DID YOU HEAR?
GUESS WHO GOT NO-SHOWED?
A CERTAIN MAN WHO'S IN THE WHITE HOUSE.
A CERTAIN FADED CELEBRITY NAMED . . . BARACK OBAMA.
THOSE ARE THE FOUR NAMES OF THE NO SHOWS.
TECH GIANTS AND THEY SKIPPED A FACE-TO-FACE WITH BARRY O.
"HOUSTON, THE EGO HAS LANDED. AND IT WAS A HARD LANDING. A CRASH LANDING. BARRY'S GOING TO NEED A MEDIC!"
Yesterday, US President Barack Obama sent a written list of what he wanted from the Congress regarding his ongoing actions against Iraq and Syria that supposedly will defeat the Islamic State. Since August 8th, he's been bombing Iraq and now he wants the US Congress to make it legal by passing an Authorization of Use of Military Force.
Joseph Kishore (WSWS) points out:
There are no geographical limits to the military action sanctioned by the resolution. Making clear the global framework of the new “war on ISIS,” Obama wrote in a letter to Congress that ISIS could “pose a threat beyond the Middle East, including to the United States homeland.”The inclusion of language ending the authorization in three years unless the resolution is renewed has as much significance as similar “sunset” provisions in the Patriot Act, which has been routinely reauthorized by Congress. In his announcement of the AUMF, Obama stressed that the three-year framework did not represent a “timetable” for military action and could be extended by Congress under his successor in the White House.
In an attempt to delude the American public, which is overwhelmingly opposed to war, that the new operations are to be limited in scope, the authorization states that it does not provide for “enduring offensive ground combat operations.” Again, the wording is formulated so as to allow virtually any type of military action. There is no definition of “enduring” or “offensive.”
Extended combat operations in Iraq, Syria or another country could be justified on the grounds that they were “defensive” or not “enduring.”
Obama claimed that the resolution “does not call for the deployment of US ground combat forces in Iraq and Syria.” This is simply a lie. Obama last year deployed 1,500 US troops to Iraq, many of which have already been involved in combat operations. The authorization would sanction a vast expansion of such operations.
Eric Garris (Antiwar.com) believes a huge public outcry could sink the request:
It’s time for a preemptive strike at the War Party’s congressional fortress. Please call your congressional representative today and urge them to vote no on the AUMF – because we can win this one. We stopped them last time when Obama decided it was time to bomb Syria. One by one members of Congress who were inclined to authorize that military campaign backed away when faced with a deluge of outraged calls from constituents. We can do it again – oh yes we can!
Please make that call today – because the future of this country, not to mention the peace of the world, depends on it.
And we need your help to stop this war before it starts. Your tax-deductible donation to Antiwar.com will give us the resources to stop the well-funded War Party in its tracks – but we can do it without you! Make your contribution today – because the future of our country. and the peace of the world, depends on it.
Could an outcry bury Barack's AUMF?
Today, US House Rep Lois Frankel wondered about what Barack was proposing, "Is military action the only thing? How does humanitarian aid fit into this? Or educating women? Is this the only way out? And where does it leave us? Who fills the void if we get ISIL? I mean, I could ask a lot more questions." She was speaking at the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing today.
There's also these comments from the hearing.
US House Rep Lee Zeldin: The President in his original strategy back in September when he gave a speech, he was talking about dropping bombs and reliance on Iraqi military and law enforcement to finish the job. When I was in Iraq in 2006, it was an accomplishment to get them to show up to work. Expecting no threat that day, getting them to show up to a precinct that's a quarter mile from their house. We were trying to get them to show up. So relying on elements on the ground who have no morale, no patriotism, they don't have the resources, they don't have the training, they don't have the will is something that we have to take into account. In that speech, the President said this was going to be different than past wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because there will be no boots on the ground. And, in the same exact speech, he says, "Tonight I'm announcing I'm sending 495 additional troops to Iraq. Someone shows me a picture of their grandson in the Air Force. He's in Baghdad. He's wearing the uniform. He's carrying a rifle. He's wearing boots. Those boots are on the ground. The use of this term 'boots on the ground' here in Washington? The reality is that we have boots on the ground right now and I think we need to not worry about what polls say what wording sounds the best.
We'll come back to the hearing but Frankel and Zeldin's reaction and that of others certainly suggest that Eric Garris is making a valid argument that pressure can be brought to bear and have an effect.
In addition, David Sherfinski (Washington Times) reports on a Fox News poll which found 73% of respondents feel Barack's lacks "a clear strategy for defeating the Islamic State." And David Espo and Matthew Daly (AP) report no one in Congress has yet stepped up to champion it.
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"