Obama Sends ISIS War Resolution to Congress

[marinemom]

Originally Posted by Aquina1300

ideologically, you're right. But here's the thing, once we get a Republican President, the whole anti-war left is going to rise again. They're silent now because Obama is a Democrat and that's more important to them but they are seething at Obama silently.

When the time comes for a new resolution, there will be a new, sustained and malicious waves of attacks to undermine American resolve.

in other words, Obama ensures that the new president becomes embattled and our resolve again, revolves around domestic partisan hatreds rather than the objective of winning the war.

Aquina, you're right on every point. But I think I can see where we see things a little differently. Let's just say for discussion that we get an R president, but a D congress, and everything you say comes to pass - a rise of the anti-war left, etc. If I'm that R president I say to the congress,

"This is an evil enemy that should be fought. But constitutionally, it's up to you. It is not my decision to make. Do your duty, make a decision, and I will abide by it because that is my constitutional duty. It's on you."

So if the D congress won't renew the AUMF, stop all bombing and pull out the troops that are there. If ISIS raises hell in the area in the absence of U.S. power, the president can tell Congress and the American people, "See? I told you so." The blame would lie squarely on the shoulders of the congressional D's as ISIS committed its atrocities and gained new ground unimpeded by the U.S.

Congressional politicians are gutless. And that is why they would vote for a new authorization if the president embraced this philosophy (just obeying the Constitution). They are way too gutless to risk being blamed for surrendering to ISIS. Remember who we are, Aquina. America doesn't like to surrender. Those D politicians would get slaughtered at the polls if they "voted for surrender" and ISIS took bloody advantage.

What they want is a president who will spend all his political capital on keeping a war going just so they can oppose it. They are comfortable being in that position. We know that. We saw them being comfortable in that position during the last Iraq war.

But if an R president simply embraces the Constitution, he beats them at their own game because the blame goes right onto them, and I can guarantee they won't be comfortable with that.

So this is where we see things a little differently. I don't think the R president should become "embattled" over this at all. He can tell the Congress and the American people that fighting ISIS is a just cause, and that we can fight them and stop them. But it's not up to me; it's up to you through your representatives in Congress, and I will abide by their decision. He shouldn't become embattled; he should simply defer to the Constitution and deflect all blame onto the congressional D's.

[Aquina1300]

Originally Posted by kev86

Well so would 99.9% of the planet , the wtc bomb only killed 6 people which compared to the Oklahoma bomb is nothing

Oh I agree with you on your point. But I guess I didn't state my point clearly enough. McVeigh and Nichols were two people who did this together. Yet, Obama put a full scale law enforcement effort on all militia type groups and tried to root out people based on their hateful ideologies.

Clinton never acknowledged the hateful ideology behind the first WTC bombing. He wouldn't acknowledge it at all and Dick Morris warned him that it was a mistake.

[Aquina1300]

Originally Posted by marinemom

Aquina, you're right on every point. But I think I can see where we see things a little differently. Let's just say for discussion that we get an R president, but a D congress, and everything you say comes to pass - a rise of the anti-war left, etc. If I'm that R president I say to the congress,

"This is an evil enemy that should be fought. But constitutionally, it's up to you. It is not my decision to make. Do your duty, make a decision, and I will abide by it because that is my constitutional duty. It's on you."

So if the D congress won't renew the AUMF, stop all bombing and pull out the troops that are there. If ISIS raises hell in the area in the absence of U.S. power, the president can tell Congress and the American people, "See? I told you so." The blame would lie squarely on the shoulders of the congressional D's as ISIS committed its atrocities and gained new ground unimpeded by the U.S.

Congressional politicians are gutless. And that is why they would vote for a new authorization if the president embraced this philosophy (just obeying the Constitution). They are way too gutless to risk being blamed for surrendering to ISIS. Remember who we are, Aquina. America doesn't like to surrender. Those D politicians would get slaughtered at the polls if they "voted for surrender" and ISIS took bloody advantage.

What they want is a president who will spend all his political capital on keeping a war going just so they can oppose it. They are comfortable being in that position. We know that. We saw them being comfortable in that position during the last Iraq war.

But if an R president simply embraces the Constitution, he beats them at their own game because the blame goes right onto them, and I can guarantee they won't be comfortable with that.

So this is where we see things a little differently. I don't think the R president should become "embattled" over this at all. He can tell the Congress and the American people that fighting ISIS is a just cause, and that we can fight them and stop them. But it's not up to me; it's up to you through your representatives in Congress, and I will abide by their decision. He shouldn't become embattled; he should simply defer to the Constitution and deflect all blame onto the congressional D's.

Politically, I think there's a lot of truth to what you're saying. The problem is, our guys are going to pay for it. while this discussion is taking place, we're going to hamstring the military effort unless the R President just acts. And that's what he's going to be forced to do.

[ericredbeard]

This simply gets the current Pres. off the hook and throws responsibility of deciding to make war or not to make war on Congress. This is where the decision properly belongs, but that's not why Obama is putting the decision before Congress. He doesn't want to destroy ISIS, and he knows very well that the question of war will lead to nothing but bickering and posturing, declaration-making speeches, and closed door congressional panel meetings that will go something like this:


Obama wanted to tear up Libya, and so he just did it. He didn't bother consulting Congres. He's only putting the ISIS war question to Congress because he knows they don't have the backbone to do anything, and he gets to dodge responsibility (again) in the process. It's simple really.

[dan123]

FFS. Again?
What's that phrase about not learning from the past? Oh yeah, it makes you a twat.

It was western involvement that took this shit to its current level.

[Tinbuk3]

Obama has no intention of putting boots on the ground.
Just another of his scams to unilaterally procure tax payer money to fund his picks for the coming elections while putting blame on congress.
He will have another sweeping reform session with all the BS issues like immigration and Gitmo and the IRS and all the others that have come up short for funding while he funnels the money to his cronies like he always does.
Its Obama 101, predicable to the last penny.
LOL .. at some its going to blow up in his face.

[marinemom]

Originally Posted by Aquina1300

Politically, I think there's a lot of truth to what you're saying. The problem is, our guys are going to pay for it. while this discussion is taking place, we're going to hamstring the military effort unless the R President just acts. And that's what he's going to be forced to do.

But the president could ask for a renewal of the AUMF well in advance and keep up the military operations at full pace right up until the expiration of the old AUMF. And he could play a little political hardball too. Instead of referring to the impending cessation of military operations as that, he could refer to it as our impending defeat and surrender, as per the wishes of the D congress.

Those congressional opponents would shit a brick if the president did that.

"We will surrender to ISIS in 3 months if Congress doesn't pass a new AUMF"

tick, tock ...

"We will surrender in one month ..."

tick, tock ...

"One week until we surrender ..."

tick, tock ...

"My fellow Americans, the D's in Congress have decided to give ISIS the victory. Accordingly, I have ordered an end to all bombing of ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria, and, as I'm speaking to you, all of our troops are being withdrawn and headed home...."

That is a speech the D's will never let happen. They'll approve a new AUMF before that happens.

[Aquina1300]

Originally Posted by marinemom

But the president could ask for a renewal of the AUMF well in advance and keep up the military operations at full pace right up until the expiration of the old AUMF. And he could play a little political hardball too. Instead of referring to the impending cessation of military operations as that, he could refer to it as our impending defeat and surrender, as per the wishes of the D congress.

Those congressional opponents would shit a brick if the president did that.

"We will surrender to ISIS in 3 months if Congress doesn't pass a new AUMF"

tick, tock ...

"We will surrender in one month ..."

tick, tock ...

"One week until we surrender ..."

tick, tock ...

"My fellow Americans, the D's in Congress have decided to give ISIS the victory. Accordingly, I have ordered an end to all bombing of ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria, and, as I'm speaking to you, all of our troops are being withdrawn and headed home...."

That is a speech the D's will never let happen. They'll approve a new AUMF before that happens.

I think you're underestimating a democratic people's resolve to win wars and Congress' ability to play politics.

I will guarantee you that it will go down to the wire and virtually everything in our political system, including the US budget is going to be held hostage to that.

[Aquina1300]

Originally Posted by ericredbeard

This simply gets the current Pres. off the hook and throws responsibility of deciding to make war or not to make war on Congress. This is where the decision properly belongs, but that's not why Obama is putting the decision before Congress. He doesn't want to destroy ISIS, and he knows very well that the question of war will lead to nothing but bickering and posturing, declaration-making speeches, and closed door congressional panel meetings that will go something like this:


Obama wanted to tear up Libya, and so he just did it. He didn't bother consulting Congres. He's only putting the ISIS war question to Congress because he knows they don't have the backbone to do anything, and he gets to dodge responsibility (again) in the process. It's simple really.

Yep. I have to agree. Obama doesn't like to make moves unless he can blame someone else if the move goes sour.

[Tinbuk3]

Look .. Obama has been and still is playing everyone around the world against each other and pinning blame.
I don't see whats any different about any of this do any on you?
That's his whole game, stir shit point finger rinse repeat.
FFS sake he campaigning nothing more.
He is a charlatan and a carpetbagger and he is not going to stop until we see him for what he is.
WAKE UP!