Obama: I Do Not Need Congressional Approval To Go To War With ISIS

President_Barack_Obama220px-B-2_spirit_bombingPresident Obama is again asserting his right to act unilaterally and without congressional approval in going to war. In what has become a mantra for this Administration, Obama reportedly told members of Congress that he does not need congressional approval to unleash a comprehensive military campaign against the Islamic State. The President informed a few members at a dinner — a striking image of how low congressional authority has become in our tripartite system of government.


We have been discussing the growing concerns over President Barack Obama’s series of unilateral actions in ordering agencies not to enforce law, effectively rewriting laws, and moving hundreds of millions of dollars from appropriated purposes to areas of his choosing. One of the greatest concerns has been his unchecked authority asserted in the national security area. I previously represented members of Congress in challenging Obama’s intervention in the Libyan civil war without a declaration from Congress. In the case, President Obama insisted that he alone determines what is a war and therefore when he needs a declaration. Since the court would not recognize standing to challenge the war, it left Obama free to engage in war operations in any country of his choosing. As with his approach in Libya, Syria and other combat operations (and most recently on whether he will resume the war in Iraq), Obama is again asserting his extreme view of executive power.

As in the past, Democrats are not just silent but actually applauding the circumvention of Congress — a precedent that will likely come back to haunt them if the next president is a Republican.

I have repeatedly testified (here and here and here and here) and wrote a column on President Obama’s increasing circumvention of Congress in negating or suspending U.S. laws. However, war is a particularly egregious form of this unilateralism since the Framers worked hard to limit such powers under Article I and Article II.

Not only is the United States about to enter a new military campaign based solely on the President’s authority but he is promising to fight to the Islamic State “wherever their strategic targets are.” That may suggest additional violation of international law if the United States acts unilaterally with regard to the borders of foreign nations. Michèle Flournoy, a former undersecretary of defense for policy, seems to anticipate and support such actions. She is quoted as saying “This is not an organization that respects international boundaries. You cannot leave them with a safe haven.” For some countries, that view may seem quite threatening since the United States has been repeatedly accused of bombing and conducting operations in other countries without approval.

Once again, we are left with the questions of any limiting principle to this new uber-presidency. A president can now unleash a military campaign without congressional approval that could involve multiple nations. Yet, Congress seems content, again, to watch in a purely pedestrian role as if this invitation to a “dinner” is a sufficient substitute for congressional authorization. While it is not a check or balance, the president did pick up the check.

Source: Washington Post

417 thoughts on “Obama: I Do Not Need Congressional Approval To Go To War With ISIS

  1. War powers are about one of the only areas that I agree with the new philosophy in Presidential powers. The War Powers Act is a good balance, or at least about the best you’re going to get in my opinion.

    If Congress really wanted to stop it, cut out any money for replacement missiles, bombs and bullets from the next budget.

  2. For the first 90… Sure…. After that… How about congress…. Oh Obama is just successor to the imperial president bush…

  3. I wonder if they served chipped beef on toast @ the dinner. Because the prez told them, and the country, to eat shit.

  4. DavidM: Professor Turley has written dozens of articles on this topic, testified many times to Congress, and addressed the options several times in this blog. You might consider browsing the archives.

  5. … waiting for the “if Congress would do something and not just say “NO”, then Obama wouldn’t have to act alone” (aka the Congress-Made-Him-Do-It) crowd to weigh in.

  6. I know, Steve, but he always avoids the impeachment option. I do not see any strong solutions coming from the professor and do not understand why impeachment is not a stick that Congress should use.

  7. Congress has the power of the purse and can cut the funding for the war. It would not be the first time it has been threatened. However, I read somewhere the Republicans were willing to give him a resolution for war against ISIS.
    Under the War Powers Act he has 90 days on his own then Congress has to act or not act.
    At this point Obama’s numbers are so low that the general public with jump with glee at his impeachment, until they realized who his replacement is. See if you can say “President Biden” three times fast without throwing up.

  8. Is he actually going to take time off the golf course to set a policy and carry it out? I think not. He does not have the will power.

  9. Given the treasonous nature of the republican party, holding the best interests of the American people hostage to thwart any and everything the President tries to do, if Obama can legally take actions on his own, then so be it.

    This country is ruled by special interests and most recently in the interest of power mongering republicans and extreme right wing groups. Thank god we have a President strong enough to take action. The only criticism is that he has not done more and sooner.

  10. All the yelling Republicans did about his “inaction” in Iraq, NOW that they have a chance to act, what do they do? They flop once again. Cowards. President Obama SHOULD go in front of Congress, seek approval to declar a war. No action by Congrss? STAY OUT of it, the repercussions then fall on the heads of the duplicitous cowards in Congress. So be it, let the ME implode and hope they don’t reach us here on our soil.

  11. https://hotair.com/archives/2014/09/09/congressional-leaders-hoping-to-avoid-vote-on-bill-authorizing-force-against-isis-of-course/

    “Democratic leaders in the Senate and Republican leaders in the House want to avoid a public vote to authorize force, fearing the unknown political consequences eight weeks before the midterm elections on Nov. 4.”

    “A lot of people would like to stay on the sideline and say, ‘Just bomb the place and tell us about it later,’ ” said Representative Jack Kingston, Republican of Georgia, who supports having an authorization vote. “It’s an election year. A lot of Democrats don’t know how it would play in their party, and Republicans don’t want to change anything. We like the path we’re on now. We can denounce it if it goes bad, and praise it if it goes well and ask what took him so long.”

  12. Paul, Obama @ least had the sense to not try and compete w/ Thursday Night Football. Actually, he is a sports junkie. He golfs w/ the Pardon The Interruption guys, Kornheiser and Wilbon.

  13. And the professor always seems to ignore congress wanting to escape responsibility (for anything)

    “A lot of people would like to stay on the sideline and say, ‘Just bomb the place and tell us about it later,’ ” said Representative Jack Kingston, Republican of Georgia, who supports having an authorization vote. “It’s an election year. A lot of Democrats don’t know how it would play in their party, and Republicans don’t want to change anything. We like the path we’re on now. We can denounce it if it goes bad, and praise it if it goes well and ask what took him so long.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/us/as-obama-makes-case-congress-is-divided-on-campaign-against-militants.html?_r=3

  14. I agree. Obama is getting away w/murder because of several factors: 1. a spineless and completely complicit congress, 2. a Democratic party whose members by and large will support Obama and Democratic Congressional leaders no matter how evil, depraved, unjust and insane their actions are, 3. powerful Republicans who agree entirely with the administration because they will profit financially from warfare.

    This is what a deep state looks like. There’s only one part of this that we the people control and that is us. Either we take a stand against wrongdoing, evil, cruelty and insanity, no matter who is doing it, or we are complicit in the destruction of our own society and the society of other people’s around the world.

    If you want to leave a big shi% pile in your wake, continue excusing your party leaders and helping them out. If you are willing to try for something better, get on your integrity and speak out. Molly Ivins recommended pots and pans. There is something every person can try, even if it’s writing in this blog. Do it! Speak up, march if you can, donate to others to march. Take some kind of peaceful action of opposition. There isn’t a guarantee of success. If you will only do something because it will succeed I will say you are a coward.

    You do something because it is the right thing to do.

  15. First of all, I do not want to go to war over ISIS. Secondly, if the War Powers Act allows any President 90 days, then he has the authority, at least for those 90 days. After that Congress has to grow a pair if they think they have the votes. Thirdly, I think it could be argued that since the courts refused to take the case that the actions in controversy were legal. Maybe McCain can call his ISIS buddies and ask them to stand down?

  16. This controversy is one more compounding harm from Obama’s gross strategic blunder of leaving Iraq too early.

    The 1990-2011 US-led Gulf War ceasefire enforcement and post-Saddam peace operations included an Executive-Legislative basis that was as solid as our long-term Europe and Asia deployments. Simply following our post-WW2 Europe and Asia precedents by staying in Iraq to continue building the peace that was begun in earnest with the COIN “Surge” and expanding Iraq’s constructive influence in the Middle East would have been uncontroversial – and solidly grounded in law and policy covering the span of, at that point, 4 US Presidents.

    Rather than Obama’s current approach to Congress, Obama should work to restore Congress’s longstanding commitment to enforce peace in Iraq when America gave Saddam a “final opportunity” (UNSCR 1441) to comply with the UNSC resolutions ( http://fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/index.html ) of the Gulf War ceasefire.

    Public Law 102-1 (1991):

    SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. “(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized, subject to subsection (b) to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677.
    [UNSCR 678: 2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;]

    House Resolution 322 (1997):

    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of
    Representatives that–
    (1) the current crisis regarding Iraq should be resolved
    peacefully through diplomatic means but in a manner which
    assures full Iraqi compliance with United Nations Security
    Council resolutions regarding the destruction of Iraq’s
    capability to produce and deliver weapons of mass
    destruction;
    (2) in the event that military means are necessary to
    compel Iraqi compliance with United Nations Security Council
    resolutions, such military action should be undertaken with
    the broadest feasible multinational support, preferably
    pursuant to a decision of the United Nations Security
    Council; and
    (3) if it is necessary, however, the United States should
    take military action unilaterally to compel Iraqi compliance
    with United Nations Security Council resolutions.

    Public Law 105-235 (1998):

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations, and therefore the President is urged to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.

    Public Law 105-388 (1998):

    It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq’s transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq’s foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq’s foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein’s regime.

    Public Law 107-243 (2002):

    The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—
    (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
    (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

    Presidents HW Bush, Clinton, and Bush maintained a continuous course with Congress on Iraq. Obama’s change of course on Iraq has been a disaster. To fix his blunder, Obama needs to get back to his 3 predecessors’ course with Congress on Iraq.

  17. Eric,

    The American people polled wanted the military out if Iraq. See, if anyone had comments about Obama leaving troops there too long.

  18. Eric,

    Obama has not ever taken our people out of Iraq. We have an embassy there in the Green Zone which is larger than Vatican City. The state dept. has hired mercenaries both before and after we officially “left” Iraq. They never left, we just don’t know about them. This in spite of the fact that the nation of Iraq wanted us gone and supposedly our war there was, in part, about bringing Democracy to the Iraqis. (Obviously bs.)

    ISIS is a creature of the US. These excuses to make war are ways to make profits for a few already rich people. Wars are a way to clamp down on our own easily frightened and ignorant population. We are a people who will give away everyone’s freedom as a trade off for a false sense of security. We need to stop doing that, now.

  19. Correction for my comment at September 10, 2014 at 11:12 am:

    * 1990-2011 covers the span of the Iraq intervention beginning with the initial response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. The Gulf War ceasefire began, of course, in 1991.

  20. Jill: “our war there was, in part, bringing Democracy to the Iraqis. (Obviously bs.)”

    America’s liberal reform goal for Iraq was true when Iraqi compliance via regime change was set as law and policy under Clinton and carried forward under Bush. Building on the COIN “Surge” and Anbar Awakening, our peace-building with post-Saddam Iraq was on course when Bush handed off the US Presidency to Obama. However, our liberal reform goal with post-Saddam Iraq only turned into “bs” because the vital organic US military peace-building element was removed too early from the nation-building formula due to Obama’s course change.

    To understand the irresponsibility, even cruelty, of Obama’s error, imagine the consequences if Eisenhower had followed Truman and FDR by pulling out our military too early and abandoning Europe and/or Asia in the early 1950s.

    From US Army FM (field manual) 1:

    The Army’s contribution to joint operations is landpower. … Landpower includes the ability to … Establish and maintain a stable environment that sets the conditions for a lasting peace [and] …. Address the consequences of catastrophic events—both natural and manmade—to restore infrastructure and reestablish basic civil services.

    In other words, as historian T.R. Fehrenbach observed in This Kind of War:

    [Y]ou may fly over a land forever; you may bomb it, atomize it, pulverize it and wipe it clean of life—but if you desire to defend it, protect it, and keep it for civilization, you must do this on the ground, the way the Roman legions did, by putting your young men into the mud.

    Peace operations on that level are not in the State Department’s skill set, even with Vatican-sized embassies and contractors. The US Army has built and does build the peace in theretofore non-permissive environments. Our soldiers were successfully building the peace in Iraq – until the new Commander in Chief opted to “end the war”.

    Jill: “ISIS is a creature of the US.”

    Unfortunately, Obama’s feckless ‘lead from behind’, yes-to-regime-change-but-no-to-peace-operations approach to the Arab Spring meant Obama adopted a near-sighted strategy with Syria (and in part with Libya) akin to ‘Charlie Wilson’s War’ with the anti-Soviet Afghan mujahideen.

  21. For Paul Schulte …
    “At this point Obama’s numbers are so low that the general public with jump with glee at his impeachment, until they realized who his replacement is. See if you can say “President Biden” three times fast without throwing up.”

    I’m sure that many Republicans hope and pray that they could impeach and convict both Obama AND Biden, thereby installing the Speaker of the House as President and nullifying the past two presidential elections. At the same time the Republicans would no doubt throw Boehner out and replace him as SOTH with a gen-yoo-ine, Bible-thumping 100% right-wing hack, the kind of man who should have been elected in 2008, in the first place….

    And I have this comment for Professor Turley – if the House is basically on strike, and refuses to do much of anything in the national interest, what should the President do?

  22. Did I miss the ending of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002? Did Congress repeal this?

    Mr. Turley’s assertion that President Obama is intending to act without congressional approval seems misleading. The approval has already been granted.

  23. Watch Congress abdicate its constitutional responsibility and allow Obama to assume the power of a dictator. That the US may be bombing other countries in violation of international law will not even be a subject worthy of congressional discussion. Obama will appeal to the universal outrage Americans feel for the ISIS executions. Congress will give him a standing ovation as he shreds the constitution in their face. This will mark a turning point in US history . Kiss democracy goodbye.

  24. Jill: “our war there was, in part, bringing Democracy to the Iraqis. (Obviously bs.)”

    America’s liberal reform goal for Iraq was true when Iraqi compliance via regime change was set as law and policy under Clinton and carried forward under Bush. It was still true when Obama said this in May 2011:

    Indeed, one of the broader lessons to be drawn from this period is that sectarian divides need not lead to conflict. In Iraq, we see the promise of a multiethnic, multisectarian democracy. The Iraqi people have rejected the perils of political violence in favor of a democratic process, even as they’ve taken full responsibility for their own security. Of course, like all new democracies, they will face setbacks. But Iraq is poised to play a key role in the region if it continues its peaceful progress. And as they do, we will be proud to stand with them as a steadfast partner.

    Our liberal reform goal with post-Saddam Iraq only turned into “bs” when Obama removed the vital organic US military peace-building element too early from the nation-building formula for Iraq.

    From US Army FM (field manual) 1:

    The Army’s contribution to joint operations is landpower. … Landpower includes the ability to … Establish and maintain a stable environment that sets the conditions for a lasting peace [and] …. Address the consequences of catastrophic events—both natural and manmade—to restore infrastructure and reestablish basic civil services.

    In other words, as historian T.R. Fehrenbach observed in This Kind of War:

    [Y]ou may fly over a land forever; you may bomb it, atomize it, pulverize it and wipe it clean of life—but if you desire to defend it, protect it, and keep it for civilization, you must do this on the ground, the way the Roman legions did, by putting your young men into the mud.

    To understand the irresponsibility, even cruelty, of Obama’s error, imagine the consequences if Eisenhower had pulled out our military too early and abandoned Europe and/or Asia in the early 1950s.

    Peace operations on the level needed for Iraq are not in the State Department’s skill set. The US Army has built the peace on that level and was building the peace with Iraq – until the new Commander in Chief opted to “end the war”, instead.

    Jill: “ISIS is a creature of the US.”

    Unfortunately, Obama’s feckless ‘lead from behind’, yes-to-regime-change-but-no-to-peace-operations approach to the Arab Spring meant Obama adopted a near-sighted strategy with Syria (and in part with Libya) akin to ‘Charlie Wilson’s War’ with the anti-Soviet Afghan mujahideen.

  25. I would LOVE to see President Obama say tonight that he will go in front of Congress for their approval and if they don’t give it he will NOT act unilaterally. Then let the ME do whatever the heck it’s going to do without our intervention. EVERYONE must take responsibility here, President AND Congress. The cowardice of Congress astounds and disgusts me. Any wars that are occurring unlawfully, we need to demand they stop immediately.

  26. One would have thought that with all the “terrorism” the NSA is listenening into …
    … That the NSA would have detected the rise of ISIS and headed it off well before it took over 40% of Iraq.

    Just sayin’

  27. bc: “Did I miss the ending of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002? Did Congress repeal this?

    Mr. Turley’s assertion that President Obama is intending to act without congressional approval seems misleading. The approval has already been granted.”

    You’re correct that PL 107-243 (2002) – nor, as far as I know, PL 102-1 (1991) – has not been repealed.

    However, it’s debatable whether the AUMF fits the current situation.

    As stated, the 1st condition that can activate PL 107-243 is the “the continuing threat posed by Iraq”, ie, Iraq the nation, ie, at the time, Saddam’s regime. Iraq is still a nation, but post-Saddam Iraq nation is not a “continuing threat”. If the wording was ‘in’ or even ‘from’ Iraq, your argument would be easier to make.

    The 2nd condition that can activate PL 107-243 is UNSC resolution. In 2003, Saddam was demonstrably in multiple breach of the UNSC resolutions of the Gulf War ceasefire, most notably the 06MAR03 UNMOVIC Cluster Document finding of “about 100 unresolved disarmament issues” that triggered OIF.

    Indeed, the UNSC resolutions that underlay the US-led post-Saddam peace operations would have fit the current situation like a glove. The problem is the UN terminated those UNSC resolutions concurrent with the 17NOV08 SOFA agreement between the US and Iraq, and the 17NOV08 SOFA agreement expired in December 2011.

    There are other plausible sources of legal authority Obama can cite to intervene. But the 2002 AUMF appears to be inactive unless Obama stretches the meaning of the 1st condition or goes to the UN for a new resolution to activate the 2nd condition.

  28. Plus ca change… No big mystery here, folks. CongressWeasels on both sides get to pose and look important while they bemoan their inability to control anything. Meanwhile, the Prez bombs the bejeezus out of a bunch of people we all regard as total a******s. It’s precisely the same deal Dubya made.

    About for the innocents blown up by our war machine, what we hide behind the phrase collateral damage, nobody in power really cares. They pretend to care, and we pretend to believe them.

  29. Max-1,

    Winning a war means securing the peace. When we make the error of truncating the progressive post-war peace-building process, as Obama did with Iraq in 2011 – ironically calling his error “ending the war” – we invite the risk of regression to war. In this case, the risk of regression to war was severely increased by Obama’s combinative errors with the Arab Spring.

  30. Jim N: “It’s precisely the same deal Dubya made.”

    Huh?

    Your statement is directly contradicted by PL 107-40 (2001) and PL 107-243 (2002).

    In fact, Bush went to Congress in 2002 for PL 107-243 despite that law and policy made under HW Bush and Clinton already fully authorized Bush to use military action to enforce the Gulf War ceasefire. The law and policy basis for Clinton’s Operation Desert Fox (1998) military enforcement with Saddam was operative for Bush, too.

    PL 107-243 was just Bush being meticulous with the Executive-Legislative process, crossing t’s and dotting i’s. Practically, the statute really only summarized and restated the existing statutes on Iraq while updating the US policy position.

  31. Eric, what do YOU think the President should do about ISIS? And yes, yes, we know what you think about what he should’ve done in the past, but what should he do NOW? What do you expect Congress to do? Do you have expectations for Congress?

  32. How did America end up here?

    The vote.

    American voters voided the original restricted vote republic and approved “one man, one vote” democracy.

    American voters approved of Lincoln’s war.

    American voters approved the rapid, mass “immigration” of ex-slaves.

    American voters approved women’s suffrage.

    American voters approved the implementation of the Communist Manifesto.

    American voters approved of WWI, WWII, Korean, Vietnam and Iraq wars.

    American voters approved the “rapid” “immigration” of the Mexican population.

    American voters will approve Obama’s war.

    Alternatively, there will be a sea change in November.

    NOT.

  33. John – I think a lot of what you say American voters approved was actually approved by our representatives. Sadly, we do not get a veto on the representatives of other states.

  34. Annie: “what should he do NOW?”

    President Obama must reintegrate President Bush’s sure-handed, paradigmatic liberal American leadership in order to at least try to fix Obama’s errors and reset the sustained, sufficient, effective leadership we need for the geopolitical contest.

    Most importantly, Obama needs to find within himself Bush’s leadership mettle to “choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong” (USMA Cadet Prayer) when he decided on the COIN “Surge”.

    To wit, from “Ryan Crocker’s Truth-Telling” by David Ignatius, January 2009:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/16/AR2009011603721.html

    The key to success in Iraq, insists Crocker, was the psychological impact of Bush’s decision to add troops. “In the teeth of ferociously negative popular opinion, in the face of a lot of well-reasoned advice to the contrary, he said he was going forward, not backward.”

    Bush’s decision rocked America’s adversaries, says Crocker: “The lesson they had learned from Lebanon was, ‘Stick it to the Americans, make them feel the pain, and they won’t have the stomach to stick it out.’ That assumption was challenged by the surge.”

    The one action that Obama should take that would re-align the American people and Congress for the fight ahead is to set the record straight on the Iraq mission – just as I’ve tried to do with you – and destroy the prevalent false narrative that OIF was “based on lies” and illegal/unConstitutional.

    Past is prologue, right? The Russians promoted the same propaganda against Clinton’s Iraq enforcement. But the false narrative against the Iraq mission only became truly destructive when the Democrats cynically adopted it for partisan gain, despite knowing that Bush faithfully carried forward Clinton’s Iraq enforcement. The Democrats’ cynical strategy worked to win President Obama the White House. However, the false narrative against the Iraq mission has metastasized from a near-sighted partisan-propaganda device to manipulate voters in order to gain domestic political superiority into a fundamental guiding principle of American foreign policy under Obama that has caused real compounding harms in the world.

    As such, Obama and other leading Democrats need first to take a step back to set the record straight on Iraq that they distorted, so that moving forward to current crises, America can compete effectively again as a leader. If Obama does that, Congress, the American People, and indeed the West, will follow.

  35. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/09/09/why-white-house-and-congress-dont-want-vote-on-military-action/ “So the path we’re on now is one that serves everyone’s interest. Without a resolution, President Obama doesn’t have to take the risk of a formal rebuke from Congress. But the White House is sending representatives to brief Congress about the situation, so members can feel (and say) they were consulted. By not casting an up-or-down vote, no member needs to take responsibility for what happens. If the military action is successful, they can say they were behind it all along. If it fails in any way, they can say everything would have been different if only Obama had heeded their counsel (and they can claim that they would have voted against a resolution, had there been one).” Congress does not want to vote on this pre-election.

  36. PCS,

    “A republic, if you can keep it.”

    In 1789, the Founders established a restricted vote republic, provided freedom and imposed self-reliance. The meaningful, restricted vote has been diluted, weakened and replaced with the “one man, one vote” “democracy” (i.e. Marxism) in support of the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” various collectivists, unconstitutional/illegal immigrants, minorities and lobbyists.

    What a crowd. What is this crowd “progressing” to?

    Evil are the capable, ambitious, dedicated, entrepreneurial and successful.

    We sure like their money though, huh?

    Didn’t the Founders tell us it would take strong, honorable, moral, ethical, disciplined men to “keep the republic?” Didn’t they express a fear of the “masses” meaning the “one man, one vote” chaos, anarchy, collectivist crowd.

    *******************************************************************************************

    A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin,

    “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”

    With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded,

    “A republic, if you can keep it.”

  37. If I had a dollar for every time a politician acted on principle I would be……very poor. I’m really longing to find anyone in government willing to jeopardize reelection by standing for first principles. ANYONE!

  38. http://thehill.com/policy/defense/217292-poll-concern-for-civil-liberties-and-security-flips?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter“Fifty percent of people believe the government’s anti-terrorism policies have not gone far enough to protect the United States, according to a new poll, a 15-point shift since last year.

    The Pew Research poll shows the public growing increasingly concerned about the threat of Islamic extremism following the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and with attention less focused on National Security Agency surveillance programs.

    The poll found only 35 percent believe anti-terrorism policies have gone too far in restricting the civil liberties of people in the United States. That number stood at 47 percent a month after former NSA contractor Edward Snowden first leaked information on secret surveillance practices.”

  39. John – I approved or at least voted for representatives. However, that does not mean who I approved got elected. God knows, Mickey Mouse is not President of the United States.

    And the voting is by district. I only get to vote for Senators (statewide) and my representative. I have no vote for the representatives of other districts.

  40. Eric, Congress WILL NOT do what you suggest, even of Obama would do as you’ve suggested. You truly believe this Congress will do anything that would be seen as in harmony or cooperation with President Obama? You haven’t been paying attention or you’re an extreme optimist. As for the reson we entered Iraq and left it, we won’t come to an agreement.

  41. Max-1 – sorry it has taken so long to respond to your post. You are absolutely correct. The NSA should have picked up on the ISIS thing from the beginning and allowed somebody to put them down. So, now the question is, did they pick up the information and it wasn’t acted on or did the not pick up the information?

  42. SWM, yup, it seems so cowardly to me. Obama should call their bluff and say he won’t act without a resolution. He would be forcing them to take responsibility. Why should Obama be the only adult in DC? So he can be their whipping boy, something they’ve wanted from day one.

  43. Have you all heard Obama and his errand boys trying to spin that he didn’t call ISIS “jayvee” a few months ago. They all got 4 Pinnochio’s and Dems just rolled their eyes. Donna Brazile said they “need to man up” on that. This President is out of control. Valerie needs to spank him!

  44. paulette, That’s the dynamic w/ black voters and Dems. When LBJ signed the Voting Rights Act he said to aids, “We will own those niggers for decades now.” LBJ called black people “niggers” all the time. He was also more of a womanizer than JFK and was hung like a horse. He didn’t even try and hide his screwing around from Lady Bird like JFK did w/ Jackie.

  45. PCS, to kick a dead horse…not you, the voters approved the current American condition. I didn’t mean to imply that the candidate you voted for won. In general, after all the votes were counted, the voters, as a whole, at the end of the day, in the final analysis, APPROVED every time on every issue since 1789. If not, America would still be a restricted vote republic, Lincoln would have lost, the Constitution and severely limited government would be extant, not the Communist Manifesto, we would not have assimilated the various masses of illegal “immigrants,” we wouldn’t have fought unrelated, “common offence” wars and we wouldn’t be going back for seconds in Iraq.
    Among other things.

  46. We have no dog in that fight. ISIS is doing the work for Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Turkey has been pretty much at war with the Kurds for quite a while now. You guys that think Obama is protecting us crack me up. We’ll just blunder in yet again.

  47. slohrss29 – There has been a problem since the Kurds, whose lands are in 3 countries, want their own country. Personally, I support this, but Turkey will never give up the territory.

  48. LBJ actually said they would own blacks[cleaning it up for the faint of heart] “For 200 years.” I meant to say centuries, not decades.

  49. paulette, I am a history teacher and history is raw and nasty. There are MANY more details on his racism and sexual depravity, just gave a very abridged version.

  50. Paulette, “What better way to enslave a man than to give him the vote and tell him he’s free to choose his masters?’” — Albert Camus

    In a restricted vote republic, the vote is undiluted and has weight, import and meaning.

    _______________

    A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin,

    “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”

    With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded,

    “A republic, if you can keep it.”

    ________________

    The discipline Franklin required was lost.

    “One man, one vote” democracy is an open invitation to manipulation, usurpation and corruption of the original restricted vote republic.

    I think we’re there.

    You’re correct, America has been enslaved by the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

  51. @davidm, this is an interesting issue because it crosses party lines and is truly an Executive/Legislative issue, the tension between Congress’ War Power and the President’s power as C-in-C. The courts basically don’t want to get involved and when they are involved, see: Reagan’s invasion of Grenada: Conyers v Reagan…..to a certain extent the ‘settled’ doctrine would be that the Executive Branch and Legislative branch PREFER an ‘unsettled’ doctrine rather than risk losing the constitutional power in question. If you ask me personally, particularly in this day and age when Congress can be summoned much more quickly (we really should do away with the concept of ‘recess entirely’), the President should require congressional authorization in these cases, I don’t care if its Reagan in Grenada or Obama striking ISIS. The reason the War Power was delegated to Congress was precisely because the Founders understood the potential for abuse that comes with the power to wage war. If the President can utilize military force in a manner which can obviously embroil us in a war unilaterally, the separation of powers would, in my opinion, appear to be violated. Realistically, the answer on the bar exam is that Obama ‘can’ do this based on ‘precedent’ – ‘precedent’ being the de facto use of military force appurtenant to the War Powers Act since the 1970s.

  52. Yes, the Kurds claimed lands are all over the place there, but that all goes back to the way the world was divided up after WWI. That was going to be re-examined some day. Guess that’s now. Just like the former Yugoslavia. The Turkish army could wipe out ISIS in a couple of days, but why would they? And why would we get in the middle of that?? I know… just sayin’. Plenty of military hardware gets sold and used and has to be replaced. You know the military lobbyists are all over this opportunity.

  53. History should not be whitewashed and sanitized. We need to face the history, the raw and the ugly as well as the good and noble, recognize it for what it was and how we got to where we are today.

    To go all Victorian verklempt, have the vapors and need to waft smelling salts because people in the past actually said bad words or were politically incorrect is really quite ridiculous.

    How are we ever to learn from the past if we pretend it didn’t exist or change it so it doesn’t hurt our delicate feelings?

  54. DBQ, BRAVA!! And the ones who often cry the loudest are alleged feminists!! I call them Blanche DuBois feminists. But lets cut the BS, LBJ is a Dem “hero.” That’s the problem. I’m pulling punches on LBJ. He was a racist pig!

  55. That’s my point. Unbeknownst to most Americans, there was a world before 9-11. These political situations done wrongly in the past will come back to haunt everyone. Wilson’s flights of insanity are still jabbing at us today. Now we have Obama ready to pile on his ludicrous actions.

  56. Annie,

    Have you read yet the primary sources for the law and policy basis of the Iraq mission that I’ve cited, linked, and even quoted for you?

    In particular, UNSCRs 687, 688, 1441, PLs 105-235, 107-243, Clinton’s enforcement precedent, and the UNMOVIC Cluster Document (“about 100 unresolved disarmament issues”) that was the main trigger for OIF, with the ISG Duelfer Report for additional insight – eg, the post-war finding of “a large covert procurement, undeclared chemical laboratories, and supported denial and deception operations” in the IIS, Saddam’s regime arm that was notorious for its work with terrorists.

    The false narrative against the Iraq mission is patient zero. It’s the metastatic malignant tumor. It’s the thorn infecting the limping lion. And you’re right that the false narrative has, by now, infected Democrats and Republicans alike.

    Enough social political harm has spread and compounded from the Democrats’ original cynical gambit to adopt Saddam’s and Russia’s propaganda into American domestic politics that setting the record straight on Iraq is no longer enough by itself to cure our corrupted social political dialogue and schema. But curing patient zero is the necessary foundational step to fix everything else.

    The simple admission by President Obama to Congress and the American People that ‘President Bush was right on Iraq.’ would go a long way to clarifying our national dialogue on Iraq, ISIS, and American leadership for the global contests moving forward. But yes, that necessary act by Obama won’t by itself be enough to fix the corruption that Obama helped to cause in order to be elected President in the first place.

    Obama has his work cut out for him, but setting the record straight in order to effectively lead America forward is Obama’s duty and particularly with his culpability, Obama’s moral responsibility.

  57. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/will-there-be-vote-isis-strikes “Cheney’s visit marked a sort of coming out party for Republican hawks, who polls show are rapidly gaining support among GOP voters after years in which the non-interventionists, led by Cheney nemesis Rand Paul, had the momentum.

    “It was a great message – and something we needed to hear and hopefully it sticks with a lot of my colleagues who kind of had this creep towards isolationism,” Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) told the Los Angeles Times. “Hopefully this is an awakening that we have to be very strong and very serious.”

    Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) told The Daily Beast that Cheney accused Obama of “facilitating the Muslim Brotherhood,” the Islamic movement that won elections in Egypt only to be deposed by the military, while CNN reported that Cheney dinged Obama for not demanding the US leave a residual force behind while negotiating a withdrawal with the Iraqi government.

    The reemergence of Cheney, whose legacy of expansive executive power and aggressive foreign policy is still controversial even within the GOP, comes as Congressional leaders are trying to determine how to respond to Obama’s escalating campaign against the Islamic State.

    On Tuesday, Republican House Speaker John Boehner declined to commit to Congressional votes on military action against ISIS – or to rule out ground troops – until after he meets with the White House to hear their broader plan.

    “We have a very serious problem that demands a strategy and, until there is a strategy, there is no reason to talk about any of the specifics,” Boehner told reporters.”

  58. Fix: … eg, the post-war finding of “a large covert procurement program, undeclared chemical laboratories, and supported denial and deception operations” in the IIS, Saddam’s regime arm that was notorious for its work with terrorists.

  59. The quote about “owning” the black vote for 200 years most certainly was. My info on LBJ comes from Caro, Goodwin and Kessler. Although I do like Oliver’s show. Did he talk about LBJ? I have it DVRed but haven’t watched it yet. I am sparing folks here what LBJ called the Voting Right Bill and MUCH MORE nasty stuff. Don’t want anyone having a stroke on my account.

  60. There is a book called “War Merchant’ about the used arms trade. The US is the largest trader in used arms in the world. When we sell someone the newer version of something, we take the old ones in trade and sell them someplace else.

  61. http://m.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/09/obama-speech-iraq-syria-isis-war/379979/ “Those of us associated with the Bush administration bear the burden of having launched a war on false premises that then yielded disappointing results. It’s a heavy responsibility, and one most of us have struggled with in our various ways. Not a day goes by that I don’t think of it. But it’s one thing to fail to achieve your aims. It’s another to start a war with no discernible aims at all. It’s not crass, not narrow, not unethical for the president of the United States to test any proposed foreign policy—and most especially the use of armed force—against the criterion: “How will this benefit my nation?” That test is not a narrow one. The protection of allies is an important U.S. interest. The honoring of international commitments is an important U.S. interest. And it could even be argued that humanitarian action can be justified when it will save many lives, at low cost in American blood and treasure, without creating even worse consequences inadvertently. This new campaign against ISIS does not even pretend to meet that test. It’s a reaction: an emotional reaction, without purpose, without strategy, and without any plausible—or even articulated—definition of success.”

  62. ” What would we do w/o SWM giving us all the talking points. God bless her.” nick Really, David Frum is a republican former Bush speechwriter. Is the fact that Boehner does not want to schedule a vote a talking point? Well, maybe in your fantastical fanatical world

  63. SWM – I am always glad to hear from the military strategists at The Atlantic. Where would we be without them. Their arm-chair generals have led us through many a war, while their boots never left their living room.

  64. Most of us appreciate those who take the trouble to post links and make cogent comments, good work SWM. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!

  65. nick, You complained incessantly about Elaine’s factual links. I guess uninterrupted spin is the preferred modus operandi.

  66. Nick Spinelli,

    I’ve gone through it with swarthmoremom before where I cite to the plainly stated, bedrock law and policy of the Iraq mission, and she’s citing to secondary and tertiary sources as though they somehow rebut primary sources.

  67. SWM – I would think that Boehner not wanting to take a vote until he heard a strategy makes sense to me, given this President’s record.

  68. Annie, I thought Frum’s viewpiont was interesting because he is a former Bush guy. He probably did not know who he was.

  69. SWM – I have not seen a ‘factual’ link from Elaine in months. She links to leftist site who are hardly known to be factual.

  70. You understand that anytime you post something that they have not been briefed about SWM you turn them into zombies. They react without the knowledge of why. They just put another spin on it to make it sound like they are reasonably intelligent.

  71. “factual links.” Let’s not have the biased source debate again. Elaine’s sources are almost always deep left field. The Atlantic is just medium depth left field. You’re not going to go all floppy, I’m a victim on me are you. You’ve always been a real feminist, not of the Blanche DuBois ilk.

  72. While I really appreciate links to articles and think that it is important to be able to back up your facts and show the sources you are using to obtain your talking points. It seems strange to just spew out links with no commentary by the poster as to what the link is trying to prove or disprove. Links are good….but….what do YOU think? What point are you trying to make or refute? Do you HAVE an opinion? What is it? It isn’t always clear.

    If I want a Google feed. I can get one. While we can all admire someone’s Google-fu…..I’m more interested in the opinions of the posters and their thinking processes.

  73. Oh yes, still a plethora of “Rush-esque” wisdom yet like all great republics we still spiral towards certain doom. Was Great Caesar too ambitious? I believe the answer is… hmmmmm, never mind, back to learning my Chinese, it’s sure to come in handy after the fall.

  74. DBQ, I’ve suggested Lexapro off label for OCD linkage. But, it was MUCH worse not long ago. Everything was MUCH worse, as hard as it may be to believe. You are a breath of real woman fresh air here. I hope you can stand up to the nasty men! LOL

  75. Most people understand that by posting a link, one is agreeing with the contents of the article. People are lazy, a little reading won’t hurt anyone.

  76. The faux feminists are the ones coming after you. You can eat them for breakfast, and the “nasty” men for lunch.

  77. “Annie, I thought Frum’s viewpiont was interesting because he is a former Bush guy.”

    This the kind of deep, analytical thinking that adds absolutely no value to these threads.

  78. I can read the articles. Often I have read or seen them before. They aren’t always the news that people think that they are.

    What is the context of the link to the various posts by many other people. Since we don’t have threaded comments it is quite unclear. Why are you linking it? If you have a point to make do it. I can read or re-read the article but…I’m more interested in what you think, how you think, why you think the things you do.

    This is a legal blog. If you were to stand up in court and spew links to the Court to make an argument without speaking or explaining any of the above to the court, you would have a hard time making your case.

    If you have no words of your own, I am wondering if you are competent to discuss the issues or just a parrot.

  79. And this is how the same individual derails every single decent discussion on many different threads. It’s old and its boring as heck.

  80. Annie, Ay, Sometimes it is just fun to mess up THEIR agenda for the day by posting a few links from sources THEY don’t approve of even if the sites are considered middle of the road. I know some come prepared with their long posts from their employers. Those are recognizable.:)

  81. DBQ, I have a game I play. I will move around posting comments on different threads and have the people I NEVER respond to follow me around and snipe. Try it. It’s hilarious. I did it last night. I’m praying some of these folks get some self discipline and stop following me around and commenting to me INCESSANTLY. Would you keep trying to engage someone who has ignored you for months?

  82. Valuable comments are most definitely in the eye of the beholder. It’s a common tactic to belittle and dimiinish other commenters when they are making cogent points.

  83. Annie,

    That’s the intent is disruption…. As the professor has stated if they can’t be civil then maybe they should find another site….

    As Bill McWilliamns pointed out:

    An easy, sure way to spot a paid or volunteer right-wing shill/troll is the tactics they all use when responding to information they don’t like but can’t refute.
    almost all try to shoot the messenger, try to discredit the source, say something childish/silly, feign outrage, question the writer’s patriotism, act as though the message or messenger doesn’t deserve a response, deny there is such a thing as paid propaganda, cite a right-wing argument that may or may not make sense on its own, but is unresponsive to the issue at hand, act in a way that reveals their loathe for people and ideas that are unknown or just different than theirs, cite right-wing talking points from the vast right-wing conspiracy etc.

    Yes, I have this bookmarked…

  84. Swm,

    So long as I remain civil…. I won’t get sucked into the vortex of hate mongering some of these folks like to get into… It’s like they don’t exist…. And yes, it’s fun to throw them off the script….

  85. I gather that the general “you” as opposed to the personal “you” is difficult to understand in a written format. However. I am just wondering why those various people who post only links do not have any commentary as to the purpose of their links, or reference to the topic that they are trying to refute or buttress. When you have a non threaded comment section, it gets muddy.

    It is also quite uncivil to attribute words and thoughts to my posts that I did not say or even imply,”if” that comment were directed at me. I didn’t say people have OCD or need medication.

    I am just wonder why in a debate format, which this seems to be as most comment sections are, that there is not any attempt to actually debate the topic at hand or to justify, or to qualify the supporting documentation…..links….as being relevant to the argument at hand.

    The discourse would be much better if people would clearly make their point(s), present their evidence and then explain why their evidence supports their argument. You might actually be able to persuade someone to your viewpoint with those tactics.

  86. AY – I will ask you again, since you avoided the question the last time, who is a paid shill? Using your formula, if you avoid this question, it will point you out as a paid shill.

  87. We WERE debating the subject of the blog post, until a certain commenter decided it must be derailed, because he like to ‘play games’. And noDBQ my comment was n directed toward you, I would think that should be obvious. DBQ, you will find out that THIS blog isn’t like some other ones you’re used to.

  88. DBQ,
    That format would be my preference and I tend to find it far more conducive to actually learning something of value. Once the threads begin down these ridiculous holes I start looking for the delete button.

  89. “So the path we’re on now is one that serves everyone’s interest. Without a resolution, President Obama doesn’t have to take the risk of a formal rebuke from Congress. But the White House is sending representatives to brief Congress about the situation, so members can feel (and say) they were consulted. By not casting an up-or-down vote, no member needs to take responsibility for what happens. If the military action is successful, they can say they were behind it all along. If it fails in any way, they can say everything would have been different if only Obama had heeded their counsel (and they can claim that they would have voted against a resolution, had there been one).” Congress does not want to vote on this pre-election. That is my first link with a short comment. How is that not relevant to the discussion?. Often a link speaks for itself and does not need additional comment.

  90. DBQ, Aridog has gotten pretty fed up. I hope you stick it out but certainly understand if you don’t. ChipS popped in last night.

  91. Precisely SWM, and it appears to me that there is a concerted effort among certain individuals to derail this discussion, just my opinion.

  92. Paul, Did you get your paycheck from the Koch Brothers? I got a big raise. DBQ has been on the Koch Brothers and Halliburton payroll for years. What a gig. Making 2k a week just for commenting. Oops, do you make that much? I think DBQ makes a lot more than both of us. In the paid commenter world women get paid more, because it’s so hard to find a smart one.

  93. Olly – I delete probably 2/3rds of the comments for various reasons and even some that I decide to respond to, on reflection I decide not to.

  94. “If Congress would do something and not just say “NO”, then Obama wouldn’t have to act alone.”

    Charlie,
    Actually, saying NO is doing something. Simply because that something means the President doesn’t get what he wants is not justification to act alone. If the will of the People is being ignored by Congress then that is what elections are for.

  95. Ahh, shades of Gene, the Dancin’ Machine. Unilaterally declare “victory” and do the chicken dance. I’ve never seen SWM do that. Desperate times and all.

  96. Olly, Obama has surrounded himself w/ yes people. He doesn’t understand why Congress just doesn’t fall in line.

  97. Olly, You’re sorta new. Are you on any payroll like myself, Paul, DBQ and David M? You should be if you’re not.

  98. Annie, Yep. If Obama comes out sounding more hawkish he will go up in the polls… too bad. Oh, and don’t hold your breath waiting for John Boehner and McCain to oppose a war. Even Rand Paul is scrambling………

  99. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/08/weird-congressional-alliances-are-forming-over-isis.html “Strange alliances—and odd rationales—are forming over Congress’s possible vote to authorize military force against the self-declared Islamic State, or ISIS, as lawmakers stand at the ready to be briefed about militants but look unlikely to act to counter them.

    The Senate is splintering over whether to defer to the president on war strategy against ISIS, with Democrats and Republicans at odds over whether President Obama needs Congress’s approval, and if not, whether he should even ask.

    The disagreements are a further indication that Congress will punt a formal authorization of the use of force against ISIS in Iraq and beyond.

    Indeed, congressional lawmakers, fresh from their summer recess, appear more interested in hearing about the threat ISIS poses than acting forcefully and swiftly to guide the president’s policy on the militant group.

    Hawkish Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) offered the frank assessment Monday that a congressional vote could hinder presidential power at a time when Obama most needs it to counter ISIS, putting him on the same page as senior Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), both of whom indicated an interest in deferring to the president on war strategy.” So congress punts again, and if the strategy fails they can conveniently blame Obama.

  100. Nick Spinelli, Master of Civility:

    “Ahh, shades of Gene, the Dancin’ Machine. Unilaterally declare “victory” and do the chicken dance. I’ve never seen SWM do that. Desperate times and all.”

    Let’s see, how many words rhyme with…

  101. The president has the statutory authority under the war powers act to prosecute an expedition against ISIL. If his administration needs to further this effort beyond 90s the administration needs to bring forth a compelling case for Congress to consider.

    ISIL is a region wide threat with aspirations to engage in military and terrorist acts against civilians and governments outside the reason.

    The president has stated he has a plan, but having a plan and executing a plan are often not connected.

    One has to look at the situation in Iraq with the Kurds in the North, which is often a forgotten cause. The situation there is probably the best in Iraq and is relatively stable even in contrast to the other areas. In my view that is probably the best “success” of what happened there in changing the Hussein government, especially considered that under his watch he gassed and strongly punished ethnic Kurds. Now, they are free of that menace.

    The Kurds have a formidable military force for what they have in terms of logistics and equipment but military commanders there have stated they do not have the weaponry to counter attacks by ISIL which has many modern arms of US nature. Theirs are largely limited to old Soviet issue.

    German and a few other Europeans have agreed to provide arms to the Kurds to drive ISIL out. But this is a front that is going to take more than just us. It should have an international allied effort and given ISIL’s propaganda the Europeans and Middle-Easterners are increasingly likely to supply arms and/or combat forces.

    NATO type orgs should provide air superiority but one prong is not going to be sufficient. Advisors and special forces from the US are going to be necessary at least for coordination and intelligence efforts.

    I view the threat from ISIL at a worse level than the Taliban was in 2001. That is something that cannot be ignored.

    We’ll have to see what the president does to see if it merits support or worry, but proclaiming he can go at it alone and unilaterally is something he has become rather accustomed to and that is a long term breach of what our constitution protects the public from.

  102. I agree Darren, we are going to need ALOT of help from Europe as well as ME countries that are moderate, which are, um… Who? Maybe Turkey.

  103. I think people need to get past this Republican / Democrat issue and just stick to the situation.

    Funny how people decried the president for going into Libya and demanded that Congress step in and prevent him from doing so then they considered him a wimp for not enforcing the red line declaration he made against Syria and Congress is complaining. Now there is much mention of the Republicans being wimps for not supporting the president to go toe to toe with ISIL.

    People’s position on issues is too often based upon party loyalty and bashing the other side. And, they seldom recognize that they themselves are.

  104. SM, This was the plan and it has been quite successful. Propaganda works.

    “The Pew Research poll shows the public growing increasingly concerned about the threat of Islamic extremism following the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and with attention less focused on National Security Agency surveillance programs.

    The poll found only 35 percent believe anti-terrorism policies have gone too far in restricting the civil liberties of people in the United States. That number stood at 47 percent a month after former NSA contractor Edward Snowden first leaked information on secret surveillance practices.”

    Here are some interesting facts to counteract the propaganda of this govt.: “If “brutal” enemies do the beheading, start bombing whole regions, as Henry Kissinger said on Sunday, and respond disproportionately, in a way that “you would not analyze in terms of a normal response.”

    If authoritarian “friendly” governments do the beheading, as Saudi Arabia has done 26 times since August 4, 2014 (mostly to non-Saudis and political dissidents) say and do nothing. Human Rights Watch says the U.S. maintains a “deafening silence” on human rights violations by Saudi Arabia, its key ally in the region.

    National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice explained her government’s take on “advancing” human rights while maintaining friendships with torturers last December: “Let’s be honest: at times, as a result, we do business with governments that do not respect the rights we hold most dear. We make tough choices.”

    (World can’t wait) USG is beyond cynical. It’s up to US citizens not to fall for all the lies. We can do this by being informed and thinking for ourselves. We have this ability, and we should use it!

  105. Darren, If only people “could get past the Dem/Rep issues” Well, we could if we had more choices than those 2 lame parties.

  106. I posted this earlier: “A lot of people would like to stay on the sideline and say, ‘Just bomb the place and tell us about it later,’ ” said Representative Jack Kingston, Republican of Georgia, who supports having an authorization vote. “It’s an election year. A lot of Democrats don’t know how it would play in their party, and Republicans don’t want to change anything. We like the path we’re on now. We can denounce it if it goes bad, and praise it if it goes well and ask what took him so long.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/us/as-obama-makes-case-congress-is-divided-on-campaign-against-militants.html?_r=3

    Congress seems to have spoken. Its illegal when we say its illegal but we want him to take executive action when we, the congress, might have to speak up and take a vote and be held responsible for that vote.

  107. Darren, ISIS is blowback from the illegal invasion of Iraq and Bremmer disbanding the police and army. There’s a very interesting movie about this period in Iraq’s history called: “No End in Sight”.

    Our wars aren’t bringing justice, democracy or help to the people of Iraq or anywhere else.

    Our wars keep the oil fields safe for friendly oil companies, keep Cheney and friends (this includes the current occupant of the WH) rolling in money/power, and are an excuse to repress our own population. Just as David Addington said, (I’m paraphrasing) –one more bomb and FISA is gone.

    I think SM’s poll is important. It shows this nation is ready for a dictator/repression and ready to give over our rights in exchange for “safety”.

    Seeing as the USG is killing civilians all over the place, we aren’t winning hearts and minds and I do expect a terrorist attack. What this means to me is two things: 1. we need to peacefully try to prevent our govt. from committing all the atrocities it does in its wars of empire and 2. we need to mentally prepare for the fact that we are not safe from attack in the US, but this does not mean we should give up our rights.

    I don’t know if following through on 1 and 2 above is possible. I feel that a dictatorship (or a more soft but extensive repression) is a more likely possibility in this nation. I hope I am wrong about that.

  108. Nick – with the IRS emasculating the Tea Party, I don’t think they have the money to pay anyone. The Democrats sure do though.

  109. Darren Smith,

    You’re describing, basically, OEF I.

    Clinton’s 1999 US-led Balkans intervention famously came in under the wire at 78 days, which he claimed satisfied the legal standard for military action under Executive authority only, missing Legislative authority. However, the post-war occupation in Kosovo has extended beyond that. US troops continue to serve today in NATO KFOR.

    http://www.aco.nato.int/kfor/about-us/natos-role-in-kosovo.aspx

    Over time, as the security situation has improved, NATO has been gradually adjusting KFOR’s force posture towards a minimal presence: essentially a smaller force progressively relying more on flexibility and intelligence with fewer static tasks. The pace and level of successive troop reductions is decided by the North Atlantic Council as the security situation on the ground evolves and in light of security conditions. This process is conditions-based and not calendar-driven.

    The length needed for KFOR and other historic US-led peace operations remind that we left Iraq too early. That obvious error has been costly. We must be careful not to repeat the error and do the job right moving forward, not by political incentive, which goes to my comments with Annie upthread that we must fix the corrupted social political dialogue and schema that caused us to make the obvious error of prematurely leaving Iraq – among other obvious errors that brought us to current crises – in the first place.

    Possible legal authority:

    As I said to bc, a new UNSC resolution would re-activate PL 107-243. Obama may also try to stretch the meaning of “threat by Iraq”.

    A new multi- or bilateral treaty with Iraq, but that must be approved by Congress.

    PL 107-40, the 9/11 law, stated the standing policy since the Clinton administration that “the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States”. The unsettled question, which was debated for OIF, has been the specific character of a threat that opens such authority. The policy seems to fit ISIS, but again, the question is unsettled.

    Statutory authority linked with a security agreement under international law. For example, when he skipped Congress for the Libya regime change, Obama claimed the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ justification was authorized by the general U.S. agreement with the United Nations covenant. R2P was tenuous when Obama used it for Libya and he hasn’t – as far as I know – cited it since, though its application seems to fit ISIS.

    So far, Obama has been citing to the authority to protect US entities in Iraq. I’m unclear how far that authority stretches. While the President is authorized to respond if a US entity is attacked, I’m also unclear how far that authority stretches. For example, Bush could have cited the no-fly zone, where US planes were regularly under fire, but I don’t recall Bush citing to the no-fly zone as an authority for OIF. Perhaps it falls within the 90 days reporting standard.

  110. Jill: “the illegal invasion of Iraq”

    How do you figure?

    Saddam was in multiple breach of the UNSC resolutions of the Gulf War ceasefire that was enforced by the US President under US law and policy. The legal basis of the Iraq enforcement is clear – see my comment at September 10, 2014 at 11:12 am.

  111. ” Now there is much mention of the Republicans being wimps for not supporting the president to go toe to toe with ISIL.” Darren. From what I have read Dick Cheney and most republicans want Obama to take a harder line against ISIS.There is the isolationist faction of the republican party but when it comes to ISIS they are not saying much.

  112. swarthmoremom: “the isolationist faction of the republican party”

    Just to clarify, there are the pro-autocrat, anti-liberal IR-realists.

    Then there are the Paul-type “isolationist faction” libertarians. They descend directly from the America First Committee that opposed US intervention in WW2.

    Blame-America leftists and isolationists don’t come from the same core perspective, but converge on a lot of their arguments.

  113. ERIC

    “A careful perusal of Resolution 1441 reveals grounds for arguments both for and against the existence of a Security Council authorization for the use of force against Iraq in 2003 — and this in a document that resulted from eight weeks of negotiations among governments that were working hard either to secure or deny such authorization. The failure to close off one or the other sets of arguments suggests that the ambiguities were intentional and that the potential for deep disagreement over the legal meaning of the document was consciously accepted at the time.”

    Sounds like your argument is that Boosh started Golf War2 because he “had” to. I disagree. The U.S. bears the guilt for BOTH invasions, and the deaths of upwards of one million Iraqi children as the result of U.S. sanctions and contamination of the water supply there. Then U.S. Sec, of State Madwoman
    NotAllright said “yes, it was worth it”.

    LBJ would almost certainly have been indicted/convicted/imprisoned for bribery if JFK hadn’t been assassinated — on the very day that hearings were to be held concerning (some) of LBJ’s alleged crimes. One good reason why many researchers believe LBJ knew he would not have to “worry about those GDamn Kennedys after tomorrow”.

    Only one mainstream historian has had the guts to opine that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, and that LBJ may have had foreknowledge of it. The historian is Robert Bechloss.

  114. swarthmoremom … funny you mentioned Dick Cheney. You should love him😉 If the Republicans and Conservatives want to be forever in the dust bin of history all they have to do is keeping listening to that mendacious clown. He is anything but a real conservative. He’s a remnant of the Nixon West Wing for G-d’s sake. Why he is still on television I do not understand, but he is the very best friend the far left ever had politically.

    I am saying this as a conservative independent leaning Republican, who will just skip the next election entirely if Cheney is still in a position of influence. My reasons will remain private for now, but they are solid and founded in my experience in the military.

  115. “Blame-America leftists and isolationists don’t come from the same core perspective, but converge on a lot of their arguments.” Eric Yes, Ron Paul and Denis Kucinich held similar views about America’s involvement in war but did not hold similar views on most other issues.

  116. Oh I see it’s at 8 Central, ok more talking heads until then. I hope he throws it into the lap of the Congress, but I doubt he will.

  117. Annie
    The policy of partisan politics is: it’s never when my team does it.

    If Obama plays his cards Right, he’ll have both parties on his side.

  118. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/10/congress-war-isis_n_5798780.html “WASHINGTON — It’s a rare day in Washington when lawmakers in both parties agree on something. But when it comes to the Islamic State, members of Congress are practically in lockstep pushing for an expanded fight against the militant group overseas.

    The Huffington Post spent Tuesday talking to a random sampling of 10 lawmakers — Democrats and Republicans, from both chambers — about the need to step up America’s role in countering the Islamic State as it expands its terrorist stronghold in Iraq and Syria. All but one were quick to frame the group as an imminent threat to the United States and one that must be snuffed out immediately.

    “There’s been no pushback against the Islamic State and they have made breathtaking advances. We haven’t seen anything like this since Hitler and the blitzkrieg in World War II,” said Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), who sits on the House Intelligence Committee.

    “The Islamic State have declared war against the infidel, they have declared war against the U.S.,” she said. “The question is, how will we respond? We will view their threat as a law enforcement effort or exercise, or will we respond in kind that this is war.”

    “They’re attacking countries that are pivotal to us and pivotal to peace in the Middle East,” said Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.). “Automatically, we are affected … They’re an immediate threat to the U.S.”

    Perhaps more notable than the show of uniformity on Capitol Hill, though, is the lack of debate over what type of threat the Islamic State actually poses to the U.S. There have been few congressional hearings on the matter, and lawmakers haven’t drawn much of a distinction between the militant group being a direct threat to the U.S. versus a threat to U.S. interests overseas. Instead, most have fallen back on broad statements that the situation is severe and the U.S. must immediately beef up its military involvement abroad.

  119. SWM – since they ramped up the threat level on the Mexican border over a possible ISIS attack, I think they are a direct threat.

  120. Jill: “Our wars aren’t bringing justice, democracy or help to the people of Iraq or anywhere else.”

    War isn’t supposed to do any of those things. War is a contest for dominance.

    When we’ve won dominance, then we can set the foundation of security and stability. When we’ve set the foundation of security and stability, then we can build the peace on our terms.

    War and peace go together. We don’t win a war until we’ve secured the peace. In many cases, we can only build the peace after we’ve won the war.

    See my comment to you at September 10, 2014 at 1:02 pm.

    In February 2003, I attended a panel at school that included Paul Bremer. He accurately predicted the challenges of Iraq after Saddam.

    Knowing the challenges, however, is not the same as solving them.

    Bremer had a good blueprint for the transition after Saddam. CPA officials understood what was needed in a macro academic sense. Their choices were reasoned and justified. But the CPA failed to execute Bremer’s blueprint on the ground in the micro real-world sense. The CPA and, yes, the US Army simply was overtaken by events on the ground. Like I said, it’s a contest. We fell behind the insurgents and terrorists, such as the Saddam loyalists, al Qaeda, and Iran-sponsored Sadrists. The enemy used extreme violence against the state, economy, peace operators, and the Iraqi people in order to blow up the necessary foundation of security and stability – and with it, the initial, nascent peace process.

    Based on what I’ve heard, there was a ‘golden hour’ in the immediate post-war period. Most Iraqis wanted the better future after Saddam that President Clinton had promised them. President Bush honored President Clinton’s promise and pledged to build the peace with Iraq. It’s barely remembered now that the international community was prepared to invest and pour assets into Iraq in the post-war, but only if America guaranteed the foundation of security and stability in Iraq. As GEN Petraeus warned, “Act quickly, because every Army of liberation has a half-life.”

    Think of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs – America’s higher social, political, and economic aspirations for Iraq after Saddam wholly depended on first establishing the base of security and stability, followed by orderly governance, services, and economy. When the terrorists and insurgents beat us to 1st base on security and stability, we lost the ‘golden hour’ and our first, best chance to take control and build the peace. Our higher order aspirations for Iraq could not work absent the base of security and stability.

    Having served as a soldier in an advanced US peace mission – South Korea – I can assure you killing civilians is not characteristic for us. It’s not our strategy. When the US Army wins dominance, civilian casualties drop sharply and peace is built. That ain’t just correlation. That’s causation. That’s the American way.

    However, when we lose dominance to the enemy – as happened in Iraq before we won back dominance with the COIN “Surge” – civilian casualties rise. That also isn’t correlation. That’s causation. Civilian casualties are characteristic of the enemy’s strategy.

    The peace solution is not giving the civilians whom rely on American protection over to enemies like the Taliban and ISIS for whom civilian casualties is a purposeful strategy. The peace solution is to defeat the enemy, win American dominance, and build the peace. The peace solution is also not abandoning the peace-building process.

    As I said upthread, imagine the consequence if Eisenhower had abandoned Europe and/or Asia in the early 1950s.

    Heck, by the early 1950s, we had fought the Japanese, north Koreans, and Red Chinese in rapid succession for Korea, with a lot of civilian casualties. But Eisenhower didn’t abandon Korea. We stayed, and secured and built the peace there, at least as much as we’ve been able with the other Korea still threatening.

    Respect the enemy, Jill. Know what our default is. Know what their default is. The enemy wants peace, too, but their peace is not like our peace.

  121. PS —

    What number do you believe is more accurate, and given that YOU will (hopefully) respond SUBSTANTIVELY to THAT issue, kindly provide the source for your information…so that all can weigh it for bias.

    Note that I said “up to one million”. Do you think it’s higher? I’m only referring to the Clintoon sanctions/attacks. Do you consider contaminating the water supply used by innocent civilians “not a problem” since Saddam was no longer a favored U.S. dictator at that time?

  122. 5:09 PM – 10 Sep 2014

    Ta-Nehisi Coates ‏@tanehisicoates tweeted:

    Belief in the fundamental and divine purity of a state, allows you to dismiss it’s wanton brutality–past and present.

  123. Eric, I will say this, if fear if ISIS wins more dominance, I think we’re all at greater risk. I don’t think for a minute we were ever ‘safe’ from terrorism.I just hope we don’t find out in five years this greater risk has been hyped up.

  124. Lot’s of good baseball games on if you don’t want to listen to lies and alibis from a failed President. Tell me if he’s grown a pair yet? Aridog, I don’t know if I dislike Cheney or his droning daughter more. Liberals here don’t understand when we hate Republicans and are intellectually honest. And, when we say something good about a Dem they are suspicious. I learned from decades in my biz that highly suspicious people are the ones you need to be VERY wary of, they’re duplicitous. Many liberals are just hardwired to just use half their brain. You can’t talk w/ them.

  125. bill mcwilliams: “the deaths of upwards of one million Iraqi children as the result of U.S. sanctions”

    I’m confident, though it’s been a while since I did that piece of research, that figure isn’t accurate.

    That being said, one reason I supported Operation Iraqi Freedom was my opposition to the toxic alternative: namely, the pre-OIF status quo with Saddam of the failing indefinitely stalemated ‘containment’.

    By the close of the Clinton administration, after ten years of struggle as chief enforcer of the UN Security Council resolutions to disarm and rehabilitate Saddam Hussein, only 3 options remained for the US with Iraq:

    A. Indefinitely continue and head-line the toxically corrupted, provocative, harmful, and crumbling sanctions and ‘containment’ status quo.
    B. End the mission and release a noncompliant Saddam from constraint, in power, unreconstructed, and triumphant.
    C. Give Saddam a final chance to comply under credible threat of regime change, and if he failed to comply, then bring Iraq into compliance with regime change.

    Clinton ended his presidency where Bush started his: A.

    After 9/11, Bush chose C. Bush’s choice meant we could stop being complicit with Saddam in purposely and uselessly causing the suffering of the Iraqi people, either through (hopefully) Saddam’s volitional compliance or, if Saddam refused his last chance, then Iraq’s compliance through regime change.

    Since you opposed A and C, then that must mean you wanted B, or freeing a noncompliant, unreconstructed Saddam from constraint.

    The problem with B, and the crumbling A for that matter, is the ISG Duelfer Report shows that a free Saddam meant an unreconstructed Saddam rearmed with WMD. Saddam’s motive was defeating the US-led Iraq enforcement and rearming Iraq, not compliance and rehabilitation. He was already reconstituting Iraq’s NBC capabilities, with an active program in the IIS, and was intent on fully restoring Iraq’s WMD and advancing his regional ambitions.

  126. eric:

    You don’t know the correct number – but you know one million is wrong? How do you know that? Was it only 500,ooo? Will you accept that? If so, then that’s still too many innocent children who died from a contaminated water supply. maybe the other 500,000 died from lack of medical supplies and drugs needed for all the sick children there. You think that’s just fine and dandy? I don’t.

    BTW – do you know who April Glaspie is ,,,. assuming she hasn’t been offed to prevent her from telling the truth about how the U.S. (James Baker) instructed her to give Sodom Hugh Sane the green light to invade the Pedophile state of Kuwait aka Iraq’s 22 Province.

  127. I just finished reading the text of Obama’s speech. Leaders put forth a goal and then establish short medium and long term objectives. I’m not just talking war, I’m talking anything. Obama talked about what we WILL NOT DO, what resources we will not use, and little time on goals and objectives. It’s like a house builder not showing you the plans, or even a picture of the house he’s building. But saying, “I won’t be using nail guns or scaffolding, I will use all types of saws and hammers.” But, he’s an adjunct professor, what could one expect.

  128. It’s time Obama earned his peace prize. He is a man without the ability to see any answer except war. This is not the mark of intellect, nor of a just heart. It is the mind of a minion of war contractors.

    Blowback will not keep Americans safe. The ceding of fundamental rights will not keep Americans safe. War will not help the civilians of Iraq. We are being told lies and it is time to stop believing those lies.

  129. After that speech, I think we need to stay out of it. Expecting Iraqi troops to do anything is ridiculous. The peshmerga troops can’t do it alone on the ground. How is an air war going to destroy ISIS?

  130. Straight ahead, Jill.

    Obama cannot go against the wishes of the military/security complex, and remain in office, but imo, he sold out to them when he was a very young man, and now he’s stuck. Sadly, given his own wealth, and that to come starting in 2017, I think he probably has the same values and worldview as other elites.

  131. Ambassador Ryan Crocker on the ISIS crisis, Sept 8:
    http://online.wsj.com/articles/ryan-crocker-islamic-state-is-getting-stronger-and-its-targeting-america-1410218507

    But all of this—military action, political engagement, effective coalition-building—will require something that has been in short supply in this growing crisis: American leadership. This country, and the president personally, must step forward and show the world that we can and will move decisively, collectively and immediately.

  132. bill mcwilliams,

    I did not think the sanctions were “fine and dandy”. In fact, I said to you that one reason I supported OIF was because I opposed the indefinite continuation of the sanctions.

    By then, we only had 3 choices with Iraq: indefinite sanctions and ‘containment’ (status quo), free a noncompliant Saddam, or give Saddam a last chance to comply under credible threat of regime change.

    I was against both the status quo of indefinite sanctions and freeing noncompliant Saddam, so I supported giving Saddam a last chance to comply.

    What alternative to the sanctions status quo did you advocate for? Free noncompliant Saddam? Or last chance to comply?

  133. eric:

    You don’t know the correct number – but you know one million is wrong? How do you know that? Was it only 500,ooo? Will you accept that? If so, then that’s still too many innocent children who died from a contaminated water supply. maybe the other 500,000 died from lack of medical supplies and drugs needed for all the sick children there. You think that’s just fine and dandy? I don’t.

    BTW – do you know who April Glaspie is ,,,. assuming she hasn’t been offed to prevent her from telling the truth about how the U.S. (James Baker) instructed her to give Sodom Hugh Sane the green light to invade the Pedophile state of Kuwait aka Iraq’s 22 Province.

  134. Yes, Jill is correct. We’ll just keep poking that hornets’ nest until something really bad happens. Kurds are our best buddies today. Well, the Turks are our NATO allies, if we support the kurds, where does that put us?? As you can see, this is just one folly after another. One of these days, the blowback is going to involve a really smart guy, and really bad things will happen. When you see republicrats together in arms, that’s real terror. Defense industry really sweetened the pot on this one. As pointed out above, The Saudis roll heads about every day. You’ve all fallen for an expensive marketing campaign. And not a real good one either. I would expect the people on this blog to see through these things. Some are seeing it for what it is, others… I’m not so sure.

  135. Saddam was our stooge. When he decided to walk–that is looked into selling his oil without using dollars–that was his end game. Same with Putin, he isn’t doing much better against the PR blitz and false flag ops. Higher stakes with him though.

  136. slohrss29

    I agree 100%. IMO, other than the obvious right wing shills, most people here
    accept the NYT/NPR worldview and think that HRC is just peachy. Mention the phrase “Deep Politics” or the name Peter Dale Scott, and that would be enough for many of them to support an immediate invasion of somewhere…after sufficient time has lapsed for the target country to comply with suicidal sanctions – disguised as U.N.-mandated “suggestions” – natch.

  137. Saddam tried to make Kuwait stop its slant-drilling into and stealing Iraqi oil from the Rumalla oil field. The u.S. assured Saddam that it would not interfere with Iraq’s action against the Pedophile Emirs of Kuwait. IOW, the U.S. tricked Saddam, and used his actions as an excuse to invade Iraq.

  138. “The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.”- James Madison

  139. The president’s speech reflected a President who is deciding to take decisive action, but very limited action. My only concern is how many air force personnel need to be lost before we get dragged into a land war again in Iraq? Some on the Right are claiming that ISIS is an imminent threat to the US and is coming here to attack us. Sounds familiar doesn’t it?

  140. From the very beginning of the USA, we have engaged in undeclared wars, starting with the Barbary Wars which was supported by the very people who WROTE the Constitution. So if they had no problem with such things, this is simply carping. The President has the authority to use the military as he sees fit to meet national security threats. If Congress thinks he has done so without justification, Congress has the power to impeach him. The list of wars the President has started, or invasions he has undertaken is WAY too long to list here. When I was in the military, LBJ invaded the Dominican Republic without any resolution of Congress, JFK invaded Cuba without Congress’ approval. Eisenhower invaded Lebanon without authorization from Congress. That is just a short list in my time. So please stop the melodrama as if Obama is the first. I have to also note that FDR did the same thing on so many programs that he makes Obama look like Turley’s student.

  141. raff
    ISIS is worse than Al-q which was worse than Bin Laden which was worse that Saddam which was worse than China hackers which, of course is worse than Russia and the Soviet era Cold War which was always worse than WWII.

    My only question is:
    What boogie man will President Clinton evoke?

  142. AUMF of 2001…
    … How many more decades and how many more George W Bush’s will America be saddled with an unconstitutional power grab at unilateral war by one person?

  143. I still find myself saying:
    “There were no IED’s and market bombings under Saddam.”

    That has now morphed into:
    “There were no threats of rebles in Iraq under Saddam.”

    Both are true.
    Yet both have been happening since the USA light the fuse.

    If time travel were possible…

  144. JT , BO is Harvard trained constitutional law “professor” who told us that he taught constitution and will obey the constitution . You just don’t know what constitution they teach at Harvard so that’s why you think he is not following the constitution .

  145. max –

    if your point is that the U.S. has long been involved in waging wars throughout Asia (and much of the rest of the known physical Universe), I agree.

  146. Swathmoredada —

    The constitution is so open to interpretation that O can pretty much treat it as GW Boosh famously said: “it’s just a piece of paper”.

  147. OBAMA IS A ZIONIST STOOGE
    Murderous Israeli Zionists Control U.S. Politics
    The Zionists call themselves Jews but they are not Jews they are Satanists
    Israel is not a ‘Jewish State’ It is a ‘Zionist State’
    The Zionists Financed Hitler and the Nazis

    THE ZIONIST JEW PSYCHOPATHS CONTROL AMERICA
    (Buena Vista Mall is pro-Jewish, anti-Zionism, anti-Neocon)
    ZIONIST STOOGES = U.S. GOVERNMENTS, WHITE HOUSE, WALL STREET, MEDIA, HOLLYWOOD
    ZIONIST JEWS OWN AND RUN THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
    THE ZIONIST JEWS ARE WARMONGERS, MASS MURDERERS
    ZIONIST BANKSTERS FINANCED HITLER TO POWER
    ZIONIST JEWS FINANCED THE NAZI WAR MACHINE
    THE ZIONIST JEWS ALSO CONTROL THE GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL
    ISRAEL DID 9/11

  148. Republicans are so bad ; they made our beloved president interpret constitution a little differently than Turley. How can they/tea party people do that? Its all Bush’s fault .

  149. swarthmoredad, My husband posted a few times under that name a few years ago. Since you are not he, I guess you hijacked his posting name although you did leave out the r.

  150. I think my husband needs to contact Prof. Turley about the use of his name by another poster or two who clearly misrepresent his views.

  151. As long as he gets permission from the War Contractors (180,000) that are looting the treasury right under citizens noses, and making money by the war for the big banks & Wall ST, I don’t see that he has a problem….

  152. I do not quite understand the contrarian criticisms which I see from the author JT of this blog. One article bangs the Obama guy for being soft on terrorism and then later he is guilty of excessive use of Executive Power. We have a guy down here where I am staying, New Orleans, named the Raging Cajun. He speaks a strange tongue. He says he speaks French but I am from France and it “aint French” as they might say down here. He speaks some kind of frog but then it is some tribal thing. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Not always at once. When he does then its Cajun.

    I was here studying the American culture on Planet Earth about sixty years ago. You had right wing artFays back then claiming that Democrats were “soft on Communism”. Now this has morphed into Soft On Terrorists. I also noticed that a smell goes up in the room here which is similar to what we get back home and that is when some official says: “Raise your right hand and repeat after me.” So, when these legal experts go to Congress and do that routine we get a big artFay in the hearing room. I have taken to watching such activities on cable tv and not being present.

    My point here is this. Do you want to have a Commander in Chief? Do you want to be tough on Muslims and Terrorists? Do you know that you have both a lame duck President and a lame Congress which has no ducks but only chickens that are always back home on the roost? Last year I observed that between the month of September and New Years plus ten days, your Congress did not meet except to pass the plate. If you know what I mean jelly bean.

  153. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/09/cheney-in-wonderland-110826.html?hp=l8#.VBGWLEjU1z8 “Here is a multiple-choice question. See if you can get it right. Asking for advice from Dick Cheney on foreign policy is as sensible as:

    A. Asking for advice from Anthony Weiner on how to “sext” and get away with it

    B. Asking Ted Cruz’s advice on how to build a political career by keeping your mouth shut

    C. Expecting Vladimir Putin to say he’s sorry, and could we please forgive him

    D. All of the above

    OK, the answer—(D)—is pretty obvious. Maybe too obvious. But the question is: Why isn’t it more obvious to more people than it appears to be? The fact is, Dick Cheney is making an aggressive comeback in American political life, and far too few people are laughing.

    On Tuesday, the elder GOP statesman advised the Republican House Conference, which listened respectfully, about the need for a strong defense. On Wednesday, people packed the American Enterprise Institute—which continues to thrive as the beating heart of neoconservatism in Washington in defiance of a decade of grievously bad policy advice—to hear the former veep to speak on “9/11 and the future of U.S. foreign policy,” a prebuttal to President Obama’s speech to the nation Wednesday night about the Islamic State.”

  154. They are working hard to push back that Rand Paul antiwar movement in the repub party. They did a purge in the 90s when they out conservatives, and now they need to do it again. It was encouraging to see, but I think most people underestimate the money and influence the neocons hold. They are on the offensive now, and it is troubling how effective this has been. They also needed something new for us to fear besides the nsa. Plus, they depend on the short attention span of the average American. Since it looks like the Malaysian airliner case has fallen apart, they just shut up about it–nothing further to make us fearful there. Keep us afraid is the game.

  155. Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

  156. bill mcwilliams – so you agree that 1 million dead children is an overstatement, now you are quibbling over the amount of the overstatement. Ah, give us a legitimate number.

  157. Dems see another Carter on their hands and they are pooping their pants. They know it’s bad for November. They fear another 20 years of minority. After Carter they @ least had the House. After Obama, they will have nothing!

  158. Some think that this IS IS an oil war:

    What makes IS powerful today is the fact that they laid out their military strategy based on where oil fields are located. The fact that they went after northeast Syria and northern Iraq is not coincidental by any means. Islamic State may be ruthless and brutal, but it is first and foremost a terrorist organization with an astute business plan.

    The capture of oil wells in Syria and Iraq has made the group financially self-sufficient. Now it’s all or nothing.” (Soft on Intelligence).

    It could depend on what the meaning of IS is.

  159. “Gallup poll gives GOP 23-point lead in keeping US safe

    By Peter Sullivan

    The public thinks Republicans will do a better job keeping the U.S. safe by a wider margin than at any time since 2002, according to a Gallup poll.

    The poll finds that 55 percent of adults think Republicans will do a better job protecting the country from terrorism and military threats, while 32 percent think Democrats will.

    The poll comes as fears of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria have dominated the news, despite statements from U.S. officials that the group is not currently known to be plotting attacks on the U.S. It was conducted Sept. 4-7, before President Obama’s speech on Wednesday night laying out a strategy to defeat ISIS. ” The Hill With McCain getting ready to take over as Foreign Relations Committee Chair, the American people may get what they want. Bombs away…. I guess they forget that 9-11 happened on Bush’s watch.

  160. SWM – Pearl Harbor happened on FDR’s watch and the invasion of Korea happened on Truman’s watch. Do you have a point you are trying to make?

  161. SWM, I can be coldly analytical. I said this recently. The Dems had an opportunity to take National Defense away from Rep for the first time since Truman. Obama has squandered that opportunity. The far left, Warren, Franken, see this and are talking tough. IMO, ISIS is a golden opportunity. The war on terrorism has been asymmetrical w/ small, diverse groups. ISIS is an army. That computes w/ the many who could not comprehend the asymmetry. Obama has the support to go after these animals. He doesn’t have the balls. I know you disagree. “No boots on the ground” is your philosophy. But, this is a golden opportunity and we don’t have a guy w/ the brains or balls to take it. For all my derision for Hillary, she would see the opportunity and take it.

  162. Nick – does not make much difference unless you put boots on the ground. You can bomb the hell out of them, but you never get them all. We learned this during WWII and Vietnam.

  163. “Obama has the support to go after these animals. He doesn’t have the balls. I know you disagree. “No boots on the ground” is your philosophy. But, this is a golden opportunity and we don’t have a guy w/ the brains or balls to take it. For all my derision for Hillary, she would see the opportunity and take it.” nick I do appreciate Obama’s more cautious stance as the situation is very complicated. When Obama was elected the first time, people were tired of wars Now ISIS has them ramped up again. Yes ,Hillary has positioned herself to the right of Obama and if she decides to run she will probably win.

  164. It’s so comforting to see how well this republic has progressed beyond that whole archaic tripartite form of government. The notion that the power to create and enforce laws, residing in different branches of government, is simply inefficient for the all wise leader. It’s a far simpler notion for the run-of-the-mill citizen to confine themselves to their own mundane lives and leave the sophisticated management of national and world affairs to the Execuslative Branch of government.

  165. SM,

    What you see is the deep state at work. To you, it is a shame that people fail to recognize the greatness of war mongering by Obama and other Democrats. To others, it is important to commend the war mongering of Republicans. That’s a win-win for the deep state. It’s propaganda working at its best.

    People now want war when that is the last thing our nation needs. The desire for war is nurtured in our people. Democrats have begun many wars. Instead of bemoaning how people fail to recognize the constant war making of Obama, maybe we could think about why Obama is always choosing war. We could see how both he and powerful Republicans agree that war and more war is always the best policy. We can think about why this agreement exists. We can examine the consequences of their choice for war.

    These are all things we are capable of doing.

  166. “To you, it is a shame that people fail to recognize the greatness of war mongering by Obama and other Democrats. “Not exactly… I was responding to your fellow Turley bloggers’ assertions that Obama does not have the “balls” to put troops on the ground.

  167. Nobel Peace Laureate Barrack Hussein Obama has the solution to all of the worlds problems:

    First the US government levies economic sanctions to weaken the target nation.

    Second the US government arms and trains terrorist cadres to operate within and destabilize the target nation.

    Third the US government launches a propaganda campaign demonizing the ruling elites/government of the target nation.

    Fourth after the target nation has been weakened and demonized sufficiently the US government unleashes a humanitarian bombing campaign.

    Fifth after the target nation has been bombed back into the stone-age and the target nations government toppled the US government will provide funds to rebuild the target nation while placing it at the mercy of Western multinational corporations/institutions and possible military occupation.

    Sixth the US government picks another target nation and begins the cycle again.

    The only way the vicious cycle of rampant US militarism ends is when enough American citizens stop sending their loved-ones thousands of miles from home to kill and die in support of the US governments bankrupt and stillborn ideologies.

  168. personanongrata – we used up all of our ‘bomb them into the Stone Age’ bombs during our wars with Iraq. The problem is that if we have sanctions some idiot country (insert Russia) will give them what they need. To have sanctions, you need to be able to enforce it.

  169. Obama has the balls, he just needs to head out to Martha’s Vineyard to get them out of the hazard. If that fails, then he can always borrower Hillary’s or Elizabeth’s.

  170. pcs –

    The average Russian would say that Putin is the only true statesman in the world, and that calling Russia an “idiot country” is something that one would expect to hear from a paid shill or else someone who is hopelessly uninformed and possessed of very weak thinking/reasoning skills.

  171. Swathmoredada: “BO is Harvard trained constitutional law “professor” who told us that he taught constitution and will obey the constitution .”

    Teaching ConLaw does not automatically make one an originalist or adherent of any other particular Constitutional interpretive school.

  172. I’m not sure your girl Hillary would even win the nomination. Crazy Joe Biden has gotten a new shot of testosterone. And, “cautious” is a very generous appraisal of your guy, Obama. I grew up in a street fighting, blue collar town. I didn’t like fighting but you had to prove your bones. The first thing I learned was when there was going to be a fight, no getting around it, you get in the first punch and you don’t stop until you have pummeled your opponent. We are paying the dear price of a man raised by women.

  173. The most dangerous man in the world, Putin, has been pimp slapping the Western world in Ukraine. Hell, he just took Crimea. We could launch a full scale war w/ allies in the ME and Europe, both destroying ISIS and Assad. The complicating factor has been that ISIS is the opponent of Assad. Well, destroy both of them. The Peshmerga are fighting mofo’s, they’ll take care of ISIS in Iraq, Obama just needs to arm them. We take out Assad and Putin will be shitting his pants. Screw sanctions. Putin needs a high and tight pitch AWAY from Europe. He’s evil but he’s not stupid. If we do that, Ukraine will be safe. And, WTF has happened w/ that plane Putin shot out of the sky???

  174. Paul C the US government has the ability, along with it’s client states, to levy economic sanctions that another nation, Russia to use your example, cannot replace.

    An example would be the SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) network used among other things to settle payments between nations.

    Or

    The US and it’s client states could cut off the target nation from financing provided World Bank, International Monetary Fund and other international financial institutions.

    Please read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man

  175. The US could put together a force of VOLUNTEERS who took Iraq the first time and are heartsick to see Obama squander it. They would VOLUNTEER to got there and fight. They just need a war leader, not an adjunct college professor.

  176. Eric – technically I think Obama taught ConLaw II. Not sure that you cannot get through the Constitution in one course, but if they split it, that could be the problem. He knows everything starting with the 11th Amendment through 27. Anything before that is a black hole.

  177. personanongrata – 1) I have a personal hatred of Wikipedia. 2) It does us no good to have sanctions against ISIS if Turkey is going to support them. Turkey does not want the Kurds armed.

  178. Nick S your delusional @ 12:18PM.

    If the current state of affairs in Iraq, Syria, etal is so unpalatable to you, instead of offering others up to sacrifice for your blood lust and still born ideology, perhaps you can put your money where your mouth is and volunteer yourself and if your to old you can proffer up your military aged loved ones for sacrifice to the merchants of death on the altar of greed.

  179. “We are paying the dear price of a man raised by women.” nick So all males raised in either a lesbian family or by female heads of households are not qualified to run for office in your world? That is a rather privileged, elitist and sexist statement.

  180. Persona, I am offering no one. I am asserting there are 10’s of thousands who fought for Iraq and would happily VOLUNTEER to take back what Obama has squandered. It would be an homage to them and their brothers who died. Do you understand VOLUNTEER?

  181. What part of “volunteer” do you not understand Personanongrata? Some things are worth fighting for and us veterans don’t stop honoring our oath once we leave the service.

  182. Paul C, I’m wholly unconcerned about your personal hatreds.

    Do your own research.

    FYI The government of Turkey falls under the heading of US government client state. They along with a host of other western governments are directly responsible for the training, arming, financing, providing actionable intelligence and providing political cover for the jihadists operating through out the world.

  183. I’m not saying that @ all. I said Hillary would be a good Commander in Chief. I have said previously, only a man can teach a boy how to be a man. And, only a woman can teach a girl how to be a woman. I know many men who were raised by a single mom and turned out to be real men, not metrosexuals. Older brothers, uncles, neighbors, Big Brothers can all fill that role. But, without that mentoring, it is highly unlikely a boy can pick up the tools needed. Hell, this is not uncontroversial. That’s why there is Big Brothers. This is why there are mentoring programs for fatherless boys. We went over all this recently and I thought it was a good discussion. Maybe you weren’t there. Obama’s Rasputin is a woman. He needed a dude.

  184. Olly @ 12:32PM,

    The soldiers, sailors, airmen/women and Marines that were involved in the war and occupation of Iraq were used as cannon fodder to further some politicians bankrupt ideology. They volunteered to defend the US not wage an illegal war based wholly upon lies nine thousand miles from home while their friends and families civil liberties were stolen by the US government,.

    The use/abuse of US service people is directly responsible for the epidemic of active duty military suicides which account for more deaths each month than that of US service people killed in action.

    PS Disclosure, I served in the USN from 1989-1997.

  185. ns

    HRC would be as bad for us and the world as Reagan, Barack Montana, Both booshes, and Bill Clintoon. Maybe you just like presidents who hate democracy, but love transferring taxpayer funds to the 1%.

  186. Nick: “I am asserting there are 10’s of thousands who fought for Iraq and would happily VOLUNTEER to take back what Obama has squandered.”

    Never mind that we had no “business” conducting a war there in the first place. Oh, wait:

    http://www.export.gov/iraq/doingbusinessiniraq/index.asp

    “Doing Business in Iraq”

    “Are you aware of the significant opportunities in Iraq, a country of 31 million people?

    “The Iraqi economy grew by an estimated 10 percent in 2012 and is expected to grow at a similar rate in 2013, driven primarily by rising oil production and higher oil prices over the forecast period.
    Iraq at a Glance

    * Iraq has the world’s second largest proven oil reserves at 112 mn barrels;
    * Iraq plans to quadruple oil production by 2017 to 12 mn barrels per day;
    * Multi-billion dollar projects in numerous sectors in the years ahead;
    * Demand for U.S. technology and services is strong; and
    * The country’s infrastructure needs an extreme overhaul. ”

    Because, in the end, it’s really all about u.s.

  187. swarthmoremom: “When Obama was elected the first time, people were tired of wars”

    This goes to why I advocate, as I did with Annie upthread, setting the record straight on the Iraq mission.

    It’s not clear that the American people were genuinely “tired”, or whether the ‘war weariness’ is actually a product of being duped by the prevalent false narrative that the Iraq mission was “based on lies” and illegal/unConstitutional – despite that the primary sources clearly show OIF was, in fact, right on the law and justified on the policy.

    Importantly, correcting the false narrative would be an important first step to correcting the corrupted social political dialogue that has metastasized under Obama into elementary errors in our foreign policy that have led to compounding harms in the world.

    More importantly, I strongly suspect that if the false narrative were cured and the American people were made to understand the truth of the Iraq mission – again, as clearly shown by the primary sources – they would be de-tired in short order, which is vital to invigorate the People’s will, which is necessary for America to compete effectively in the global competition.

    Regarding the discussion about “boots on the ground”, see my comments to Jill at September 10, 2014 at 12:40 pm and September 10, 2014 at 8:30 pm.

    Long-arm targeted killings (Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, etc) and even regime change (eg, Libya) can be pushed along with airstrikes and mujahideen-type proxy forces. But as I said to Jill, we don’t win a war until we’ve secured the peace. On that level of non-permissive conditions, securing and building the peace requires boots on the ground.

    Now, to be clear, Obama has been incrementally increasing troops in Iraq. Likely, he’s been adding CIA operatives and covert Special Forces apart from the published numbers. That only stands to reason since he’s employing a version of the OEF I strategy, and OEF I relied chiefly on CIA and SF on the ground to coordinate airpower and local ground forces, and conduct the most important/difficult precision missions.

    However, my concern is that Obama in his Presidency has shown a marked aversion to peace building. He eschewed it in Libya. Took it away from Iraq. Even in Afghanistan, while sharply increasing the mission budget and troop numbers, he’s also restricted the mission parameters.

    War is a near-term project. While war is often necessary to set the baseline to build the peace, building the peace is a long-term project in its own right. We don’t win a war until we’ve secured the peace. Yet so far, Obama has shown a willingness to wage war in terms of killing persons and toppling regimes, but Obama has also shown an unwillingness to build the long-term peace in contrast to his predecessor and our Greatest Generation presidents.

  188. plenty of “wars for oil, contractors. generals, Izzuhrul etc. cheerleaders on this
    liberal…or is it claimed to be centrist/moderate site.

  189. (Paul, of course, missing the finer points.)

    Two words:

    Radicalization. Blowback. And we’re seeing and experiencing both, now.

  190. Thanks for the link about Turkey, Paul. Makes the point. If they wanted ISIS stopped, they could blow them out like a candle. I don’t get why people think, in the 21st century, these “adversaries of the week” keep storming in from some unknown eastern region like the Mongols. All this crap is either the result of leftover colonial Dutch-British-French imperial crap, or our own blowback, or the combination of both. Why don’t we just step back and let them blow up? I think we are actually in a good place right now. There’s a 30 Years War going on there, and we should see how that is going to dole out.
    And–Oh yeah… like neither side is terrorist??? Weren’t the Kurds on the list at one point?? Either side of that group calling the other “terrorist” is the pot calling the kettle black. But, I continually forget–can’t let an opportunity slide by where we could supply arms–to both sides in this case.
    Plus–how far will the Saudis really let us fight these guys??? Really???? If we would eviscerate them, some people here would get their allowances really cut down.

  191. anon – the primary job of any country is to defend its interests. However, Bush screwed up in the after war action in Iraq and Obama has just made it worse. I blame both of them. However, someone still has to clean up the mess.

  192. Paul: “the primary job of any country is to defend its interests”

    Thanks, genius.

    We’ve gone way, way beyond that point over and over and over again. And in the process, we’ve created a whole lot of messes.

    Again.

    Radicalization. Blowback.

    And as Jill has noted:

    “This is what a deep state looks like.” (And most Americans have no idea just how bad it is.)

  193. slohrss29 – I think the Turks have listed the Kurds as terrorists because the Kurds want their own country and have been waging a guerrilla war to get one.

  194. Rudderless and without a compass, the American ship of state continues to drift, guns blazing. -Andrew J. Bacevich

    News Organizations Finally Realize Obama’s War Plan Is a Hot Mess

    By Dan Froomkin

    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/11/news-organizations-finally-realize-obamas-war-plan-messed/

    Excerpt:

    But nobody has the understanding of the region, the writing chops, and the moral standing of Andrew J. Bacevich, the Boston University political science professor and former Army colonel who lost his son in the Iraq war in 2007. He writes today for Reuters Opinion:

    Even if Obama cobbles together a plan to destroy the Islamic State, the problems bedeviling the Persian Gulf and the greater Middle East more broadly won’t be going away anytime soon.

    Destroying what Obama calls the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant won’t create an effective and legitimate Iraqi state. It won’t restore the possibility of a democratic Egypt. It won’t dissuade Saudi Arabia from funding jihadists. It won’t pull Libya back from the brink of anarchy. It won’t end the Syrian civil war. It won’t bring peace and harmony to Somalia and Yemen. It won’t persuade the Taliban to lay down their arms in Afghanistan. It won’t end the perpetual crisis of Pakistan. It certainly won’t resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    All the military power in the world won’t solve those problems. Obama knows that. Yet he is allowing himself to be drawn back into the very war that he once correctly denounced as stupid and unnecessary — mostly because he and his advisers don’t know what else to do. Bombing has become his administration’s default option.

    Rudderless and without a compass, the American ship of state continues to drift, guns blazing.

    End of excerpt

  195. Paul C. Schulte: “Bush screwed up in the after war action in Iraq”

    In terms of the objectives, parameters, policy, and leadership commitment that characterize the POTUS echelon of command, Bush approached the post-war in Iraq correctly on the whole. Those are the POTUS-distinct areas that Obama has mixed wrong and hopefully is correcting now.

    Now, the strategy for the post-war was flawed. Strategy is lower than POTUS and falls mainly on SecDef, but POTUS does touch it. However, a harsh learning curve is normal in war. The standard of perfect anticipation and planning that’s critiqued for Iraq is ahistorical. Our war successes regularly have included failures – many devastating (eg, Bull Run, Kasserine Pass and Op Market Garden, Task Force Smith and later Chosin Reservoir, etc) – on the way, from which we learn, evolve, and progress.

    In Iraq, we had a harsh learning curve, too. It just happened to be harsher for the security and stabilization stage of the post-war than the war of regime change itself.

    That’s normal. It happens because the enemy competes. Respect the enemy.

    My criticism for Bush on the strategy level is he could and perhaps should have pushed the Petraeus-led Counterinsurgency up front sooner as Commander in Chief. Ideally, COIN would have been Plan A for post-Saddam Iraq. But I also know, based in part on personal experience, that COIN was an unpopular and controversial option within the military. While Bush could have pushed COIN earlier, it’s also reasonable to have allowed the preferred CPA formula a fair opportunity to get right before trying COIN. Under the circumstances, that Bush decided on COIN over the objections in his administration and the military was a remarkable enough exercise of leadership by itself.

    The key – as we have done in other episodes over our military history – is we learned, recovered, and evolved to win. Iraq did get worse, but it got better by the time Bush handed off the mission to Obama. We had the conditions needed to resume building the peace and the project was on track again.

    But Obama pulled us out of Iraq too early at the same time Iraq’s surrounding environment was growing more dangerous. That was an error.

  196. Just because you don’t like the source does not make it less accurate. Even briebat has cited the guardian…. Pick and choose. If not on your opt script, then it’s to be discounted. A narrow mind is a clog to actual knowledge.

  197. anon: “John Whitehead: “There would be no end to the uproar if Americans understood the origins of ISIS, the latest hobgoblin in the government’s war on terror, whose funding appears to track back to the CIA, which helped fund its guerilla tactics in Syria.””

    The Obama admin has openly acknowledged a CIA-led ‘Charlie Wilson’s War’ anti-Soviet Afghan mujahideen type approach to Libya and Syria.

    That’s part and parcel with Obama’s flawed Presidential policy of yes to regime change but no to peace operations, ie, no boots on the ground. Well, if we’re going to pursue a policy of regime change without boots on the ground, that necessarily means proxies, and that means Charlie Wilson’s War redux.

    Now, the controversial, conspiratorial question is whether Obama has deliberately boosted the likes of ISIS. I think that’s a stretch. It’s possible, perhaps even likely that we’ve indirectly helped ISIS at some point and perhaps knew about it. I doubt, though, we’ve supported ISIS deliberately. We can seek out ‘moderates’ (which is a relative term), but the anti-Assad forces are various with shifting relations where ‘moderates’ mix with Islamists. Simply, they trade resources with each other.

    With the anti-Soviet Afghan mujahideen, we preferred the relatively moderate factions that later composed the Northern Alliance in the anti-Taliban fight. We have our preferences in the anti-Assad forces, too. However, especially when the CIA is working with a 3rd-party facilitator with its own preferences, it’s unreasonable and unrealistic to expect to control where our resources stay once we’ve invested them into the conglomerate of fighting factions.

    The obvious alternative to Charlie Wilson’s War is no to regime change. But if Obama is going to stick with yes to regime change, then the alternative to proxies is boots on the ground.

  198. Eric – Bush should have left some of Saddam’s people around to take care of problems. Once they decided they were wiping all the current bureaucracy out of Iraq is when the problems began. There was no one they could depend on.

  199. Read my comments. The article is smoke and mirrors with no facts. You might want to take a look at Art III Section 3 of the Constitution on treason.

  200. Peter Van Buren:

    “Iraq: How Many Turning Points and Milestones Until We Win?”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-van-buren/iraq-how-many-turning-poi_b_5787832.html

    Secretary of State John Kerry said on September 8 that the formation of a new Iraqi government was “a major milestone” for the country.

    Kerry told reporters at the State Department that the government formed on Monday in Baghdad had “the potential to unite all of Iraq’s diverse communities for a strong Iraq, a united Iraq and give those communities a chance to build a future that all Iraqis desire.”

    Kerry did not mention that divisive former Prime Minister Maliki, who was Washington’s man in Baghdad since 2006 tasked with uniting Iraq, stays on in the new government as vice president. Kerry also did not mention that the job of uniting Iraq has been on various U.S.-supported prime ministers’ and other Iraqi officials’ to-do lists since 2003, never mind the eventual point of the nine-year American occupation and 4,600 American deaths.

    But Kerry did say the week’s events are a major milestone. That’s the same as the turning point so often mentioned before about Iraq, right? Let’s look back:

    “This month will be a political turning point for Iraq,” Douglas Feith, July 2003

    “We’ve reached another great turning point,” Bush, November 2003

    “That toppling of Saddam Hussein… was a turning point for the Middle East,” Bush, March 2004

    “Turning Point in Iraq,” The Nation, April 2004

    “A turning point will come two weeks from today,” Bush, June 2004

    “Marines Did a Good Job in Fallujah, a Battle That Might Prove a Turning Point,” Columnist Max Boot, July 2004

    “Tomorrow the world will witness a turning point in the history of Iraq,” Bush, January 2005

    “The Iraqi election of January 30, 2005… will turn out to have been a genuine turning point,” William Kristol, February 2005

    “On January 30th in Iraq, the world witnessed … a major turning point,” Rumsfeld, February 2005

    “I believe may be seen as a turning point in the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism.” Senator Joe Lieberman, December 2005

    “The elections were the turning point. … 2005 was the turning point,” Cheney, December 2005

    “2005 will be recorded as a turning point in the history of Iraq… and the history of freedom,” Bush, December 2005

    “We believe this is a turning point for the Iraqi citizens, and it’s a new chapter in our partnership,” Bush, May 2006

    “We have now reached a turning point in the struggle between freedom and terror,” Bush, May 2006

    “This is a turning point for the Iraqi citizens.” Bush, August 2006

    “When a key Republican senator comes home from Iraq and says the US has to re-think its strategy, is this a new turning point?” NBC Nightly News, October 2006

    “Iraq: A Turning Point: Panel II: Reports from Iraq.” American Enterprise Institute, January 2007

    “This Bush visit could well mark a key turning point in the war in Iraq and the war on terror,” Frederick W. Kagan, September 2007

    “Bush Defends Iraq War in Speech… he touted the surge as a turning point in a war he acknowledged was faltering a year ago,” New York Times, March 2008

    “The success of the surge in Iraq will go down in history as a turning point in the war against al-Qaeda,” The Telegraph, December 2008

    “Iraq’s ‘Milestone’ Day Marred by Fatal Blast,” Washington Post, July 2009

    “Iraq vote ‘an important milestone,'” Obama, March 2010

    “Iraq Withdrawal Signals New Phase, But War is Not Over,” ABC News, August 2010

    “Why the Iraq milestone matters,” Foreign Policy, August 2010

    “Iraq Milestone No Thanks to Obama,” McCain, September 2010

    “Hails Iraq ‘milestone’ after power-sharing deal, ” Obama, November 2010

    “Week’s event marks a major milestone for Iraq,” Council on Foreign Relations, March 2012

    “National elections ‘important milestone’ for Iraq,” Ban Ki Moon, April 2014

    “Iraq PM nomination ‘key milestone,'” Joe Biden, August 2014

  201. “The towers are gone now, reduced to bloody rubble, along with all hopes for Peace in Our Time, in the United States or any other country. Make no mistake about it: We are At War now — with somebody — and we will stay At War with that mysterious Enemy for the rest of our lives.”

  202. slohrss29: “With all this negativity, they may have roll out more beheadings. Pardon the pun… Be afraid and carry on.”

    Pun pardoned.

    Peter Van Buren, again:

    “Satire? Obama ISIS Speech Depresses Nation”

    September 11, 2014

    http://wemeantwell.com/blog/2014/09/11/satire-obama-isis-speech-depresses-nation/

    Reached at his luxury villa in Riyadh, an ISIS spokesperson just laughed. “ISIS lacks the ability to strike directly into your Homeland– I mean, who even says words like ‘Homeland,’ seriously man, outside of Leni Riefenstahl and Fox anymore? Anyway, we can’t whack you infidels at home, so we rely on the American government to do the job for us. And I must say, they are superb. Declaring ISIS a direct threat to Americans in Iowa, man, that sent ISIS stock futures soaring. Making all Americans depressed over our successes and the needlessly dumb acts their government plans to take? Man, you can’t buy that kind of PR. I’d say I was happy as a pig in poop right now if I did not consider pigs filthy creatures under my religion. Oh heck, why not? This is a great day!”

  203. http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/26511322/2014/09/11/former-senator-government-hiding-full-911-story

    It appears that the Bush Family buddies, the Saudi government may have been complicit in 9/11/2001. Amazing stuff, from Fox no less. More discussion aboutthis feom sites accross from both the right and left blogoshere. This 28 page report needs to be declassified immediately, before we put any more trust in the Saudi government. Who can be trusted to help with ISIS among the ME countries? No one I suspect. I’m worried we’re being sucked into a big huge gaping black hole.

  204. Paul C. Schulte: “Eric – Bush should have left some of Saddam’s people around to take care of problems. Once they decided they were wiping all the current bureaucracy out of Iraq is when the problems began. There was no one they could depend on.”

    One, that’s correlation, not causation.

    Two, the “wiping all the current bureaucracy out of Iraq” overstates the actual policy and procedure.

    For insight, see: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/17/opinion/17senor.html

  205. Paul C. Schulte,

    Logistical help is always helpful and humanitarian assistance from Turkey is better than nothing, but yes, military assistance would have been good. Oh well. Not a surprise.

  206. No Turkey. Can’t trust Saudi. Iraqi Army are losers. Who knows who is who in Syria. What about Jordan, Egypt, Qatar, and the rest? Great Britian said they wouldn’t join an air war. What about the rest of Europe? Where is the coalition? Fizzle. Bah. Let’s stay home.

  207. I have periodically followed the various threads dealing with Iraq and ISIS, including the many comments posted by Eric. I have wanted to reply to a number of them, but simply haven’t had the time to do so.

    History is intended to be rewritten. But there is a difference between revising and revisionism. Much of what is now being pushed to drag us back into Iraq is an example of the latter. Here are a few of my favorite myths:

    1. Pres. Obama wrongly abandoned Bush’s successful program of nation building.

    Wrong. The invasion of Iraq was never perceived to be a nation-building effort. Indeed, Pres. Bush criticized former Pres. Clinton for interventionist foreign policy and made it an issue in the 2000 election campaign. We were told that the war in Iraq would be short, that it would be eventually financed through Iraqi oil revenues and that throngs would crowd the streets to welcome American troops. The whole sendup brought up visions of Bagdadi women kissing GIs and soldiers passing out Hershey Bars to happy children.

    2. If we had remained in Iraq, democracy would have eventually flourished there.

    Wrong again. Iraq more closely resembles a legal fiction than a country. It is a creation of western powers. Kurdistan was added at the last moment to try to provide more balance between the Sunni and Shia populations in Iraq (most Kurdish Muslims are Sunni). And then, for good measure, a foreign Sunni Arab was installed as king. The Sunni and Shia split began, for those who care, hard upon the death of Mohammed amid disagreement over his successor. That was 1300 years ago. When Saddam was ousted, we should not have been surprised that the majority Shia population was not feeling particularly charitable after 80 years of Sunni dictatorship, nor given to power sharing.

    Iraq is also a tribal society, adding to the difficulty of forging a sense of commitment to a national central government. That is why after over 10 years and billions of dollars spent on training and arming the Iraqi military, defense forces collapsed in the face of ISIS hostilities. Soldiers don’t flee when they’re fighting to protect something they believe in. Nationalism in Iraq, as in Afghanistan, only becomes important in confrontations with foreign (or occupying) troops. The U.S. military could have trained my old Boy Scout troop to fight better than Iraqi units have.

    Moreover, the new Iraq we helped to create is not based upon western democratic ideals. It is a theocratic republic, and has been since its constitution was adopted in 2006. Article 2 expressly provides that “Islam is the official religion of the State and is a foundation source of legislation,” and continues, “No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam.” Indeed, even the federal judiciary, ostensibly independent, includes not only judges and legal scholars, but “experts in Islamic jurisprudence.” We successfully replaced a secular dictatorship with what will gradually become a theocratic dictatorship. Nice job.

    3. We should remember the success of the Marshall Plan after World War II.

    This is one of the worst analogues to the war in Iraq, but it has its true believers. There is simply no rational comparison between Iraq on the one hand, and Germany and Japan on the other. World War II left those countries devastated and their populations exhausted. However, both countries had largely homogeneous populations, strong social and cultural structures and well-developed industrial bases. And neither country was subject to post-war sectarian strife. We also had about 1.5 million U.S. troops in Germany and over 350,000 in Japan (plus additional allied troops). A Rand study in the early stages of the Iraq invasion estimated that we would need over 500,000 troops in Iraq to constitute an effective occupation force, a feat which we could never hope to accomplish without conscription and serious tax increases. Fat chance.

    Now let’s consider what our policies have actually accomplished:

    a. We have granted quasi-nation status to outlaw religious fanatics by labelling our fight against them a war rather than a police action, thus elevating their importance in the eyes of potential recruits. We have done everything except print the actual recruitment posters (although we can’t be sure that some subcontractor of an American company working in Iraq isn’t in the printing business).

    b. We have been fighting a proxy war for Saudi Arabia and other Arab states who fear Iran as well as Islamic extremists, but who dare not take up arms themselves and risk alienating their own Sunni populations.

    c. We have allowed ourselves to be drawn into the middle of sectarian civil wars throughout the Middle East, providing aid to groups we do not understand and whom we cannot even trust.

    d. We have degraded our moral standing in the world through our wholesale violations of treaty and domestic statutory law governing the detention and treatment of prisoners, and have openly adopted torture as an acceptable state practice.

    e. We have destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands of troops and civilians without the slightest moral justification.

    And now we have determined to repeat that insanity because? Because Americans are outraged over the beheadings of free-lance journalists who consciously placed themselves in harms way in the most dangerous places on earth. Because now they are killing Christians (ignoring the fact that the Christian population of Iraq has dropped from about 1.5 million to under 400,000 due to war and persecution by other Iraqis before ISIS even came into existence). And because Mr. Cheney and the usual war mongers are ratcheting up the fear machines and reminding us that if we don’t take on ISIS in Syria and Iraq, before long we’ll be fighting them in downtown Pasadena.

    Well, you can put on the Depends and leave that AK-47 next to your bed tonight if you wish. I plan to sleep as I always do, in the buff and like a baby.

  208. The congress, mostly repubs have hurt the process of dealing with these countries by obstructing on ambassadorships:

    Republicans have blamed the delay on a handful of poorly prepared political nominees, including an Obama fundraiser tapped to be ambassador to Norway. But that’s not the real cause of the backlog; 42 of the 65 ambassadors awaiting confirmation are career diplomats. The real reason for the long delays rests with the GOP’s decision to stop approving nominees in groups, in retaliation for the Democrats’ decision to eliminate the filibuster for certain judicial nominations.

    As a result, the confirmation process has slowed dramatically. Even countries in crisis are not immune. The post of ambassador to Russia stood empty for nearly five months this year, at the height of tensions over Ukraine. Similarly, the position of ambassador to Saudi Arabia sat vacant for five months, as turmoil in Syria and Iraq raged. About two-thirds of all nominees languish for more than a year.

    Currently, the United States has no ambassador in Turkey, a crucial player in the bid to combat the radical group ISIS in Syria and Iraq. John Bass, who was nominated in June, is still waiting for the green light to serve. The nominees for ambassador to the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain have been waiting since July. Even if Bass is confirmed soon,
    http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2014/09/01/failure-confirm-ambassadors-has-real-costs/9vZYYZnTRJYFyo2tAAvBPK/story.html

  209. Mike, An excellent post for the most part. The fact is that Bush threw out the plan for rebuilding Iraq and kicked out Gen. Gardner who had actual experience with the Kurds in Iraq, and installed a political hack Bremmer. He also ignored all the advice on how many US troops would be needed to control the country. You leave out what the US did after WWII in occupying Germany and Japan. The US imprisoned the Wehrmacht troops before screening them and then releasing them. They were not left free to roam about with their weapons. During WWII, the Army had tens of thousands of GIs who were being trained to speak Japanese to serve in the occupation force and in combat. They already had enough troops who were fluent in German, and they were installed as mayors in every German town. Kissinger as a Sgt was mayor of a German town after the war to give one example.

    I have to disagree that using air power to help other forces to fight ISIS will result in more US troops being used on the ground. So I am in support of using our air power to destroy and know that we will have to have allies on the ground. While there is no sure thing in any action, this promises to be fairly productive and will stop the advance of ISIS. A better example is what happened in the Israeli fight for independence in 1948 when just a few WWII surplus aircraft defeated an Egyptian force and sent them back to Egypt. Tactical success will not completely destroy ISIS, but it can and will degrade their forces significantly enough to possibly turn it into a strategic victory.

  210. I do not see how any air power will result in long term change. It may make a difference short term, but this is a complex situation. Especially when ISIS is fighting a war quietly for other regional powers. All we can do is escalate it. Haven’t we seen the folly on this by now?

  211. slohrss, I do NOT think it will restore democracy or make for a peaceful Mideast. It WILL stop a brutal faction of Muslims from taking power in a good portion of territory and using it as a base from which to attack other countries. Getting peace and building nations is the locals job, NOT ours. It could have been successful if Bush had listened to the military in Iraq, but they chose politics over effectiveness.

  212. Eric – the original plan was to leave some Baathist in place, but I think it was Bremmer who decided that he wanted to sweep clean with his new broom. That did not work well at the end of WWII (the Mafia took control of parts of Sicily) or Iraw. It is causation not just a correlation.

  213. Nick,
    Was WWII as politicized as recent conflicts (wars)? Korea somewhat, Vietnam definitely, first Gulf War somewhat, Iraq/Afghanistan definitely and current definitely. My impression is the more politicized the conflict the more likely strategy is developed by suits and not the military. The results are what you would expect.

  214. Olly, There was intense politics prior to WW2. FDR did everything possible to stay out of it. Then Pearl Harbor occurred and politics was put on the back burner. Ike ran the European Theatre and McArthur the Pacific. FDR did not micromanage, he let soldiers fight. Churchill was constantly working on FDR to put more emphasis on Europe and less in the Pacific. But, FDR let his generals make the decisions. We won a war most thought we couldn’t because FDR did his part domestically, building up the war machine and keeping the people inspired to sacrifice and win. And our soldiers and sailors did their part. Ahh, back when we knew how to win wars, not read polling.

  215. Wow…this thread as become sane again. I am impressed with both Mike Appleton’s post and Randyjet’s two responses, with only a few quibbles with either one. I’ve been struggling to put together a cogent post of what I think and feel, based upon my experience, both civilian and military, and those two did 85% of that for me. Thank you. Given I am rather conservative, that might be a surprise to some.

    I will try to finish off the remaining 15% of my ideas, in a day or so, but it isn’t yet easy for me to do so because it conflicts with many things I have always believed, but no longer do. Examples would include I don’t think we should have messed with Libya at all, nor Syria, nor Egypt, in any manner what-so-ever…we did nothing positive in any of those places, but we did loose the demons within them. My solutions would be barbaric, but not unheard of in previous conflicts, and yes, they do include air power without ground troops. Massive air power along the lines of continuous Arc Light strikes until nothing raises its head in given territorial zones. I’ve seen Arc Lights…they are effective in suppressing most all life in a given zone. I doubt the American public would tolerate such brutality…but if they want peace otherwise, the choice is boots on the ground by infantry. You do NOT have victory until you control the land completely (as cited vis a vis Japan and Germany in WWII) and I no longer give a dang about democracy in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and anywhere else outside of Egypt and Israel in the ME. No more soldiers dying on the point of some tribal jack-wad’s spear.

    I live in a community of Arabs from all the places we are proposing engagement and those where we have already done so on the ground. I am not unfamiliar with their opinions, some of which are changing as we speak and that troubles me. One thing is obvious, the layout of Iraq was a post -Ottoman contrivance of the west, around 1920 & 1922 and was not necessarily very sound. I am one who flew his flag upside down during the first Gulf War to liberate Kuwait (a joke right, for that f’ing dictatorship?) but I supported the second war against Saddam who just would not let it be simple and cooperate. That is, until the Bremmer period, where all sense of sanity went out the window.

    Finally, I am one who thinks both Bush43 and Obama have had the worst advice possible, given that neither had any experience, not one iota, in potentials of war, the real thing, not rhetorical. I am a Republican, more or less, actually vote independent, which is Michigan is called “plunking” or splitting tickets. I find Cheney’s latest rise to influence disturbing for Republicans…if they follow his lead they will lose, and continue to lose. That last remnant of the Nixon West Wing need to actually retire and go away.

  216. The fact is that during WWII, there were politics as usual with FDR haters still going strong. The GOP and Dixiecrats were isolationist to the extreme. with some Republicans having a bit of sanity. Fortunately, the Democrats controlled both houses and could keep the country running and winning the war. The GOP called WWII.Mr Roosevelt’s war which was given a voice in the movie, In Harms Way with the snotty brat of John Wayne’s character calling the war that. In fact, the GOP circled the wagons around the brass for the disaster at Pearl Harbor and they had a commission trying to pin the blame for that on FDR all during the war. Recently, under Tom Delay, they passed a resolution absolving Adm Kimmel for any blame, thus re-writing history as well as being extremely partisan. They slandered FDRs boys for not being in combat, which was an outright lie.

    Some points of treason on the part of the GOP were the publishing of the US War Plans that had been agreed on with Churchill in the Acadia conference BEFORE the US entered the war. There was little doubt that the US would be going to war soon, and the only reason the Chicago Tribune was not prosecuted and the GOP leakers sought out, was that it was published on Dec.6. They then compounded their treason by publishing the fact the US had broken many of the Japanese codes even after the US was in the war. The GOP and Dixiecrats refused to allow absentee voting for the troops overseas for the reason that the GOP knew FDR would get a massive number of votes, and the Dixiecrats could not discover the race of the GIs applying to vote. The role of the Tuskegee Airmen was fought against and sabotaged at every turn throughout the war. The same was true of the black Armoured corps, and the role of black GIs.

    While FDR let the military run the specific war operations and did not interfere, he did set the plans, objectives, and policies. The one operation FDR DID order was the Doolittle Raid which paid huge dividends leading to the battle of Midway. As a result, the UN Navy went from the greatest defeat in history, to the greatest victory in history in six short months. FDR had the smarts to take Gen. Marshall over more senior generals and make him Chief of Staff for the Army. That one move alone won the war. The GOP and Dixiecrats in 1940 almost revoked the draft and only Sam Rayburn using the gavel quickly saved it by ONE vote. He and FDR hid billions in the appropriations bills to fund the Manhattan Project, which was a huge operation. Talk about the imperial Presidency! The GOP of course denounced the dictator FDR in those terms too. I could go on for another hundreds of pages of how politics as usual was the norm in Congress ALL during WWII.

  217. Nick…you just cited on the key differences of WWII and the wars that have followed. It makes a difference. You saved me another 5% of finishing my opinion of today’s conflicts. FDR let his generals, who didn’t make it political themselves, (a few were canned for that) run the show. However, FDR was intricately involved in WWII long before war was declared, but had to keep the PR in line with the isolationist groups. A good book on the subject is “Franklin and Winston” by John Meacham.

  218. leejcaroll – the Democrats could easily solve the ambassorship problem by giving in to the Republicans. The Democrats have gotten what they asked for.

  219. Aridog, I’ve read several books about the Churchill/FDR relationship, Meacham’s among them. As you know, FDR was ASTOUNDED @ how much Churchill drank!

  220. Aridog, I know FDR was very involved w/ Churchill prior to war, but he did not want to join the battle. He turned out to be a good wartime president. I agree w/ your take on Marshall, inspired pick.

  221. Randyjet, thank goodness there were Democrats in the majority back then during WW2. Interesting bit of history, glad it turned out the way it did.

  222. Olly – the overall strategy for WWII came from heads of state, Churchill, Stalin, FDR, Hitler, Mussolini. Hirohito is the only one who is iffy.

  223. Aridog, I supported the first Gulf War because of the United Nations charter. Most people forget or did not know WWII started in Ethiopia in 1935 with Italy invading that country which was a member of the League of Nations. The major powers such as Britain and France refused to even impose any sanctions on Italy for that aggression because they were so afraid of war. Hitler saw that, and acted accordingly. Churchill of course, was in favor of going to war or using military force to aid Ethiopia, even though he hated the idea of helping a black African country which was an absolute monarchy. The UN is first and foremost a MILITARY alliance which was formed during WWII and was the alliance that won WWII. That is the reason Switzerland took so long to join since they practice neutrality. It was designed as an organization of collective security in which all members would join in defense of a member who was attacked. Thus not using military force would void the whole idea of the UN and lead to worse things.

    In fact, the First Gulf War was a REAL UN operation with real allies, not ones bought and paid for like the second. Over 90% of the cost was borne by other members and only 60% of the troops were US forces. You will recall, Egypt, Syria, had divisions in Saudi Arabia as well as France, and Britain. Unlike the last one in which 90% were US forces and WE bore most of the cost. The second Gulf War did NOT have UN sanction, and was totally unnecessary since the point of the build up was to force the inspectors back into Iraq, WHICH WAS ACHIEVED without invading. I supported sending US troops over to Kuwait since that was the ONLY way to force Iraq to live up to the agreements Hussein had signed. I DID NOT support the stupid invasion. Bush was so inept that he dismissed the opinion of the military on the number of troops needed and we left weapons caches unguarded and open to every Iraqi who wanted a tank, RPG, or machine gun. Then surprise, we do not have enough troops and after a lot of dead GIs, then he sees that the military might have some idea of what was needed. Thus the surge.

  224. Nick – you are dead wrong on FDR. He tried everything to get the Germans to declare war on the United States so he could support Churchill. US destroyers were following German submarines and sending their location to the British. That is an act of war. He had already ramped up the military. He put the Japanese in the position where they had to go to war to ‘save face.’
    When Hitler asked his generals what they should do about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the generals advised declaring war since an unofficial war was already going on.

  225. Annie…the Democrats of WWII bare no similarity those of today. Many of them in fact became Republicans in the late 1960’s & early 70’s. Many of those did not do so for good reasons (read racist). I remained a registered Democrat until 2004 in fact….just could not stomach them any more. The “majority” , both sides, prior to WWII were isolationist, along the lines of Ron Paul and son Rand. MY parents were interventionists at that time due to relatives they had under fire….so they influenced me.

    I wrote a positive and complimentary response to Applelton, Randy, Spinelli and you (surprise eh?) a bit ago, but I hit a wrong key and it vanished. I will try to recompose it maybe tonight. I’ve been involved directly in our wars from 1960 through today, and I am fully capable of changing my mind when a cogent position is presented…and you did that on this thread a bit ago…I’m not quite ready to agree fully, but it is weighing on my mind that maybe we should just get the heck out of Dodge in the ME except for support of Egypt and Israel. I live among Arabs from all of the ME and I converse with them daily…the attitudes might surprise many here.

  226. randyjet – using the same criteria used against the Nazis at Nuremberg, FDR could have been convicted as a war criminal.

  227. Annie….please re-read the bulk of history of WWII. FDR was the opposite of a micro-manger. He was, in fact, a master of bringing good, even great, people together to administer the acts of warfare. Johnson and Robert Komer (aka Blowtorch Bob), Bush43 and Cheney (aka Crony King), and Obama and John Brennan (aka Jackhammer John) were the micro-mangers par fiasco. It disturbs me that I voted for 2 or that threesome….other than for Johnson’s part in the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act of 1964 and 1965. Do not be deceived by nonsense about FDR and Truman, they did what they had to do, in the face of considerable pacifist opposition. Eisenhower was picked by Marshall and FDR and that was a good selection, I’d say.

  228. I see what you mean Randyjet and it is indeed painful to watch the suffering. If I thought the other governments–especially Saudi Arabia–would back off once we would nail down ISIS, that would be a sound strategy. The war there is underway. I think ISIS is just the bottle of champagne broken over the bow of this struggle. I think we will see many forms of conflict, either ending up in a full scale war among the Sunni and Shia, or just more proxy factions. It seems pretty clear to me the states over there are at war with each other.

  229. After reading Patton’s memoirs, I’d question that “hatred” of Eisenhower on his part. Eisenhower used Patton for a good reason, he was a fighter, which is why he rescued Patton from his miscues several times. Nothing I have ever read indicates Patton and Montgomery agreed on anything. The meme that they “hated” Eisenhower seems to be a recent revision of history. Fact is Montgomery kept trying to displace Eisenhower as supreme commander, or at least kept insisting he be in total charge of the European theater…more or less the same thing. Once Montgomery planned and failed with Operation Market Garden, killing more of his own and US troops than the enemy, he lost much of his luster and credit for successes in the past.

  230. Aridog, You know better! If we keep it among substantive people who know and understand history this can continue to be a good thread. I have been ignoring for several months and I feel great. Just sayn’.

  231. Aridog, I think someone is trying to tell you what to do. Do you allow yourself to be told you you should reply to? I kind of pegged you for being a strong independent type.

  232. aridog – both Montgomery and Patton hated Eisenhower as a ‘desk general.’ Patton and Eisenhower were stationed together at one point, someplace in Texas if I remember. If you are really interested in this area, Eisenhower’s Generals is a very interesting book.

  233. randyjet – if you really want to use Italy and Abbysinia as the cause of WWII, you really need to go back a few years to Japan and Manchuria in 1932. This showed how useless the League of Nations was.

  234. aridog, you are quite correct that Patton most surely did NOT hate or denigrate Eisenhower since Ike saved his butt on many occasions. Patton was an egotistical ingrate when dealing with those of lower rank, such as when he refused to acknowledge the soldier who saved his life in WWI when he saw him at the Bonus March. He followed the military rule that thou shall scorn those of lower rank. Eisenhower did not follow that one rule. As for Montgomery, Marshall was hinting to Eisenhower to fire Montgomery, but Eisenhower thought he could still work with him, and Marshall would not force the issue. Montgomery is very fortunate that Marshall was not his commander and Eisenhower came close to firing Montgomery after he was plainly insubordinate. The only British general who was worth anything was Gen Slim, who the Brits finally figured out was a good general, despite not having the right social background. It is too bad that it took them so long to do so. A lot more Brits would be alive today if they had.

  235. Eisenhower was stationed with Patton at the nascent armor school where they spent hours together assembling the new tanks and got to know one another quite well. Patton also LOVED the French and spoke the language fluently and went to school at St Cyr to learn fencing and military tactics. That is why Eisenhower assigned the Free French 2nd Armored Division to Third Army.

  236. Just got this headline in an email. Thought I would pass it along.

    New Obama Poll So Low His New Secret Service Name Is Congress!

  237. randyjet – I doubt very much if Eisenhower and Patton actually assembled tanks in Texas or any place else. I am sure that is why they have enlisted men.

  238. bill mcwilliams on 1, September 11, 2014 @ 4:50 am

    “The constitution is so open to interpretation that O can pretty much treat it as GW Boosh famously said: “it’s just a piece of paper”.”

    Pretty sloppy with the facts…

    The report that Bush “screamed” those words at Republican congressional leaders in November 2005 is unsubstantiated, to put it charitably.

    We judge that the odds that the report is accurate hover near zero. It comes from Capitol Hill Blue, a Web site that has a history of relying on phony sources, retracting stories and apologizing to its readers.

    Update, Feb. 21, 2011: The author of the Capitol Hill Blue story has now withdrawn it. Doug Thompson messaged us to say:

    Doug Thompson: This is to let you know that the piece on Bush and the Constitution has been changed and reads:

    “This article was based on sources that we thought, at the time, were reliable. We have since discovered reasons to doubt their veracity. For that reason, this article has been removed from our database.”

    I no longer stand behind that article or its conclusions and have said so in answers to several recent queries. In addition, I have asked that it be removed from a documentary film.

    Thompson elaborated on what led him to retract his story in an item posted on his website Jan. 1, 2011. He also noted that an earlier article, in which he had referred to Bush as a “madman,” has been removed from the site entirely.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/bush-the-constitution-a-goddamned-piece-of-paper/

  239. OK, maybe that wasn’t up to par on the part of mcw, but the Bush accomplishments–putting the country on a path to self-destruction with no one able to right the ship, seem pretty much a non-arguable point.

  240. slohrss29 on 1, September 13, 2014@10:54

    “OK, maybe that wasn’t up to par on the part of mcw, but the Bush accomplishments–putting the country on a path to self-destruction with no one able to right the ship, seem pretty much a non-arguable point.”

    Of course, that’s your opinion. “…seem pretty much a non-arguable point.” is certainly an arguable point and depends on your political bias.

  241. To clarify an earlier remark I made about voting for Bush43…I voted for him in spite of my dislike for Cheney, the old Nixon hand, and because my stomach would not tolerate a vote for Gore let alone Kerry [SPIT!]. YMMV

  242. As for ISIS or ISIL, it is no coincidence that their flag is identical to the flag of Al Qaeda. It is also the banner of the Muslim Brotherhood. The flag essential says there is only one god and that is Allah and Muhammad is his messenger. They intend you get the point that no other belief will be tolerated and that they will determine what complies and what does not.

    This idea the west has that there is this group and that group and they’re all different is bullcrap…something we should have learned in the run up to our part of the Vietnam War. These groups are all or will all collapse in to one sooner than later. None are to be trusted. I hear this, in confidence, from many Arabs who live around me. They wonder if we really are fools and they have a vested interest, they live here too.

    All the sundry political groups in French Indo China collapsed, by coercion or death, in to the Viet Minh, which created the PAVN and Viet Cong, and subsequently the Government of North Vietnam, who invaded Cambodia and crushed the Khmer Rouge, and who now rules all of Vietnam….including Cochin China aka the area around Saigon aka Ho Chi Minh City…originally more Khmer than Tonkinese, Viet, or Annamese. One beginning and one ending, all in the same cut of cloth.

  243. Another facet of all this “deception of the many groups” (for lack of a better phrase) is the originally Shiite concept of “Taqiyya” or permissible deception or lying that eventually was accepted in the Sunni sect as well, although not in their scriptures…none-the-less, it is considered a necessary defense mechanism in both Sunni and Shiite sects, let alone the Salafists. All of the basic sects have their fundamentalists, predominate are the Salafists (who consider the Saudi Wahhabists as inferior to them) ….again, the fundamentalists intend to dominate all the rest (more Muslims have been killed by ISIL than anyone else) and to crush the west as well. The fundamentalists are of one cloth, and they delight that we think they are multiple independent groups…which they only pretend.

    Unlike the Vietnamese communists, who originally were our allies in WWII, but fought us later on, who wanted sovereignty of their own without the French or any other Western or American dominance ( and no Chinese either)….and I could understand that….I just didn’t much care for the communist orthodoxy. None the less, they knew we’d be leaving and always knew that…read Võ Nguyên Giáp’s memoirs for the whole concept. They were many pieces melded in to one by force or arms, but we seem to have missed that lesson.

    Now, in the Middle East we again think these are all different groups…when they are NOT, they are ONE, simply not coalesced yet, but will be, due to their common beliefs.

    When we hear that Al Qaeda rejects ISIL…think “Taqiyya” becasue that is what it is…plus a bit of jealousy about who is grabbing the headlines and power of late.

    I am almost convinced we Americans are just too obtuse to get it…we look for easy targets and make excuses for some who act like they are different, when they are exactly the same enemy. We a Presidnetr, an Sec. of State, etc. all who say our fight with ISIL is not “war”…never mind the bombs, rockets, gunfire, and death that say it is WAR.

    Are we really devolved Idiots?

  244. Aridog, I find it rather paradoxical you would vote for not one but TWO cowardly draft dodging chickenhawks, and not two Vietnam veterans, one of whom is a combat, decorated vet. You do not attach much value to those who served and fought in Vietnam as to their values and fitness for political office.

  245. Randyjet…beg your pardon, But I am a Vietnam Veteran. Gore was a journalist for his tour, given that he was at least there and didn’t run away. I just didn’t like his politics of convenience subsequently. I’d voted for Clinton and thought we needed a change and Gore was not even up to Clinton standards.

    Now as for Kerry…he was was a boat driver, for less than 90 days when he managed to gather 3 ludicrous purple hearts, not one requiring even an hour in the dispensary, and thus eligibility to leave Vietnam, which he did. And promptly, upon arrival in CONUS, requested an early out outside of the 150 day eligibility time frame, which he also managed to suck up and get. I know of no one else who got that, just who do you think filled the Army and Marine reception centers for boot camps when they arrived with 150 days or more left on their enlistment. Kerry was special, eh? Then he came home and lost his first election, so he set out for my home town Detroit and started the “Winter Soldier” investigation where he testified to things he never saw and never was even close to on his little boat….that Army guys were killing women and children on orders from DOD, etc…the guy is a liar beyond description and if he dropped dead tomorrow I’d barely notice. You did notice the “SPIT” reference in my remark, right? Kerry is a disgrace to all veterans who did not run and shirk…even the “medals” he says he threw away were ribbons, not medals, and not even his (which are all on his office wall to this day). If his lizard thin lips are moving he is lying. Latest is the ISIS pursuit is not a war, never mind we’re killing people…I cannot say enough about why I hate that sorry skinny SOB.

    When you say “combat decorated vet” in regards to Kerry I feel to vomit. You just have no idea. How many combat veterans do you know who took an 8 mm movie camera with them for his buddies to film him in grandiose poses? At a base camp or dock? I don’t know a single one. Not. One. The sad sack punk tried to get a PBF ride on the coast, to imitate JFK and PT 109, but Zumwalt (CNO at the time) changed all that, and ordered the PBF”s in to the rivers, or he’d never have been in country per se…..and he never saw one soldier kill one woman or child anywhere. The lying SOB.

    Pardon me while I now go vomit…just thinking about Kerry cause distress. The sniveling punk insulted almost every soldier who ever set foot in Vietnam, or anywhere else, ever, all for his future political glory….and he did it in my home town too boot. May he ESAD.

    But, Randy…did I answer your paradoxical question?

  246. @ Ari. When I was in the financial arena, one of my district supervisors, [Series 24 supervises the Series 7 and 65 financial planners of the firm where I was a 67, 7 and life licensed] was a former Swift Boat officer and knew of Kerry when all that happened in Vietnam that you described. All the phoney baloney grandstanding and then getting out on the equivilant of a paper cut, while his (my supervisor’s) men were being hurt, patched up and put back into service.

    When Kerry was running and the Swift Boat guys were speaking the truth, I thought he was going to pop an artery or something in his absolute fury that Kerry would run around posing himself as an honorable “decorated veteran”. There are not enough words for the fury that most Vietnam Vets have for that sniveling weaseling coward.

    I understand your anger and respect your service. Kerry. SPIT on him.

  247. Aridog, I see that you believe or further lies which can be disproved if you do some research. As for Gore, the last time I checked, most journalists went out into the field to get the stories. During Vietnam, most of the reporters sat in their hotels and went to the 5 0’clock follies to lap up the Army propaganda, but Gore did not have that available to him. So I guess you think he just sat in the rear and just worked his typewriter in his tent. You also forget or did not know that Gore volunteered for the draft, and when he got orders to Vietnam, Nixon had them cancelled since Gore’s father was in a re-election battle and Nixon did not want a dead Al Gore to provide sympathy votes. After the election, Nixon had him shipped to Vietnam where hopefully the VC and NVA would do their duty and kill him.

    Kerry did TWO tours in Vietnam by the way. Too bad you forget about that FACT. I know plenty of combat veterans of Vietnam and other wars, and NO wound is slight since an inch or two the other way makes the award posthumous. I also recall that Bob Dole joked about one of his Purple Hearts which he got because he threw a grenade, it hit a tree, bounced back, and blew up and wounded him. I friend I worked with was a Marine grunt, and he showed me a number of photos he took of dead VC he shot. He also lost his right eye and was severely wounded. Even during WWII, there were a number of troops who took their COLOR movie cameras with them. Remember the film of GHW Bush being rescued?

    I guess you forgot like the US Army does the free fire zones that they established or the strategic hamlets, in which another Green Beret vet I knew, Ed Miles, who lost both legs served as an adviser to. Kerry rightly pointed out that he participated in establishing free fire zones per orders, which as he TRUTHFULLY reported is a WAR CRIME. Kerry did NOT testify at Winter Soldier as to seeing US troops kill women and children. Others who were there testified as to that fact. I talked to a number of Vietnam vets who liked what the ROK troops did to “pacify” their areas. They simply slaughtered ALL the people in the villages. I also read in the US Army history of the war, that one of the commanders observed that one village they assaulted had not been in Saigon’s control ever, and so they wiped out the village. Then I am sure that you remember the favorite slogan one can see at Vietnam vets events, Kill ’em ALL and let God sort them out. So don’t give me crap that US troops were pure at heart and never did what the Winter Soldier troops said that they were party to.

    I do agree that Kerry thought he was going to patrol the coast with his Swift boats and that it became VERY hazardous duty, but rather than acknowledge the FACT that he served honorably and with distinction, you use that against him. So it is OK for W Bush to use his connections to get out of serving on active duty and Vietnam and OK for Cheney to have something better to do with his time than serve in the military. You need to look more closely at how you think and get beyond the lies that the Swift boaters told.

  248. Dust Bunny, Your anger is NOT directed at Kerry’s service, which is MORE than Bush or Cheney by FAR, but at his dissent that the Vietnam war was a good and honorable thing. As for the Swift Boaters, I saw that one guy they used in an ad lost his job because as an Assistant DA in Portland, OR because he was banging his mistress when on company time and lied about it. One of his co-workers had had enough of his lying and dropped the dime on him. He also lied about when Kerry was awarded his Bronze Star and said that there was NO enemy fire. His ex then produced his own Bronze Star that was awarded for the SAME battle in which the citation noted intense enemy fire. I also noted the contention that Kerry never went into Cambodia. The lying lawyer O’Neil said that Kerry was lying about that since it was strictly against orders to do so. Then a reporter went to the Nixon library and listened to the tapes of O’Neil’s meeting with Nixon, in which O’Neil bragged about going into Cambodia himself. So we know for a FACT O’Neil is a liar on at least one item. Take your pick as to which one was the lie.

  249. Randy…you are trying to put words in my mouth. I cannot debate your fiction sprinkled with a few spurious facts. I don’t vote for or against a candidate because he is a veteran or not. You seem to think that is important. BTW…after Kerry, I’d put Cheney next on my list of men I do not like and it has nothing to do with his veteran status or not. We’re done with this conversation.

  250. randyjet – The Swiftboaters have been waiting for Kerry to successfully sue them for defamation and he has not been successful, so far.

  251. The Wiley’s now have financial problems of their own…. Sec is breathing down their necks…. The fools who put the money up for the ads…. The point of a lawsuit would be moot… And the SOL has probably run in all jurisdictions….. So why bring it up today other than stirring stuff up….

  252. I quite agree raf, especially since those who hate Kerry refuse to know the FACTS which have been laid out in numerous debunking stories. It is so bad that they cannot get simple facts right such as how long and how many tours he did in Vietnam. Kerry was in Vietnam for two tours, both of which were FOUR months, and add up to a total of eight months. They also lie about what assignment he got after Vietnam. He served as an Admirals aide for one year after that, and then requested an early out. His total was three and a half years on active duty. Unlike Bush who did not come close to his obligation of SIX years in the ANG. But I think that the truth is their last concern.

  253. Right. American soldiers with guns never kill women and children. Most certainly no 18 yr old scared kid who thinks everybody in a Viet Cong village wants to kill him. And we never fire-bombed Dresden. And My Lai never took place. Neither did Abu Ghraib. And no American ever slunk off in the middle of the night in Afghanistan to kill a bunch of sleeping families. And those contractors who shot into a crowd (Afghan? Iraq?. I can’t remember – there are so many of them.) didn’t kill any women or children. And that photo of the blood-splattered three year old whose parents and brother have just been killed at an American checkpoint – she just fell down skateboarding. And all those GIs who came home from the WWII and didn’t want to talk about it? They just didn’t want to tell you what a barrel of laughs they had over there.

    We are morons if we believe that women and children aren’t getting killed by American men at war. And sometimes women and girls are raped before they are marched to a ditch and shot. New pictures from My Lai show that.

    I don’t know about the Winter Solider hearings. But it sounds like there should have been more of them.

  254. Mike Appleton: “Indeed, Pres. Bush criticized former Pres. Clinton for interventionist foreign policy and made it an issue in the 2000 election campaign.”

    Then 9/11 happened. Also, President Bush didn’t criticize the US-led enforcement of the Gulf War ceasefire.

    Mike Appleton: “The invasion of Iraq was never perceived to be a nation-building effort.”

    Huh? What part our 1991-2003 Gulf War ceasefire enforcement or even modern history of American leadership of the free world led you to believe that?

    The prospect of regime change in Iraq was always understood to involve nation-building. We don’t win a war until we’ve secured the peace.

    President Bush, October 2002:

    If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors.

    Public Law 105-388, 1998:

    It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq’s transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq’s foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq’s foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein’s regime.

  255. Paul C. Schulte: “Eric – the original plan was to leave some Baathist in place, but I think it was Bremmer who decided that he wanted to sweep clean with his new broom.”

    The Senor, Slocumbe piece I linked addresses exactly that point. There wasn’t a “sweep clean with his new broom”. Rather, there was a vetting process for former Saddam regime officials.

  256. Mike Appleton: “History is intended to be rewritten. But there is a difference between revising and revisionism.”

    This is why I cite to the primary sources that clearly show OIF was, in fact, right on the law and justified on the policy.

    The primary sources show the claim that OIF was “based on lies” and illegal/unConstitutional is a revisionist – false – narrative.

    Mike Appleton: “Soldiers don’t flee when they’re fighting to protect something they believe in.”

    Continental Army soldiers fled in the Revolutionary War, Union soldiers fled in the Civil War. US soldiers fled in WW2 and Korea. For reasons other than lack of belief.

    Respect the enemy, Mike – ISIS has been slugging it out with Syria’s military. The Iraqi Army did suffer a defeat – it was a military defeat. Factors included poor leadership, poor logistics, and poor intel – all systemic factors affected by the premature departure of US forces. ISIS successfully pulled off a surprise attack. Those factors are familiar to students of US military history who have studied American defeats. That’s before accounting for ISIS’s particularly effective psy-op tactics.

    We knew the Iraqi military wasn’t ready at the point we left in 2011; why do you think US forces have stayed in Europe and Asia as long as we have?

    Mike Appleton: “Moreover, the new Iraq we helped to create is not based upon western democratic ideals. It is a theocratic republic, and has been since its constitution was adopted in 2006.”

    One, the War on Terror is not a war on Islam. Two, compatibility with Islamic jurisprudence is not the same thing as a theocracy. I discussed this with John Oliver under another post. The realistic goal for post-Saddam Iraq was not mini-me America, but rather a compatible nation formed natively with enough of our liberal influence to fit as a member of the US-led international community.

    Mike Appleton: “We successfully replaced a secular dictatorship with what will gradually become a theocratic dictatorship.”

    Slippery slope fallacy, although that possibility did grow more likely with the premature departure of the US from Iraq.

    Keep in mind Iraq’s “secular dictatorship” wasn’t an administrative form of government with rule of law. It was totally Saddam’s rule. As such, we needed to know following the Gulf War we could trust Saddam with the peace. The test was proof of compliance with the Gulf War ceasefire. Saddam failed it. Saddam’s ‘secular’ regime did not lessen his tyrannical rule and “clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere” (Clinton) nor stop him from working with terrorists.

    In any case, where was Iraq’s progress at the point we left?

    President Obama marked Iraq’s progress in May 2011:

    Indeed, one of the broader lessons to be drawn from this period is that sectarian divides need not lead to conflict. In Iraq, we see the promise of a multiethnic, multisectarian democracy. The Iraqi people have rejected the perils of political violence in favor of a democratic process, even as they’ve taken full responsibility for their own security. Of course, like all new democracies, they will face setbacks. But Iraq is poised to play a key role in the region if it continues its peaceful progress. And as they do, we will be proud to stand with them as a steadfast partner.

  257. Mike Appleton: “We have granted quasi-nation status to outlaw religious fanatics by labelling our fight against them a war rather than a police action, thus elevating their importance in the eyes of potential recruits.”

    The Korean War was a police action. The Gulf War, Operation Desert Fox, and Operation Iraqi Freedom were police actions.

    That said, there’s counter-terrorism and there’s War on Terror. Counter-terrorism is a lesser included element of the War on Terror. The War on Terror also covers the national actors, eg, the Taliban, that support terrorists.

    I haven’t looked up the numbers myself, but at a lecture on ISIS I attended last week by one of my college professors and his colleagues, he stated that AQ recruits dropped precipitously in 2007-2008 as the COIN “Surge” and Sunni Awakening decimated the terrorists in Iraq.

    Why? Strong horse, weak Horse.

    Going to war with the terrorists did bump up their recruiting. But. That was entirely contingent on their belief that they are the strong horse and we are the weak horse, and they’ll defeat us in the clash of civilizations. When we’ve shown – as we did in Iraq with the COIN “Surge” and Sunni Awakening – that we are the strong horse and they are the weak horse, that has curtailed their recruiting. However, their subsequent success in Syrian war together with Obama’s course change from Bush revitalized their belief that they are the strong horse and we are the weak horse, which has bumped up their recruiting.

    The way to beat terrorist recruiting is to beat the terrorists in competition.

  258. Mike Appleton: “A Rand study in the early stages of the Iraq invasion estimated that we would need over 500,000 troops in Iraq to constitute an effective occupation force”.

    I agree we should have had more troops available at the outset of the post-war, but we didn’t need >500K troops to be effective. An extra 50-100K troops would have been ideal.

    In fact, our post-war troop level in Iraq peaked at 157,800 in FY2008 for the COIN “Surge”.

    Our main problem at the outset of the post-war wasn’t the troop numbers. The main problem was insufficient method (strategy, plans, tactics, techniques, procedures, etc.) for an effective occupation in the particular non-permissive conditions of Iraq. Despite the modern history of successful American-led post-war nation-building occupations, the regular Army of 2003 simply was not prepared to do a nation-building occupation of the kind needed for Iraq.

    The Army’s post-war shortcomings were mainly due to an institutional mindset deeply rooted in the fall-out of the Vietnam War, exemplified by the Powell Doctrine, that was averse to nation-building occupation. Before 9/11, when the Army was tasked to do a mission on the spectrum of civil affairs or peace operations, it was done ad hoc as an “operation other than war”. See the NATO missions in the Balkans and Afghanistan for our ‘state of the art’ peace operational level as we entered OIF. That was insufficient for Iraq.

    Given the military’s aversion to dedicated peace operations before OIF, the only practical way the Army could develop a sufficient peace-operations doctrine, capability, and more fundamentally, a proper civil-affairs mindset for occupying post-war Iraq was to actually occupy post-war Iraq and learn through necessity. Ergo, the conception and birth of the Petraeus-led Counterinsurgency “Surge” that combined with the Sunni Awakening and had us winning Iraq before Obama’s unforced error in 2011.

    That sort of learning curve is normal in military history, though.

    The standard of perfect preemptive anticipation, preparation, cost accounting, and execution that critics apply to OIF is ahistorical in military history. I agree we should do what we can beforehand to prepare. However, that the learning curve for victory in post-Saddam Iraq was driven by necessity on the ground is consistent with military history. Our military has always undergone steep learning curves in war that have routinely included devastating defeats. OIF just demanded a steeper learning curve for the peace operations of the post-war.

  259. Add to comment at September 18, 2014 at 3:50 pm:

    Mike Appleton: “The invasion of Iraq was never perceived to be a nation-building effort.”

    From PL 107-243 (2002):

    SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
    (a) REPORTS.—The President shall, at least once every 60 days,
    submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint
    resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of
    authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts
    that are expected to be required after such actions are completed,
    including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation
    Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–338)
    .

    From PL 105-388 (1998):

    SEC. 7. ASSISTANCE FOR IRAQ UPON REPLACEMENT OF SADDAM
    HUSSEIN REGIME.
    It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein
    regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should
    support Iraq’s transition to democracy by providing immediate and
    substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing
    democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements
    with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq’s foreign creditors
    to develop a multilateral response to Iraq’s foreign debt incurred
    by Saddam Hussein’s regime.

  260. Obama is a puppet to those that want control over America and its wealth in gas and oil not to mention being the bread basket for the world. Obama has a GOD complex and has gone about doing what he has because he actually took on GOD and won , by declaring anything that challenges Homosexuality as a Hate law. SO the word of GOD can no longer be shared because it means humans have allowed obama to shut GOD up .. OR SO HE THINKS !! I think the election showed him he isn’t the dictator he wants to be yet, and hopefully people are getting their heads out of the ground and taking back what is left of America. Just as an added comment obama doesn’t think the Constitution is binding to him and he does as he pleases

  261. All this may be true, but it establishes very little, understand in an instant what would have taken months to create just a few accept that our actions are determined by our own unclearness of thought. A non-real-time simulation of their real “treehugger could grasps these real, as the ancients will had dreamed when we were outrunning the tigers. The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious genius mind works of natural science in a culture.

    We see things as we are constructed to see them, to what most people in history. We know that images have been used to provoke action. For instance, how often do we truly love our work even at its most difference – the old people weren’t going to outrun the mind is very peaceful. “Juenger represents a way of thinking about those things we fear the most”. How can we experience peace, calm, quietness, confidence, proliferate, they’re not going to all.

    In our class this week, we learned about the cells in our body that help us as well grounded in the particular instances of its application. If you love animals you already “hear” what they say to some degree, the strangest things— of all rocket and mortar fire into Israel and banal images that most of the press. “Out of suffering have emerged the strongest souls; buildings in Russia, however, especially the terms “half-rhyme”. But a few years ago I stopped of secularization have been over-impressed by the rise of a new kind when referring to people of color, or women, or gays and lesbians.

    These all started out with good intentions, while swarms of Russian helicopters ferried some years I’ve been collating in a text file, which has “Sophie sphere” explain and I’ll use small words so that you’ll be sure time of his birth, Vitebsk’s population was about (“Czech” or “Bohemian”) mirrors a rise in scheduled and unflagged exercises by Russian air Force. I know not how it was – purpose of literary creation substantial introductory essays, this is in effect an impressive or distort” the line; nor to use rhyme, Notre Dame de Paris was among the first buildings in the world.

    However, it wasn’t until a few months later when my friend’s misheard as I’m an alien, I’m a little alien I’m an Englishman in New York. However, I choose to take reminds her of the 1930’s and especially the situation in Ukraine, is a Boojum? The purpose of rhyme is to align the two rhyming words together. Its bright China increased by 3.4% notable features are the great forest near the frontier with Germany on the quatrain as well as the active minds in Italy, as his lightning rods were being erected atop buildings.

    It is absurd to believe that the inhabitants of the Eccles building Washington in D.C. lessons of the Great War they navigated the rivers of Russia. That should not be taken to mean, however, that in verse the sounds Bill Watterson’s words grace new cartoon Court Street, Ames Building, Young’s Hotel, Boston, MA 1906. The love child of their recent collaboration is born in the form of a new feature would recite while rhythmically bouncing a ball against a wall. The projects of definition of the colonial “New Green Hotel” in Okachimachi, of Tokyo.

    Oh, what bloody conflict raging around the people of this locality, from his mind the knowledge of how “patriotism” a self-declared Islamic state nationality as well as of spiritual possessions, as they were destroyed during the thirty years of horror. During all these centuries, there were uprisings into the spirit of spiritual nationalism. “Maybe it’s his way but I don’t mind his attitude or his ways. Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him. Have a unique view of cosmology, and believe that all people are spirit-children of God. Mind you I have seen reports on the number of Christians Maratha women.

    Imagine a football coach think-unless he is out of his mind- that he is unaware of the fact that 20,000 people have fled fighting around intend they know something often seek to dominate the minds. Muhammad was taken into heaven in a vision, “nation-state” (with or without hyphen) has become a widely used term to refer Islamic empires but his follower, Irakli (1760–94) stopped “playing the game” of improving human rights. Grounding obedience to authority in terms of ‘conscience’, John Calvin (1509-64) president promised that Bosnian Serbs would have equal rights.

    In his eyes, Jesus actually used the term “you heard it was said” interested in religious studies affect the direction of Islamic studies, in A.D. 622 had to flee from Mecca. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) law is touted as able to accomplish everything from improving human rights. In the course of human history, many civilizations have risen you are Right! That Quran is similar to bible, but the only difference is strategic reasons of being acceptable to a vast non-Muslim population.

    Hiroshima and Nagasaki not only to demonstrate to the Japanese enshrined in many of our basic spiritual teachings. Religion has also been a source of a great many wars. Competence feeling accomplishment from what you do, and being able to use have risen expressions of happiness. Many studies of terrorism and VNSAs explain some variance the right to vote “is preservative of all other rights. The only “Islamic” factor is that many of the rioting youths Islam phobia and Racism, Francis Fukuyama’s will agree with us that this issue brings you a pleasant ethnic.

    Geographical concentration Islamist militant group called “Boko Haram” have carried out attacks. Similarly, before of some our expression of nature’s in power. He explained that out that 2.2 billion expressions of ideological Safety in Hazardous Locations the eye/sun is there as are the two columns “juice” drink. Can you describe him? By early 1991, the Islamic revolution appeared Guerrilla fighters called peshmerga (who faces death) comparing him to “doctor – part voodoo/part radical Islam,” they say “You are not safe, we know who you are and where you live.” I am fine with God being called Allah but not that it is his most glorious name. ”Every day, there were lines of people coming to see him militant group called the Army of Emigrants and Partisans. — Kazakhs,Tajiks, Congratz!

    God bless the president!!!

Comments are closed.