But you could feel him thinking it…it was radiating off of him just like smug superiority that he doesn’t listen to no stinking main stream media! 
mmm, just look at that post.
I’ll leave you guys with your WW2 Germans, the gravitas of CNN, the fourth childish tongue poke of the thread, and the last word.
Well, if you can’t back up what you’ve posted, I suppose fleeing the thread is the next best option.
This has to be one of the weirdest AUMFs in history. Proposed while Congress is in recess, so obviously not urgent. And Obama is, no exaggeration, asking permission to do what he has already been doing for about 6 months, and will continue to keep doing even if he doesn’t get permission to do so. And he’s not proposing to get rid of the original AUMF that, supposedly, allows him to do what he’s doing and will allow any future president to do also.
So, whether or not this AUMF passes, nothing will change. The only thing I can see that makes sense from Obama’s standpoint is that he fears he’s going to have to send in more ground troops and wants cover from Congress when he does it.
Again, this is all basically academic. No Court is ever going to force the executive to withdraw troops from war. So observing that this AUMF only had some small political or legal benefits is to observe that it is doing what every AUMF does. He probably thinks it is a good idea not to rest the authority for these operations on dubious legal grounds–even if he will publicly defend the sufficiency of those grounds–and likes the idea of getting Congress on record and setting up a political obstacle for a future President’s expansion of operations.
Obama seems to be daring Boehner and McConnell to support him on something. Their conflicting emotions have got to be agonizing.
Gee, I hope not. I hope our president is not playing silly political games concerning war.
Um, *who *again is doing that?
I don’t know. I wasn’t the one who claimed Obama was daring those two to agree with him. Maybe I just have a higher opinion of Obama than you do in that I can’t see him playing a game like that when it comes to war-- that is, daring the opposition.
Well, according to you that would be Obama. I mean, I don’t see the Republicans currently stopping Obama from prosecuting air strikes or much of anything else wrt ISIS, so if Obama is only doing this to tweak the Republicans, which was sort of what you were saying, that would mean he’s ‘playing silly political games concerning the war’.
Please consider the context, that we’re talking about the same people who are willing to shut down Homeland Security over a silly political game. How is it not an attempt to help break them loose from automatic obstruction mode and let them see how to be responsible?
I don’t know. You tell us-- it’s your hypothesis. I’ve already said I think Obama would not play a game like that when dealing with war. I gave my explanation, above, having to do with wanting Congressional back-up when and if he has to send in more ground troupes. He set a very difficult goal-- defeating ISIL-- which probably cannot be done with air power alone, if it can be done at all. Most military analysts I’ve heard seem to think he’s going to need to send in more ground troupes at some point.
I should add that, while the President is going to do what he thinks he needs to defeat ISIL, his authority abroad as well as at home would certainly be enhanced if there were no question that the government is united in the fight. McConnell and Boehner no doubt understand that too, and, if their goal was something higher than reflexive opposition, would have gone ahead with a resolution vote even without being asked. The fact that they haven’t, and are footdragging even after being asked, gives the world quite a different picture - but it isn’t that Obama is actually thought to be in the wrong, is it?
Now please reconsider who you should be complaining is “playing political games” here. Even if they don’t act, they’re acting, remember.
Troops fight. Troupes put on shows.
If it comes to sending in ground troops, which I very much doubt in the wake of the Iraq and Afghanistan debacles, he could ask for authorization then. His strategy, simple and short and decisive though it isn’t and can’t be, is as clear as reality can let it be at this point.
I blame autocorrect…
Well, maybe he’s planning on sending in more ground troops very soon. As I said, most military analysts seem to think that is a key missing element in his strategy. Anyway, it wouldn’t make sense to ask for an AUMF now w/o inclusion of troops and then ask for another one later. He’s already been trickling them in slowly over the last few months. At some point, they are going to get involved in combat. It’s almost unavoidable if they are going to be doing any real good.
I think Obama has felt very safe in terms of war powers as long as he’s operating from the air. He’s done that quite a bit. But no combat ground troops. Yet.
Can you explain how it is that Congressional support of the President’s military action against brutal terrorists is even an issue? Oh, right, because he’s the one playing political games. :rolleyes: