Democrats Turn Against Obama's War Powers "Request"

by JASmius



I told you they would feel betrayed by "Barack Obusha":

Despite a war powers request to Congress carefully worded to appease Democrats, members of President Barack Obama's own party have abandoned him in his quest for authorization for the use of military force against the Islamic State....

[T]he wording is [considered by Democrats] vague enough to keep open the possibility of committing combat troops on the ground if needed. And Democrats are fearful of opening the door to a full-scale military ground conflict, the [New York] Times reported.

I guess even they are under the mistaken impression that their demigod is bowing out in a couple of years.

Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat in the Senate, referred to two wars in the past decade and a half and said any legislation must avoid "repeating the missteps of the past." He added it must stay clear of an "open-ended authorization that becomes legal justification for future actions against unknown enemies, in unknown places, at unknown times."

Of course.  Because why would we not want to hamstring this or future presidents (if there wind up being any) against the specter of new enemies and threats in new places at new times?  That's the essence of strategic planning, right?  Or, in other words, why NOT "fight the last war"?  And the Dems don't even want to do THAT.

Representative Ted Lieu of California-33, a first-term Democrat, said he didn't think Obama had yet made the case that the Islamic State terrorist group "represents a direct, grave threat to the United States."

And what would make that case to you, Congressman?  Torrance going up in irradiated flames?

House [Minority] leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California-12, issued a statement that refrained from endorsing Obama's request. It said Congress should act judiciously and promptly to pass legislation "narrowly tailored" to the fight against Islamic State fighters. She has said previously she opposes deploying U.S. "boots on the ground.

Without which the Islamic State cannot be defeated (with all due respect to the Jordanians).  And Obama's war authorization "request" doesn't seek "boots on the ground"; it just doesn't categorically rule it out so vehemently as to spare congressional Dems the "anti-war" willies.

But what this is really about is their demigod - the "light-bringer" whose meteoric rise to power was fueled by his resolutely ignorant and obnoxious "anti-war" agitating - morphing, however kickingly and screamingly, into the "warmongering cowboy" from Crawford, Texas.  It doesn't matter that he doesn't mean a word of his "request," it doesn't matter that he's just running interference for "Caliph" al-Baghdadi, it doesn't matter that all The One is really doing is applying some fig PR salve to his mauled PR buttcheeks, and perhaps buying some time to keep kicking the ISIS can down the road, just in case he really does plan on leaving on 1/20/17 and letting his successor take the blame for the jihadist cataclysm he's pretty much guaranteed.  Lefties are about form and appearance even more than they are substance.  And they cannot tolerate their leader even pretending to trod down the same Middle East policy path as his insanely hated predecessor.

And since Republicans consider O's request to be insufficiently muscular, it would seem that it is doomed to go down in flames on Capitol Hill - just as he planned all along?:

The three-year expiration date President Barack Obama has put on the war powers request submitted to Congress to fight the Islamic State is setting up the Republicans to ultimately take the blame, political commentator Michael Reagan tells Newsmax TV.

"He has the authority or the authorization already because of what was signed, what, back in 2002, to do exactly what he is in fact doing," Reagan told "America's Forum" hosts J.D. Hayworth and Miranda Khan on Thursday.

"What he's trying to do is he's trying to have his own authorization that's watered down so that he can ultimately blame someone else for a failure that he is creating," he said.

"He wants to make the Republicans the fall guy in all of this."

Reagan contends that Obama doesn't really "want to carry out this war," but he's trying to look like he's "doing something" until he leaves office in two years.

One of the problems with Obama's Islamic State (ISIS, or ISIL) war powers proposal is that "you never go into a war situation as a member of Congress and say to the enemy, 'by the way, in three years we'll be gone,'" the conservative commentator said.

"This is a president who doesn't know how to win a war, this is a president who's scared to death of his own military. He doesn't want to have anything to do with the military, and if we give him authorization under what he wants, it is going to be truly the death of the Middle East," he said.

Obama's plan is "purely, purely political," he added. [emphasis added]

It's like Mr. Reagan reads Political Pistachio as briefing material for his TV appearances, isn't it?