Obama Deploys Five More Terrorists Against The West

[KingOrfeo]

When IS Obama going to do it?

In the SOTU address, he asked Congress for an AUMF against ISIS. Let's see if he gets it.

 

[Beco]

In the SOTU address, he asked Congress for an AUMF against ISIS. Let's see if he gets it.

He also wants to raise taxes like crazy....lets see if he gets it.

 

[KingOrfeo]

He also wants to raise taxes like crazy....lets see if he gets it.

You want a war against ISIS? Wars cost money.

W is the only national leader I've ever heard of who cut taxes at the start of a war. Not a good idea in hindsight.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You want a war against ISIS? Wars cost money.

W is the only national leader I've ever heard of who cut taxes at the start of a war. Not a good idea in hindsight.

You forgot that Republicans hate paying bills.....all that personal responsibility makes them say "Taxes suck fuck paying our bills....let's invade somewhere else with no goals in mind."

 

[unregistered]

 

[miles]

I love how people continue to criticize Obama for the way he's trying to clean up Bush's mess.

He's had six years. Blame him.

It will take a generation to undo the fucking mess he's created.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The reason he wants one is because the one he has now, the one he used to intervene in Lybia, gives him too much authority. He wants the Congress to pass a AUMF that tells him he cannot introduce ground troops, so he doesn't have to answer embarrassing questions concerning timidity. Which in my opinion would be an unconstitutional direction of tactics to the CinC..

And you know this how?

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

Because he's asking for that specific language in his AUMF.

That's not what he said in the SOTU address.

Instead of Americans patrolling the valleys of Afghanistan, we've trained their security forces, who've now taken the lead, and we've honored our troops' sacrifice by supporting that country's first democratic transition. Instead of sending large ground forces overseas, we're partnering with nations from South Asia to North Africa to deny safe haven to terrorists who threaten America. In Iraq and Syria, American leadership -- including our military power -- is stopping ISIL's advance. Instead of getting dragged into another ground war in the Middle East, we are leading a broad coalition, including Arab nations, to degrade and ultimately destroy this terrorist group. We're also supporting a moderate opposition in Syria that can help us in this effort, and assisting people everywhere who stand up to the bankrupt ideology of violent extremism. This effort will take time. It will require focus. But we will succeed. And tonight, I call on this Congress to show the world that we are united in this mission by passing a resolution to authorize the use of force against ISIL.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

Why don't you study the issue and read the language yourself? The President hasn't submitted a draft but Senate Democrats have passed a version out of committee which many say echoes the administration position:

"Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), the chairman, laid out the authorization's details: It limits military force against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, also known as ISIL, to three years; it requires the administration to report to Congress every 60 days; and it prohibits the deployment of U.S. combat troops, except in specific cases such as those involving the rescue or protection of U.S. soldiers or for intelligence operations."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/11/war-authorization-islamic-state-isil_n_6308114.html

This shows Democrats believing they can tell the President how to conduct war.

Of course they can -- that is, Congress can -- or why would an AUMF be necessary at all? A declaration of war (will we ever see another?!) might be open-ended, but an AUMF is the kind of thing that can come with strings attached.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

There is only one CinC, they cannot dictate tactics to the President. They can cut his funds, they can declare war or not declare war, but they cannot tell him how to conduct war, what forces to use and what forces not to use. Take note that the War Powers Act has never been upheld by the SCOTUS.

Nor overturned. All these remain open questions constitutionally, and nothing is unconstitutional until the courts say it is.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

That's bullshit. Was Dred Scott constitutional?

Yes, unfortunately. (Though the "no rights a white man was bound to respect" language is probably dictum unnecessary to the result.) The Constitution required changing on certain points. But I don't see how it requires changing on war powers -- whatever happens in that field is always going to be more or less what the executive and legislative branches can agree on. Since the POTUS commands the forces and Congress controls the money.