

[BoberFett]

I bet that got you excited! Lap it up

Sorry to disappoint you, but Jhhnhnhn is probably your guy. Maybe when he's done swallowing Obama's load he can come around your way.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

lol wut?!

You act just like those who were so approving of the war. Only the names have changed. Obama for Johnson or Nixon, Terrorists replace Communists. You even mentioned Obama ending the war on terror, and there's absolutely nothing which backs that. There's nothing in this authorization which remotely addresses it, but he stands firmly behind the governments right to intercept your calls without warrant to "protect" us. Politicians who say one thing but act the opposite should not be trusted, and I don't care what party they belong to. There's no knowing how such a broad authorization will be used, nor what consequences unintended or not will result. The liberals of the past questioned authority. Now that they are the authority too many of them play the warhawk. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

 

[ivwshane]

Holy fuck you can be such an idiot sometimes! Stating the reality of the situation doesn't mean one supports such actions. I'm sure you've heard the term, "don't kill the messenger".

But you have taken a position, a pro Obama one. You are confident he'll abide by Congress' decision. He was of the opinion that he didn't need their approval. So he's asked for it finally, and that's a good thing. I'm also sure he'll abide by Congress decision, either this approval or the former one. It would be extremely difficult to violate the AUFM in practice as the minority whip notes there is no definition for "enduring offence". I happen to agree with the liberal Democrat. You haven't had time to give an opinion on the topic because you have been jumping on Obama to guard him. Well if Republicans own the future, those who propose or support such broad language own it forever, or for three years, whichever is longer. It doesn't matter if you love or hate Obama, this is utterly foolish, and belief in his virtue does not change the substance or language of the authorization. I don't trust any President with such broad power, liberal or conservative or Democrat or Republican. Obviously you aren't so particular.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You don't even know what our position is since your post contains so many straw man arguements!

I knew his position before he posted. It's protect everything Obama puts his hand to and blame the republicans. I had hoped for better from you.

 

[ivwshane]

Sorry to disappoint you, but Jhhnhnhn is probably your guy. Maybe when he's done swallowing Obama's load he can come around your way.

Says the guys who's only post was to chime in at the thought of someone jizzing!

Troll on!