Reply With Quote
Bush Jr. 2.0
What no thoughts on his plan to take us back into war?
This forum sure is missing the good ole days of having a Republican in office for everyone to criticize.
Bush Jr. 2.0
What'd the say? I never watch that got's speeches anymore. His voice is nails on the chalkboard when he tries to make every sentence sound fake inspiring.
Air campaign expanded in Iraq and extended to Syria, sending another 450 troops, arming Syrian rebels, and he thinks it would be cool if congress gives him authority but if not he's doing it anyway.
And the rest amounted to USA! USA! although he said it more like usa usa usa
You miss NBADan that much?
Hope. Change. Si se puede!
lol he was better than boutons.
We are doing this same thing on a smaller scale in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Lybia...
Feel free to add to the list.
True but those are much much much smaller scale. As I heard one commentator say, Obama basically announced perpetual war as official US policy tonight.
“Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not Islamic,”
Yeah that was pretty funny. I had to pause the speech at that point while my wife yelled at the tv.“Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not Islamic,”
When we win, how long will it take for a new group to emerge from there?
dubya and head don't have to be in office for their storm to continue, for decades.
“Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not Islamic,”
Damn I wish I would have watched Uncle Tom now.
What war has he taken us into? No military troops will be on the ground.
“Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not Islamic,”
US has been "destroying" AQ in Yemen ... FOR 13 YEARS
meanwhile, House Repug sociopaths, OK with $Ts for the MIC, cut the Obama funding for Ebola aid to Africa ( for racist Repugs, n!gg@s aren't worth saving).
US has been "destroying" AQ in Yemen ... FOR 13 YEARS
meanwhile, House Repug sociopaths, OK with $Ts for the MIC, cut the Obama funding for Ebola aid to Africa ( for racist Repugs, n!gg@s aren't worth saving).
Gawt damn racist, GWB
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...ven-from-foes/
GWB didn't have the 2010+ teabagging/sociopaths in the House.
Praising GWB to excuse today's Repug House nutters is like saying today's Repugs are not racist because of Abe Lincoln, or 60s Repugs passed Medicare, Medicaid, VRA.
btw, this is GWB in Africa:
"A senior United Nations official has accused President George Bush of "doing damage to Africa" by cutting funding for condoms, a move which may jeopardise the successful fight against HIV/Aids in Uganda.Stephen Lewis, the UN secretary general's special envoy for HIV/Aids in Africa, said US cuts in funding for condoms and an emphasis on promoting abstinence had contributed to a shortage of condoms in Uganda, one of the few African countries which has succeeded in reducing its infection rate.
"There is no doubt in my mind that the condom crisis in Uganda is being driven by [US policies]," Mr Lewis said yesterday. "To impose a dogma-driven policy that is fundamentally flawed is doing damage to Africa."
The condom shortage has developed because both the Ugandan government and the US, which is the main donor for HIV/Aids prevention, have allowed supplies to dwindle, according to an American pressure group, the Centre for Health and Gender Equity (Change).
In 2003, President Bush declared he would spend $15bn on his emergency plan for Aids relief, but receiving aid under the programme has moral strings attached.
Recipient countries have to emphasise abstinence over condoms, and - under a congressional amendment - they must condemn pros ution."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/aug/30/usa.aids
Puritanical America trying to impose its morals and ethics on Africa
Christian Taleban abstinence is a huge failure in USA, never mind Africa.
nbadan had quality takes on education tbh.
I miss Clandestino, tbh.
Obama's legal rationale for Isis strikes: shoot first, ask Congress later
For expanded Isis strikes, president relies on legal authority he disavowed only a year ago
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...legal-argumentIn the space of a single primetime address on Wednesday night, Barack Obama dealt a crippling blow to a creaking, 40-year old effort to restore legislative primacy to American warmaking - a far easier adversary to vanquish than the Islamic State. Obama’s legal arguments for unilaterally expanding a war expected to last years have shocked even his supporters.
Ahead of Wednesday’s speech the White House signaled that Obama already “has the authority he needs to take action” against Isis without congressional approval. Obama said he would welcome congressional support but framed it as optional, save for the authorisations and the $500m he wants to use the US military to train Syrian rebels. Bipartisan congressional leaders who met with Obama at the White House on Tuesday expressed no outrage.
The administration’s rationale, at odds with the war it is steadily expanding, is to forestall an endless conflict foisted upon it by a bloodthirsty legislature. Yet one of the main authorities Obama is relying on for avoiding Congress is the 2001 wellspring of the war on terrorism he advocated repealing only last year, a do ent known as the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) that few think actually applies to Isis.
Taken together with the congressional leadership’s shrug, Obama has stripped the veneer off a contemporary fact of American national security: presidents make war on their own, and congresses acquiesce.
The cons ution envisions the exact opposite cir stance. A 1973 reform, the War Powers Resolution, attempted a cons utional restoration in the wake of the Vietnam war, ensuring that the legal authorisation for conflict deployments were voided after 60 days. Yet its restrictions on military action have proven far less durable in conflicts like Grenada, Kosovo, Libya and now the 2014-vintage Iraq war.
For the Obama administration, an allergy to congressional authorisation is enmeshed with the president’s stated desire to end what he last year termed a “perpetual war” footing. It has led Obama in directions legal scholars consider highly questionable.
Some of Obama’s legislative brushoffs are straightforward. The administration did not seek legislative authority for its 2011 Libya air war, something Congress was unlikely to grant. Scepticism also mounted in Congress last year when Obama proposed attacking Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. Secretary of state John Kerry told the Huffington Post that Obama could bomb Assad even if Congress voted against it.
But not only has Obama rejected restrictions of his warmaking power, he has also rejected legislative expansions of it - a more curious choice.
In 2010, shortly after the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives, the incoming chairman of the armed services committee, Buck McKeon of California, endorsed passing a new congressional authorisation for the so-called war on terrorism. McKeon reasoned that a mutating terror threat had pushed the legal boundaries of the brief 2001 AUMF and that a new generation of legislators had not granted their endorsement.
Yet when McKeon’s committee invited the administration’s thoughts, its representative rejected the effort. Jeh Johnson, then the Pentagon’s chief lawyer and now secretary of homeland security, said the 2001 law - passed before al-Qaida’s contemporary affiliates in Yemen, Somalia and north Africa existed, let alone the emergence of Isis, which is no longer part of al-Qaida - provided “sufficient” legal authority for contemporary US counterterrorism.
According to several administration officials over the years, Obama has been wary that Congress will offer up new laws that entrench and expand an amorphous war that, in his mind, he has waged with the minimum necessary amount of force. Obama last year advocated the eventual repeal of the 2001 authorisation - as well as the 2002 congressional approval of the Iraq war - to aid in turning a page on a long era of US warfare.
Yet on Wednesday a senior administration official told reporters that the 2001 authorisation covered the war against Isis. Legal scholars have already debated its coverage of al-Qaida affiliates that did not exist in 2001. Isis, however, is not an al-Qaida affiliate, having been specifically disavowed by al-Qaida’s leader, Ayman Zawahiri. Ken Gude of the liberal Center for American Progress, a thinktank close to the administration, tweeted that he was “utterly shocked” the administration would contend the 2001 authority applied - an argument he had earlier in the day called “laughable.”
Asked to explain the administration’s reasoning, a different senior US official acknowledged the “split” between al-Qaida and Isis but indicated the administration considered it legally immaterial. In an email, using the administration’s preferred acronym for Isis, the official wrote:
Based on ISIL’s longstanding relationship with al-Qa’ida (AQ) and Usama bin Laden; its long history of conducting, and continued desire to conduct, attacks against U.S. persons and interests, the extensive history of U.S. combat operations against Isil dating back to the time the group first affiliated with AQ in 2004; and Isil’s position - supported by some individual members and factions of AQ-aligned groups - that it is the true inheritor of Usama bin Laden’s legacy, the President may rely on the 2001 AUMF as statutory authority for the use of force against Isil, notwithstanding the recent public split between AQ’s senior leadership and Isil.
Obama’s read on Congress has merit. Legislators who endorse congressional authorisation of war against Isis have offered packages that already look beyond the group. Representative Frank Wolf, a Virginia Republican, would give Obama and his successors power to attack all groups sharing “a common violent extremist ideology” - not defined - with Isis and contemporary al-Qaida affiliates. A bill from Senator James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican, would empower the president to confront Isis “and any successor terrorist organisation.”
However, the prevailing view in Congress driving a deferral of legislative authorisation for the Isis war is political. Neither Republicans nor Democrats wish to introduce a wild card into the forthcoming congressional elections. Representative Jack Kingston, a Georgia Republican who favours a vote, observed to the New York Times that many of his colleagues reason: “We can denounce it if it goes bad, and praise it if it goes well and ask what took him so long.” Explanations like those contextualise Congress’s diminishing dissatisfaction with violations of the War Powers Resolution over the course of four decades.
Still, that confluence of interests between Obama and the legislature has left Congress on the margins of what might be considered the Third Iraq War. Members of the US public who do not want a return to war in Iraq, nor an expansion of war into Syria, are left without a mechanism to prevent it.
While Obama may think of himself as a bulwark against perpetual US war - and while his political adversaries consider him insufficiently martial - his actions tell a different story. Obama’s foreign-policy legacy is marked by escalating and then extending the Afghanistan war beyond his presidency; empowering the CIA and special-operations forces to strike on undeclared battlefields in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya; the 2011 Libya war; and now returning US warplanes to the skies above Iraq, and, soon, expanding their mission to eastern Syria.
Though Obama typically forswears conventional ground combat in his wars, a factor that tends to blunt congressional outrage, the new war Obama unveiled on Wednesday looks like a different test case. His ostensible prohibition on US ground “combat” forces in Iraq elides the 1,100 ground troops he has ordered back into Iraq since June, a figure certain to expand once the US military revitalises training for its Iraqi counterparts and Syrian anti-Isis rebels. Administration officials anticipate a years-long war against the well-financed Isis, and any vote Congress will cast will come after it has begun, making legislative rejection unlikely. All that creates a precedent for future presidents: shoot first, ask permission later, if at all.
The American and global publics can reasonably ask what 13 years of US war have durably achieved. One answer, unlikely to have been anticipated by the architects, caretakers and prac ioners of this conflict, is the hobbling of legislative restrictions on war enshrined in the cons ution, and the expansion of a legal authority Obama said last year kept the country on an unacceptable footing of perpetual war.
crofl buttons
vy65... has NO PROBLEM with all the illegal and lying and violation of civil liberties by dubya, head, their CIA, their DoJ, Dept of der Heimland Security state, etc.
Patriot Act!
AUMF!
John "Aluminum s" Ashcroft!
Gonzalez
John Yoo!
WMD!
Saddam did 9/11!
America goes nuts over beheadings of two American journalists, but doesn't give a peep about USA blowing up 100s weddings, funerals, and all kinds of other collateral murdering of non-combattants.
Link?vy65
Crofl The Guardian ethering Uncle Tom.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
