Barack Obama

Obama is Right to Call for New AUMF to Fight ISIS, But Maddeningly Vague on Its Contents

The president didn't lay out a new plan as much as remind us of what he's been doing for months already.

|

President Barack Obama's speech tonight about the San Bernardino shooting and the Islamic State (ISIS) in Syria and Iraq was a major step forward for at least one reason: He explicitly called for a new authorization for use of military force (AUMF) to combat ISIS. He's done that before, but doing it in front of a primetime national audience might actually have some impact.

As it stands, the president is waging military actions under the terms of the AUMF that was passed on September 14, 2001. That declaration may have ushered in the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) but it is clearly illegitimate to use its directives in our attacks on ISIS, which didn't even exist in its current form at the time of the AUMF's passage.

Yet it's also clear that getting an AUMF past a Republican House and Senate will be no easy matter. Even as many Republicans (and virtually all the GOP presidential candidates) excoriate the president for lacking any strategy in the Middle East, they also refuse to forge a document that would both spell out and limit his options. Earlier this year, for instance, a possible AUMF fell apart over whether the terms were too broad or too narrow, with Sens. Marco Rubio and Rand Paul articulating the competing positions:

Rand Paul offered an amendment—which some Senate Democrats backed—making clear the resolution authorized the president to fight ISIS only in Syria and Iraq. Hawks, by contrast, considered the resolution too narrow. Marco Rubio said it should read: "'We authorize the president to defeat and destroy ISIL.' Period."

Tonight, the president outlined the same strategy for going after ISIS in Syria and Iraq that's been in use for months now. The U.S. and its allies will continue air strikes and arm opposition groups but leave the fighting to Arab forces in the area. Except for American special forces, whose numbers can only be expected to grow. It was good to hear the president recognize that nobody wants to see another decade of American occupation of Iraq or anywhere else. Yet he also stressed working toward a negotiated end of the Syrian civil war as almost a precondition to destryong ISIS (such a ceasefire would allow all the other forces involved to "focus" on ISIS, he said). But the Syrian civil war is almost certainly not going to happen any time soon, especially given the interests of Russia and Iran, who back the Assad regime, and the interests of the United States, which has been committed to regime change for a long time now.

As Obama knows, Assad's regime, not ISIS, is the primary factor behind the refugee crisis, killing eight civilians for every one murdered by ISIS. The most effective anti-ISIS fighters in the region are Kurdish, whose interests are directly at odds with the governments of Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Turkey, creating a situation that is almost insoluble in its political complexity. Coming from a president whose foreign policy adventures have been almost universally disastrous and who has earlier dismissed ISIS as junior varsity and thoroughly containted, this isn't exactly comforting. 

But yes, Congress, do your job and issue a new AUMF specifically regarding ISIS (or any other group that we are already waging war against). It should be difficult to draft and it should be as explicit as possible in setting meaningful limits as to where and why and how we're involved— no "We authorize the president to defeat and destroy ISIL.' Period" please. Or you should have the courage of your convictions and stop funding war actions, which include countless drone strikes in countries with whom we are not at war, that are not authorized.

In terms of domestic initiatives, it seems as if Obama's only real purpose was to show some concern for American fears about mass shootings and domestic terrorism. It was heartening to hear him both honor American Muslims in general while calling for a rejection of jihadist tendencies. But his warmed-over gun-control proposals haven't flown in the past and he didn't even bother grappling with the fact that gun violence is at recent historic lows. Nor did he discuss exactly what it might mean to intensify efforts to engage the Muslim community and "take a harder look" at people who come to the United States from war zones and other geo-political war zones. That he misdescribed how Tashfeen Malik, one of the shooters in San Bernardino, entered the country hardly engenders confidence (she entered on a K1 visa). His belief that the "no-fly list" is some gold standard of constitutional process or useful law enforcement tool is similarly problematic.

Republicans and Democrats have been talking up the need to reinstate the recently ended NSA bulk collection of phone metadata (Marco Rubio hit CNN earlier today to do just that) and Attorney General Loretta Lynch followed in the Obama administration's disturbing tradition of attacking free speech the other day: 

"Now obviously this is a country that is based on free speech," she said. "but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric or, as we saw after 9/11, violence against individuals… when we see that, we will take action."…

"I think it's important that as we again talk about the importance of free speech we make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not America. They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted," she concluded.

What exactly any of that means is unclear but it sure doesn't sound good. More on that here.

What Obama couldn't offer tonight was any reason we should believe that doing the same thing we've been doing overseas or domestically is going to have a different outcome anytime soon.

Which might well be an epitaph for his entire time in office.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

135 responses to “Obama is Right to Call for New AUMF to Fight ISIS, But Maddeningly Vague on Its Contents

  1. Suthenboy|12.6.15 @ 7:44PM|#

    So who else can’t wait to watch Obumbler shoot every democrat in the dick?

    Any bets on whether or not he finally uses the term ‘radical islam’?

    Palin’s Buttplug|12.6.15 @ 8:36PM|#

    I’m waiting on some redneck conservative type like you to say “radical Christianity” or “Christian terrorist”.

    1. You need some attention??? Here’s a vanilla wafer and a pat on the head.

      1. Does anybody eat nilla wafers without banana pudding?

        1. They’re an essential ingredient to the rum ball recipe my family uses. Not sure if that counts, though, since they’re pulverized first.

        2. Nilla wafers exist only to be paired with banana pudding. There’s no other possible use for them.

          1. You could try consecrating them. The added protein probably greatly improves their nutritional value.

        3. Retards love em.

            1. Milanos exist only to accompany the best vanilla ice cream you can find. If the combination isn’t sublime, pitch the ice cream and try again.

      2. Pl?ya Manhattan.|12.6.15 @ 9:40PM|#
        “You need some attention??? Here’s a vanilla wafer and a pat on the head.”

        You could substitute a kick in the balls.

    2. Yes, we know you hate Christianity, but love terrorists. Your kind always does.

    3. PB you nasty little Poo shooter !!!!

      Keep this up and I will sell you back to the organ grinder dancing for tips !!!

      /WHACK

  2. He’s not right becasue the right thing to do is is bring home the troops and close all overseas bases.

    1. And then cocoon America in a giant bubble that keep the meanies from hurting it. Somehow.

      1. That would have been a really good dig, if having planes bomb targets that have already been bombed five times was keeping the meanies away.

      2. No, then implement radical capitalism. Make peoples lives better through the free market. It’s bad for business to kill your customers.

        “If soldiers are not to cross international boundaries, goods must do so. Unless the Shackles can be dropped from trade, bombs will be dropped from the sky.”
        Otto T. Mallery

        1. Except they don’t want capitalism, they want to kill us.

          Look at the Bernadino guy. He had a cushy job, a wife, a home, a kid and they threw it all away just to murder 14 people.

          Look at the 9/11 hijackers, most of them were probably better off than the average American. But they didn’t want material goods, they wanted to murder infidels in the name of Allah.

          1. Oh yeah, and an SUV

          2. And America is the same place it was on 1 December 2015. These idiots are incapable of changing America. They can only create opportunity for Americans to fuck themselves.

            1. “They can only create opportunity for Americans to fuck themselves.”

              And Canuckistanies.
              But let’s deal with the original question: WIH do we need authorization for what is a waste of time?

          3. Except they don’t want capitalism, they want to kill us.

            There are always going people who want to kill you; going on your own killing spree isn’t going to fix that.

            1. “There are always going people who want to kill you; going on your own killing spree isn’t going to fix that.”

              And when you get the state to do it for you, it costs a shit-load of money and generates whole new bureaucracies to waste their and your time. And eat your freedom.

              1. Much better to use distributed-network killing of guys who want to kill you.

                Seriously. Letters of Marque and Reprisal need to be a thing again.

          4. Holmes, Loughner, Lanza — all of them had pretty comfortable lives too and threw it away on craziness. Does that prove that “we” don’t want capitalism?

            It’s so much easier to talk about “they” isn’t it?

            1. The difference is that those people all have neurological issues. And it has nothing to do with capitalism. Muslims have Islam. The economic system means nothing. Look at all the problems Russia has had with their Muslims.

              1. “Muslims have Islam. The economic system means nothing”

                I’d suggest “The Long Divergence”, Timur Kuran. It does mean something; it’s a reminder that adherence to Muslim law cost them any place at the table of modernity, and many resent the messenger and the system which requires them to dump a pre-modern culture.
                But I don’t care. And I don’t want the US (meaning me and you taxpayers) wasting time trying to either kill the Muslim luddites or ‘save the world’ from them.

          5. “… Except they dont want capitalism, they want to kill us.”

            Hahaha, I thought the “they” being referred to in this instance were American politicians.

            There’s no dearth of predators looking to gain from Joe Schmoe Citizens death, so maybe we should all resolve more care with our pronouns while people plot our final ends and the most efficient means to benefit therefrom.

  3. It should be difficult to draft and it should be as explicit as possible in setting meaningful limits as to where and why and how we’re involved…

    And it should include riders repealing Obamacare and banning as many guns as possible!

    1. Every new law should have strict limits on how much carbon can be used in its implementation.

      1. I LIKE this idea! It could log-jam the Fed government for YEARS!

  4. It should be difficult to draft and it should be as explicit as possible in setting meaningful limits as to where and why and how we’re involved…

    And it should either include the words “declaration of war” or it should be considered unconstitutional. There is zero gray area here.

    1. It doesn’t have to include the words “declaration of war,” but it does need to state that war is declared, explicitly using those two words. Like this:

      JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.

      Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America:

      Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

    2. A declaration of war makes no sense when the enemy isn’t another country. ISIS is a pack of outlaws, and the appropriate (and constitutional) measure is to issue letters of marque and reprisal against them, just as was done regarding the Barbary pirates.

      -jcr

      1. A declaration of war makes no sense when the enemy isn’t another country.

        Please don’t misconstrue this statement for being support for a war, but where do you get such notions? There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a declaration of war to be with a nation. Absolutely no reason Congress can’t declare war on an organization.

        1. Wasn’t that the case with the Barbary Pirates?

          The real reason it won’t be done is that the establishment flunkies are worried that it would give legitimacy to ISIS or similar. Which is one of many reasons the flunkies are wrong. If ISIS is truly a threat to the U.S., put them in a grave and damn the worries about appearances.

          1. Wasn’t that the case with the Barbary Pirates?

            The congress issued letters of marque against them.

            -jcr

        2. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a declaration of war to be with a nation.

          There’s nothing in the constitution that prohibits declaring war on an ideology either, but it still doesn’t make any sense to do so.

          -jcr

  5. Fucktard “Constitutional Scholar” starts out with “Let’s throw away the 5th and 2nd amendment.”

    Then, amazingly, finds a way to go downhill from there.

    I cannot believe there are people out there that voted for him twice.

    Talk about deserving a slow bath in a woodchipper …

    1. I cannot believe there are people out there that voted for him twice.

      Don’t some of them write for this publication?

      1. Unfortunately, you are correct, Sloop.

        1. Really? Which writers voted for him twice?

          1. Once is bad enough. Do you expect them all to admit to doing it twice?

    2. From tonight’s speech.

      Now, here at home, we have to work together to address the challenge. There are several steps that Congress should take right away.

      To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? That would be the 2nd and 5th amendment, you asshole. This is a matter of national security.

      We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino. 1. Not all that powerful. 2. No we do not. I know there are some who reject any gun safety measures. Liar. Lying asshole liar. But the fact is that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies — no matter how effective they are — cannot identify every would-be mass shooter, whether that individual is motivated by ISIL or some other hateful ideology. What we can do — and must do — is make it harder for them to kill.

      1. To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? That would be the 2nd and 5th amendment, you asshole. This is a matter of national security.

        Sure… once being put on a “no-fly list” becomes the result of a jury trial, rather than someone in the administration simply not liking someone.

      2. But the fact is that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies — no matter how effective they are — cannot identify every would-be mass shooter, whether that individual is motivated by ISIL or some other hateful ideology.

        But they can prevent anyone in the country from creating or acquiring a firearm or explosive device illegally. Again, either he’s as dumb as a bag of hammers or he thinks the American people are all cake-eaters. And given that he was elected twice, he might be on to something…

    3. Anyone who voted for him twice is guilty of sedition.

      1. I’m about ready to lynch anyone who votes for anything other than against a school bond referendum or SPLOST.
        Quit legitimizing the system.

    4. Twice? They’d vote three times if they could.

      1. In Chicago they did!

  6. But the Syrian civil war is almost certainly not going to happen any time soon, especially given the interests of Russia and Iran, who back the Assad regime, and the interests of the United States, which has been committed to regime change for a long time now.

    Remind me why Obama explicitly committed us to getting rid of Assad?

    1. Racist !!!!1!1

    2. He’s icky. I think. And his wife shops at Macys.

    3. The Republicans made him do it?

      /reason pledge week

    4. The enemies of Israel are the enemies of America?

  7. OT: Chavistas = rekt

    http://www.reuters.com/article…..3Y20151207

    Unfortunately it does not appear the opposition got the 2/3 majority needed to make really substantial change. Also, Maduro might just ignore the elections.

    1. Then they need a violent revolution to overthrow him. That’s what you do with communist thugs. Every communist should be out to death.

      1. Why? I think we need a few communist and fascist countries, just as an on-going demonstration of how those systems aren’t working.

        1. Good point. One or two shit hole countries maybe.

        2. Everyone knows the problem in Venezuela is low oil prices.

          1. Caused by the Koch Bros ™ selling at a loss to destabilize the government!

        3. No. We have that in Venezuela and it isn’t helping. It just becomes a kind of ‘ideological sun’ that empowers our enemies. Crush them and drive them out of power where ever you can.

  8. If i had a private defense company, and wanted a cheaper more effective means of harrassing (and destroying) the shit out of every move ISIS made, there are four easy answers.

    An Iowa class battleship armed with scramjet rounds that can initially fire at a range of around 460NM could reach all of Syria and Iraq. There were estimates that the max range might reach 1500NM. Before their decomissioning, there was development on, and testing of Scramjet rounds in the 60’s and later. The other rounds like EX-148 and others (which would have had a range from 60-100 NM) were also in development.

    1. Even a 440 lb scramjet would be able to unleash over 1 gigajoule of energy at the target. Thats some serious firepower.

      Four ships (young in terms if service life) modernized with scramjet, VLS, Even towed sonar array, nixie and ASROC (occupying some VLS cells goalkeepers, and ciws, (and if they repower the turbo generators for more efficiency and power they can utilize AEGIS) would be a serious way to deal with multiple threats, at a far lower cost, with a far better response time. 460NM at mach 7.1 would be around 9 mins. The response time and the effective combat radius of the ships would be quicker and larger than most anything afloat. Plus, the ability to operate in sea state 7 is a huge plus. Try launching fighters in that weather.

      The CPR might be in the thousands range with scramjet, whereas missles are in the hundreds of thousands to millions range. Add the cost of pilots, and fighters for CVN’s (along with the ship’s own O&M) and you have a very expensive platform, that couldnt lay down 1,200,000 lbs of ordinance in an hour (1,000lb scramjet rounds x 1,200 rounds @ 2.5 RPM.) for each ship. Four ships could provide 4.8 million lbs of ordinance in an hour (not including secondary armament). Serious firepower that would be an welcomed addition to what should be a mix of systems…..instead of carrier admirals fighting to limit competition and effective platforms that might overshadow their beloved ships.

      1. Nice, but would you please identify the enemy?

          1. Covers a lot of ground, if you’ll forgive me…

        1. The one that intervention in Iraq (and elsewhere) created? I completely understand where you are coming from. I was using this as an example.

          1. “The one that intervention in Iraq (and elsewhere) created?”

            No such real enemy exists. ISIS’s members didn’t spring up out of the ground.

            1. SIS’s members didn’t spring up out of the ground.

              Correct. They were created by the US invasion of Iraq.

              AQI=ISI=ISIS

              Blowback. Period!

            2. You must be *this* tall to warmonger.

        2. Nice, but would you please identify the enemy?

          The inhabitants of Raqqah, Mosul and Faluja that do not leave within 24 hour’s notice.

      2. Another shill for BIG SCRAMJET.

      3. Personally, I’m leaning towards massive drops of Fuel-Air Explosives.

        1. #FreeTheClusterBombz!

      4. Bring back the dumb bombs – to hell with collateral damage!

        Uh, no.

  9. If Congress considers an AUMF and rejects it, does that mean Obama ceases all military activity against ISIS and Assad in the region? Or is the AUMF just a rubber stamp to lend legitimacy to what he was going to do regardless?

    1. You already know the answer, Tulpa.

      1. Playa, if that’s tulpa, it’s the least authority-licking sock that’s shown up.
        I doubt…

  10. Carl’s 18 Days of Star Wars, Day 6

    I know you all were waiting with bated breath.


    ‘Star Wars’ Hunts for Han Solo: Disney Sees 2,500 Actors to Fill One Vest

    Disney and Lucasfilm are scouring the galaxy in what some are calling the widest casting search ever for the actor who will play a young Han Solo in the planned Star Wars spinoff movie.

    According to sources, more than 2,500 actors have met on the project or put themselves on tape…

    The contenders are being whittled down before Star Wars spinoff directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller, who worked with [casting director] McCarthy on the hit Jump Street films, hone in on their Han.

    The top-secret Solo project, with a script by Lawrence and Jon Kasdan, is slyly working under the code name “Red Cup,” a reference to the college party staple manufactured by, yep, the Solo Cup Corp. But with every agency sending clients between the ages of 18 and 32 in to read for the part, names are beginning to surface.

    Actors who have read in person or auditioned via videotape range from the well-known (Dave Franco, 30, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, 25, and Miles Teller, 28) to the sort-of-known (Jurassic World‘s Nick Robinson, 20) to relative unknowns (Kickin’ It‘s Leo Howard, 18, and The Purge‘s Tony Oller, 24) and also vary significantly in age.

    1. “well-known”

      LOL

      1. I’d argue that Dave Franco is well-known — though not my first choice for Solo. And, erm, I’m aware of Miles Teller.

    2. Idris Elba or Disney is teh RACIST!!!!

  11. they also refuse to forge a document that would both spell out and limit his options.

    But, enough about his birth certificate.

    1. Bazing

  12. But the fact is that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies — no matter how effective they are — cannot identify every would-be mass shooter, whether that individual is motivated by ISIL or some other hateful ideology. What we can do — and must do — is make it harder for them to kill.

    “I am therefore issuing an Executive Order requiring every resident of America to purchase and wear body armor while in public.”

  13. OT:

    If you thought the New York Daily News went insane over the last couple of weeks, check out tomorrow’s front page.

    1. So one Dik Dik, one pussy. How conservative.

    2. I understand the puppies and other baby animals, but how does the polar bear with the traffic cone on its head fit in?

    3. When your business is dying, you take risks. At least Playboy and the NYDN have people talking about them one last time before the auctioneers come for all their swiveling desk chairs.

    4. Headline written by a fucking toddler. God people are daf

  14. A new AUMF to combat ISIS…and a fucking time machine to send it to a year and a half ago. If Congress had balls and/or brains they’d have cut off funding by now.

    1. If Congress had balls and/or brains

      Well there’s your problem. To solve this I think we’re going to have to clone Justin Amash 534 times.

      1. Brains and BALLS?!?1

        You triggered me with your cisheteroshitlord sexism!1!1!1!!

        Prepare for a flood of tears and a nasty twitter campaign

  15. He explicitly called for a new authorization for use of military force (AUMF) to combat ISIS. He’s done that before, but doing it in front of a primetime national audience might actually have some impact.

    Why on earth would he need that? BHO has been waging illegal wars without Congress’s approval for years. Short of issuing an executive order banning rifles or something similarly leaden even by D standards, he’s not going to be impeached, so why bother to ask for permission now?

    This is a transparent attempt to force the GOP to own BHO’s latest war or appear soft on terror. What it accomplishes, natch, is to remind everyone that the president of the United States is basically just an obnoxious celebrity and camera hog who interrupts our weekend television to lecture us and blather on and on.

    1. Obama either needs to exterminate ISIS and all their allies, or all it a day. This half ass bullshit where we bomb aspirin factories and such after giving an hour’s notice doesn’t cut it.

  16. “his warmed over gun proposals haven’t flown”

    Neither have the people on the no fly list.

    1. If you’re going to warm over your gun, make sure it’s unloaded first.

    2. Given Obama’s troubling subversive connections, HE should be on a no fly list, and a black list.

        1. RACIST !!!

      1. As a faithful reader of the newspaper comics, I noted several weeks back that Truedeau spent at least a week documenting that Frank Sinatra had links to the mob, and that Reagan liked Sinatra as a singer!!!!
        A singer has connections to the mob and a GOP president likes that singer!!!!!!!
        I also noted that the propagandist made no comment regarding the mob connections of a certain D president.

        1. Kennedy!

          Too soon?

  17. OT: Without the police, who will execute the hostages?

    http://usat.ly/1QpW71M

    1. The gunman who was arrested had made previous threats against the man who bought his motorcycle, White said. Those threats were reported to authorities, including the gunman’s probation officer, he said.

      “Had somebody been able to act on that information sooner, none of this would have happened yesterday,” White said.

  18. Was there something going on that I should be paying attention to? Been playing Ps3 and repairing the upstairs toilet.

    1. “Been playing Ps3 and repairing the upstairs toilet.”

      ‘Way more important than spending billions trying to kill the couple of thousand rag-head luddites somewhere in the middle east.

      1. BUT…. BUT…. BUT…. CONGRESS WILL NOT DO AS I SAY !!!!!! =(

    2. Toilet was definitely more important.

    3. You have a toilet repair game? My favorite game is the yard work simulator.

  19. Slightly off topic: the worst thing I’ve ever seen printed in a paper. Seriously, it’s that fucking bad.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/new…..ailyNewsTw

    What kind of publication allows that kind of shit?

    1. Covered (with shit) earlier.

    2. WOW, so he deserved to die anyway, amirite?

  20. Posted this earlier, but:
    “Obama says U.S. has a plan to deal with terrorist ‘thugs'”

    And then, maybe we see what it is:
    “Clinton asks high-tech ‘disrupters’ to go after Islamic State”
    http://www.sfgate.com/

    So Obo’s plan is to get Shrillary to beg for help from those who are trying to make a living.

    1. Obumbles, and the Shrill hate capitalism so much that they cannot see Agorism as a viable tool in Foreign Policy.

      “So Obo’s plan is to get Shrillary to beg for help from those who are trying to make a living?”

      Every normal person wants to “Make a Living”

      Market building over Nation building.

  21. I’m tired of Obama and similar retards “remembering” a wave of post-9/11 anti-Muslim hate crimes that never happened.

    American *Jews* suffered more hate crimes per capita in 2002 than American Muslims did.

    1. There were about as many backlash hate crimes against Muslims after 9/11 as there were Muslims dancing in the streets of New Jersey celebrating the attacks.

      Just don’t expect the media to go out of its way to give Obama ‘Four Pinocchios” like they did to Trump’s nearly identical B.S.

  22. Huma Abedin is from Pakistan. One of the San Bernardino shooters Tashfeen Malik was born in Pakistan. Her husband, the other shooter, Syed Rizwan Farook’s parents were born in Pakistan.

    Obama, Hillary, and the Muslim Brotherhood connection

  23. Obama is being pressured on all sides by the warmongers and bomb droppers. I thought he did great at resisting the calls for bellicosity and panicked hysteria. Instead he reiterated our commitment to American values. That is EXACTLY what he needed to say and he said it. This could easily have gone down the road of Drug War propaganda of the 80s (remember Ron and Nancy’s deranged propaganda about the ‘scourge of marijuana’ killen our chillen). In fact I wonder if Obama was rebuking Loretta for her anti-speech tirade the other day. The only thing I would add is that we should support arab factions if they embrace freedom and tolerance, and not simply because they declare an oath of loyalty to us. Otherwise, phuckem.

    1. Yay! Cake!

    2. He is in his second term, all he has to do to “resist the calls” is say: “nope”. So either he doesn’t have any fucking principles (surprise!) or else he is not “resisting” anything and is just fucking with people.

  24. The French get it right.

    Enjoy the gnashing of cosmotarian teeth and the lamentations of their same-sex spouses.

    1. Yes, nobody predicted the rise of the Front National. You’re so smart. But what is to be expected of a man whose lifetime accomplishments amount to ruling a bunch of spoiled children and losing to the British at every turn.

  25. Obama will do whatever he pleases without authorization and Congress will do squat about it. They have zero balls.

  26. an epitaph for his entire time in office

    Bush did it!

    Not my fault.

    Let me be clear, not to sugarcoat it, but things were much worse that we thought.

    Republicans are obstructing progress.

    ….any others?

    1. “….any others?”

      “When you’re ready to see things my way, I’ll be on the back 9..”

  27. But yes, Congress, do your job and issue a new AUMF

    No, Congress, please DON’T authorize more war.

    1. The best deal America can get is surrender. We should take it.

      No More War.

  28. Obama is (rightly) faulted for not getting a new AUMF for ISIS, but mostly by people who are (at best) skeptical that military intervention will lead to anything “desirable”.

    At the same time, Republicans are generally demanding that he be MORE forceful against ISIS, without simultaneously pushing for a proper AUMF. It’s quite apparent that the Republicans want zero responsibility if/when a war against ISIS turns to shit (for whatever reason). It’ll be interesting to see what one of them really does if he wins the White House next year.

  29. Memo ro Nick Gillespie|:

    Obama has ALREADY put out a proposal for an AUMF way back in February, You (and Congress) can find it at the whitehouse,gov. (I tried posting the URL but reason’s comments system kept claiming “Your comment contains a word that is too long.)

    Hope this helps.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.