Ok. Maybe, but I doubt it !!
Feb 16, 2015 13:46:04 #
Obama's request for war funding
Obama wants that 3 year end date clause. Nothing else. He's been cutting deals across the Muslim world by telegraphing war plans. What i***t would see any value in that other than the people you are engaged with. No one would do that from a one on one fist fight to a full blown war. It aids the enemy. Nothing else.
Getty - Pool
For months now, President Obama has pushed for his war plans against the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) by citing the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) former President Bush put in place after the 9/11 attacks. Obama made it clear he did not need Congress to approve his actions.
So, why is he suddenly asking permission from Congress? Thats the question making its way around the media this week, as Obama sent in a formal request for a new AUMF.
1. There are differing opinions on his reasoning, with somelike NPRs Mara Liassonarguing the President simply wants Congress behind him:
Well, the president said he doesnt need permission from Congress, that he has enough authorities in his power as commander-in-chief and because of a 2002 authorization to use military force AUMF. But he says the U.S. is always stronger when it acts militarily if it has buy-in from Congress. And, of course, Congress has been asking the president to send them an authorization.
2. According to Fox News:
The White House insists it already has the authority to launch airstrikes against ISIS militants in Iraq and Syria, as the U.S. has been doing for months, but wants Congress to sign off in order to demonstrate American unity.
3. Others, like Huffington Posts Jen Bendery, claim the new AUMF would give Congress a chance to look good on this issue:
Congress is in this place where, as one senator told me this week, they like to beat their chests and say Were the ones who control war authorization. Its the constitutional right of Congress to do this. Were the ones. We have the power. But we dont really want to do it. So, Obama did this. This is Obamas war.'
4. Some argue that Obama needs to ask Congress for permission because of the difference between drone strikes and more traditional military force. NBC reports:
His proposed authorization would last for three years and would have no geographical limitations. It also calls for flexibility for limited ground operations by the U.S. military, but rules out a longstanding ground force.
5. The Washington quotes Republican Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee. He believes Obamas request isnt sincere, but rather a way to shift blame after a failure of leadership on the part of the President:
The reason were here is a total failure of the president to lead on this issue.
6. Its interesting to note Obamas quick shift in tone over the past year. In January 2014, the President called ISIS the JV team of radical Islam. In his letter to Congress last week, Obama takes the terrorist organization much more seriously:
If left unchecked, ISIL will pose a threat beyond the Middle East, including to the United States homeland.
The reasons for Obamas change in position are up for debate, but the threat of ISIS is not. Recent polls show that more than half of Americans (54 percent) support the Presidents proposal.
Obama wants that 3 year end date clause. Nothing else. He's been cutting deals across the Muslim world by telegraphing war plans. What i***t would see any value in that other than the people you are engaged with. No one would do that from a one on one fist fight to a full blown war. It aids the enemy. Nothing else.
Getty - Pool
For months now, President Obama has pushed for his war plans against the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) by citing the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) former President Bush put in place after the 9/11 attacks. Obama made it clear he did not need Congress to approve his actions.
So, why is he suddenly asking permission from Congress? Thats the question making its way around the media this week, as Obama sent in a formal request for a new AUMF.
1. There are differing opinions on his reasoning, with somelike NPRs Mara Liassonarguing the President simply wants Congress behind him:
Well, the president said he doesnt need permission from Congress, that he has enough authorities in his power as commander-in-chief and because of a 2002 authorization to use military force AUMF. But he says the U.S. is always stronger when it acts militarily if it has buy-in from Congress. And, of course, Congress has been asking the president to send them an authorization.
2. According to Fox News:
The White House insists it already has the authority to launch airstrikes against ISIS militants in Iraq and Syria, as the U.S. has been doing for months, but wants Congress to sign off in order to demonstrate American unity.
3. Others, like Huffington Posts Jen Bendery, claim the new AUMF would give Congress a chance to look good on this issue:
Congress is in this place where, as one senator told me this week, they like to beat their chests and say Were the ones who control war authorization. Its the constitutional right of Congress to do this. Were the ones. We have the power. But we dont really want to do it. So, Obama did this. This is Obamas war.'
4. Some argue that Obama needs to ask Congress for permission because of the difference between drone strikes and more traditional military force. NBC reports:
His proposed authorization would last for three years and would have no geographical limitations. It also calls for flexibility for limited ground operations by the U.S. military, but rules out a longstanding ground force.
5. The Washington quotes Republican Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee. He believes Obamas request isnt sincere, but rather a way to shift blame after a failure of leadership on the part of the President:
The reason were here is a total failure of the president to lead on this issue.
6. Its interesting to note Obamas quick shift in tone over the past year. In January 2014, the President called ISIS the JV team of radical Islam. In his letter to Congress last week, Obama takes the terrorist organization much more seriously:
If left unchecked, ISIL will pose a threat beyond the Middle East, including to the United States homeland.
The reasons for Obamas change in position are up for debate, but the threat of ISIS is not. Recent polls show that more than half of Americans (54 percent) support the Presidents proposal.
Feb 16, 2015 14:08:06 #
Yes, isn't it odd that needs a v**e when it's only a J.V. team. Even with smart bombs spotters are needed if for nothing else to report real damage. When Bush was using smart bombs we were k*****g unintended but not a word when Obama does this.
I agree with Corker, this will be nothing but cover for the White House. Obama has NO plan and shy's away putting in someone's court.
I agree with Corker, this will be nothing but cover for the White House. Obama has NO plan and shy's away putting in someone's court.
missinglink wrote:
Obama wants that 3 year end date clause. Nothing e... (show quote)
Feb 16, 2015 14:27:11 #
Yup. He already has the monetary means. I wouldn't trust his true motives on any issue much less one of war. His earlier words on who he would support if the winds change direction should be in play for anything he does internationally without exception.
bmac32 wrote:
Yes, isn't it odd that needs a v**e when it's only a J.V. team. Even with smart bombs spotters are needed if for nothing else to report real damage. When Bush was using smart bombs we were k*****g unintended but not a word when Obama does this.
I agree with Corker, this will be nothing but cover for the White House. Obama has NO plan and shy's away putting in someone's court.
I agree with Corker, this will be nothing but cover for the White House. Obama has NO plan and shy's away putting in someone's court.
Feb 16, 2015 15:23:05 #
People don't seem to understand 'I'll stand with the Muslims' which I don't understand at all. They want an America President to stand against their own country? When I see such a statement dismissed I have to wonder what's in that head, rocks?
missinglink wrote:
Yup. He already has the monetary means. I wouldn't trust his true motives on any issue much less one of war. His earlier words on who he would support if the winds change direction should be in play for anything he does internationally without exception.
Feb 16, 2015 16:24:13 #
I know. Disheartening at the least. A sign of much future danger for certain. As long as such a large portion of our citizenry holds on to their world views we will repeat the same mistake once again.
bmac32 wrote:
People don't seem to understand 'I'll stand with the Muslims' which I don't understand at all. They want an America President to stand against their own country? When I see such a statement dismissed I have to wonder what's in that head, rocks?
Feb 16, 2015 21:06:07 #
Now where is that BB gun?
missinglink wrote:
I know. Disheartening at the least. A sign of much future danger for certain. As long as such a large portion of our citizenry holds on to their world views we will repeat the same mistake once again.
Feb 16, 2015 21:08:10 #
Yup. A target rich environment. :lol:
bmac32 wrote:
Now where is that BB gun?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.