BABY BARRY O GOT A NEW TOY TODAY WHEN THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE VOTED TO GIVE HIM THE WAR HE ALWAYS WANTED, THE ONE HE HAD MANY WET DREAMS OVER, THE ONE THAT LED HIM TO AWAKE TO HIS TINY PENIS STUCK TO THE SHEETS FROM HIS OWN O-JUICE.
REACHED FOR COMMENT, FADED CELEBRITY BARRY O DECLARED, "I'D BEAT OFF BUT I'VE ALREADY RUBBED MYSELF RAW!"
This afternoon, Senator Robert Menendez declared, "I know some may see this as limiting but at the end of the day, Americans will not be supportive of an authorization of an endless war."
He was speaking at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the Islamic State and the administration's lack of authorization of force, from Congress, to conduct the current bombings taking place in Iraq. Secretary of State John Kerry was appearing before the Committee "to provide the administration's views," as Committee Chair Robert Mendendez explained.
But he appeared to believe he was elsewhere -- possibly on a parade float?
Kerry was looking around, grinning and waving.
As Menendez declared Americans would not "be supportive of an authorization of an endless war."
As Menendez declared, "They do not want us to occupy Iraq for decades."
Has John Kerry morphed into Johnny Kardashian?
"I think the American people expect their Congressional leaders to engage fully on this issue," Chair Menendez said as Kerry all but pulled out a compact and mirror
AUMF is the "Authorization of the Use of Military Force." ISIL is one of the names tossed around for the Islamic State. With that in mind, we'll note these remarks from the hearing.
Chair Robert Menendez: Well thank you, Mr. Secretary, let me just say there is I think undoubtedly and I'll let members express themselves, there is a bold bipartisan view that we need to defeat ISIL and I think there is no debate about that. And virtually every political element from the spectrum those who might be considered dovish to those who might be considered hawkish -- and everybody in between -- I think, has a common collective goal of defeating ISIL. Now I must say that the administration has not sent us -- five, six months into this engagement -- an AUMF. And had the administration sent us an AUMF maybe we would be better versed as to what the administration seeks or does not seek and that would be the subject of Congressional debate. But that has not happened. And with reference to my distinguished Ranking Member's comments? You know, if we wait for that and it's not forthcoming by this or any other administration then the absence of getting an AUMF from the executive branch and Congress not acting because it's waiting for an AUMF from the executive branch would in essence create a de facto veto of the Constitutional prerogatives and responsibilities that the Congress has. And so, there are many of us on the Committee who, in the absence of receiving a AUMF for the purposes of understanding the administration's views felt that it is Congress' responsibility to move forward and define it. Now no one has worked harder in the last two years as a chairman of this Committee to make this a bipartisan effort not just on the AUMF but across the spectrum. And I'm proud to say that we have -- working with the Ranking Member, we have virually passed out every major legislation on some of the critical issues of our time from the AUMF on Syria and the use of chemical weapons to OES reform to Kor -- to North Korea to Iran -- On a whole host of issues, we have been bipartisan. Virtually ever nomination except for three -- of hundreds -- have largely been on a bipartisan basis. So there's no one who has striven harder in this process. But there are some principled views here that may not be reconcilable. And it starts with when the administration itself -- and I think you've reiterated what you've said -- earlier in your previous visit here that the president has been clear that his policy that the United States military forces will not be deployed to conduct ground combat operations ISIL. That it will be the responsibility of local forces because that's what our local partners and allies want. What is best for preserving our coalition and most importantly what is in the best interests of the United States. Now there are those members of the Committee and the Congress who have a much different view than that. They would have a very robust and open ended -- uhhhhh-- use of combat forces in this regard. And if the administration wants that then it should come forth and ask for that.
Menendez was speaking after Kerry finished reading his opening statement.
The Chair must have been mistaken, right?
Surely the White House doesn't want US forces in combat on the ground in Iraq, right?
Kerry, reading from his opening statement:
On the issue of combat operations, I know that this is hotly debated, with passionate and persuasive arguments on both sides. The President has been clear that his policy is that U.S. military forces will not be deployed to conduct ground combat operations against ISIL. That will be the responsibility of local forces because that is what our local partners and allies want, what is best for preserving our Coalition and, most importantly, what is in the best interest of the United States . However, while we certainly believe this is the soundest policy, and while the president has been clear he's open to clarifications on the use of U.S. combat troops to be outlined in an AUMF, that does not mean we should pre-emptively bind the hands of the commander in chief oo or our commanders in the field -- in responding to scenarios and contingencies that are impossible to foresee.
If you found Kerry confusing, you weren't the only one.
Secretary John Kerry: Let me try to help you a little bit on this.
Ranking Member Bob Corker: Well help me this way: Are you going to ever explicitly seek an authorization from Congress?
Secretary John Kerry: We're seeking authorization now. With respect to --
Ranking Member Bob Corker: So you are. And if you didn't receive the authoirzation, will you continue the operation? That's a --
Secretary John Kerry: The authorization for what we're doing nowin both Iraq and Syria?
Ranking Member Bob Corker: That's correct.
Secretary John Kerry: Absolutely we will continue it because we believe we have full authority under the 2001 AUMF and parts of the 2002 AUMF but here's where I want to help you.
Ranking Member Bob Corker: Good.
Secretary John Kerry: If Congress passes a new Dash specific AUMF we will support the inclusion of language in the AUMF that will clarify that the Dash specific AUMF rather than the 2001 AUMF is the basis for military force. And I think that will give comfort to a lot of people. Second, we will also support the repeal of the 2002 AUMF as part of an effort to clarify the ISIL specific AUMF would be the only source of legitimacy for the use of military force against Dash and therefore we would live under the confines of what we pass here.
John wants to play like Congress is confused.
No, the senators knew what they were talking about.
US President Barack Obama told the American people no US troops would be on the ground in combat.
He made that promise.
And now they want to change it.
Throughout the hearing, Kerry repeatedly insisted that the use of ground troops needed to be put into the AUMF. Such as when he insisted, "It does not mean we should pre-emptively bind the hands of the commander-in-chief or our commanders in the field in responding to scenarios and contingencies that are impossible to foresee."
If refusing to send US troops into combat on the ground in Iraq would "bind the hands" of anyone then maybe that needs to be taken up with Barack Obama who is the one who made the promise.
In fact, when he did, there was criticism from some member of Congress -- mainly Republicans -- that he had tipped his hand, let the enemy know how far he'd go.
If Barack wants to take back his promise, the coward needs to stand before the American people and make that announcement.
Congress should not provide him cover to break his promises, cover to lie.
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"