/dev/null Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-makes-formal-request-for-war-authorization-against-islamic-state/2015/02/11/881cc0b0-b1f7-11e4-886b-c22184f27c35_story.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Good for him. I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Good for him. I think. You should read it. It's the height of idiocy. A mealy-mouthed, equivocative, mendacious, ignorant, tatterdemalion excuse of a brazenly political request to pretend to fight a war without actually fighting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 You should read it. It's the height of idiocy. A mealy-mouthed, equivocative, mendacious, ignorant, tatterdemalion excuse of a brazenly political request to pretend to fight a war without actually fighting it. That's why I said I think. And I have read it since. It was a pretty pathetic limp wrested attempt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Leading from behind....................................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) A mealy-mouthed, equivocative, mendacious, ignorant, tatterdemalion excuse of a brazenly political request to pretend to fight a war without actually fighting it. You pretty much just described the last six years. But nice job sneaking in tatterdemalion. Edited February 11, 2015 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 “I do not believe America’s interests are served by endless war.” –Pres. Obama delivers statement on fighting #ISIS But by failing to wage ideological war against Islamist terror, the president is forcing us to wage endless war. - Bill Gertz “Strategic patience” might actually do more harm than good?............................. Surprising! ......................................Except not really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) You should read it. It's the height of idiocy. A mealy-mouthed, equivocative, mendacious, ignorant, tatterdemalion excuse of a brazenly political request to pretend to fight a war without actually fighting it. Why would he fight the people he armed? Well, maybe he would. ISIS is just the rebranded al qaeda. Hell I don't know what the hell to believe anymore. Arming them all the time knowing we would have to deal with them so the infamous military industrial complex gets some business? Barry wants to be the hero fighting big bad ISIS? Who knows http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/20/kuhner-how-obama-arms-al-qaeda/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-begins-weapons-delivery-to-syrian-rebels/2013/09/11/9fcf2ed8-1b0c-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/obama-announces-plan-to-fight-al-qaeda-by-arming-al-qaeda/ "2. The only opposition we supposedly backed was the Free Syrian Army. Unfortunately… A. The Free Syrian Army consisted of a coalition of mostly Islamist militias under Islamist commanders, some of whom carried out joint operations with Al Qaeda/Al Nusra Front, which has pledged alliance to ISIS/Al Qaeda in Iraq. B. An Islamist coalition easily took on the FSA and stole all the stuff we gave them while their fighters ran away." Edited February 11, 2015 by Dante Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Why would he fight the people he armed? Well, maybe he would. ISIS is just the rebranded al qaeda. Hell I don't know what the hell to believe anymore. Arming them all the time knowing we would have to deal with them so the infamous military industrial complex gets some business? Barry wants to be the hero fighting big bad ISIS? Who knows Actually, ISIS is the splinter group that al Qaeda kicked out for being too psychotic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 “I do not believe America’s interests are served by endless war.” –Pres. Obama delivers statement on fighting #ISIS But by failing to wage ideological war against Islamist terror, the president is forcing us to wage endless war. - Bill Gertz “Strategic patience” might actually do more harm than good?............................. Surprising! ......................................Except not really. Half-assing wars is NEVER a good idea. Never. It's immoral and counter-productive - it guarantees long, unresolved, deadly wars. Either have the resolution to fight aggressively and effectively, or don't start a war. But do NOT, EVER say you're prohibiting "enduring offensive ground combat operations.” Because then you've already lost - no one ever won a war by prohibiting offensives. And he's asking Congress to put the prohibition against "enduring offensive ground combat operations” into law, for a period of three years. The "constitutional scholar" is asking Congress to violate the Constitution's separation of powers and constrain the powers of the next Commander-in-Chief to exercise the requirements of his office. Asking permission to fight a war, with a stated intent to lose via specifically requested unconstitutional constraints on his own office with the explicit intent of constraining his as-yet unknown successor. Asking Congress to write into legislation a binding intent to lose a war. This is literally the dumbest thing I've ever seen come out of the White House. That includes "genocide-like activities," "We're on a crusade," and "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." It might be the dumbest thing I've ever heard come out of DC - including "Won't Guam capsize?" Anyone with an iota of sense would vote against this simply because of the crass incompetence it represents. But at least we're finally seeing some transparency in the White House. Not every day the President looks the American public right in the face and transparently tells them "Yeah, I'm gonna fight to lose." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Half-assing wars is NEVER a good idea. Never. It's immoral and counter-productive - it guarantees long, unresolved, deadly wars. Either have the resolution to fight aggressively and effectively, or don't start a war. But do NOT, EVER say you're prohibiting "enduring offensive ground combat operations.” Because then you've already lost - no one ever won a war by prohibiting offensives. And he's asking Congress to put the prohibition against "enduring offensive ground combat operations” into law, for a period of three years. The "constitutional scholar" is asking Congress to violate the Constitution's separation of powers and constrain the powers of the next Commander-in-Chief to exercise the requirements of his office. Asking permission to fight a war, with a stated intent to lose via specifically requested unconstitutional constraints on his own office with the explicit intent of constraining his as-yet unknown successor. Asking Congress to write into legislation a binding intent to lose a war. This is literally the dumbest thing I've ever seen come out of the White House. That includes "genocide-like activities," "We're on a crusade," and "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." It might be the dumbest thing I've ever heard come out of DC - including "Won't Guam capsize?" Anyone with an iota of sense would vote against this simply because of the crass incompetence it represents. But at least we're finally seeing some transparency in the White House. Not every day the President looks the American public right in the face and transparently tells them "Yeah, I'm gonna fight to lose." oh brother Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 It's really never going to end, is it? I kind of wish we would just let "them" sort it out, make sure we protect our homeland, but that's about it. We have things here we need to concentrate on, instead of dumping money into endless cycles of violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Half-assing wars is NEVER a good idea. Never. It's immoral and counter-productive"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." At last. We see where isis came from. It's really never going to end, is it? I kind of wish we would just let "them" sort it out, make sure we protect our homeland, but that's about it. We have things here we need to concentrate on, instead of dumping money into endless cycles of violence. No. They're playing for keeps. The president and his ilk are playing golf, and word games. It's all they're suited for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 oh brother Don't worry. I'm sure Tom will translate it into Moron for you if you ask politely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Don't worry. I'm sure Tom will translate it into Moron for you if you ask politely. It already was in Moron, you moron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 It already was in Moron, you moron No, it was well stated and the truth. You, on the other hand have added nothing but your usual contrarian nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 No, it was well stated and the truth. You, on the other hand have added nothing but your usual contrarian nonsense. Really, which part of it did you agree with most? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Half-assing wars is NEVER a good idea. Never. It's immoral and counter-productive - it guarantees long, unresolved, deadly wars. Either have the resolution to fight aggressively and effectively, or don't start a war. But do NOT, EVER say you're prohibiting "enduring offensive ground combat operations.” Because then you've already lost - no one ever won a war by prohibiting offensives. And he's asking Congress to put the prohibition against "enduring offensive ground combat operations” into law, for a period of three years. The "constitutional scholar" is asking Congress to violate the Constitution's separation of powers and constrain the powers of the next Commander-in-Chief to exercise the requirements of his office. Asking permission to fight a war, with a stated intent to lose via specifically requested unconstitutional constraints on his own office with the explicit intent of constraining his as-yet unknown successor. Asking Congress to write into legislation a binding intent to lose a war. This is literally the dumbest thing I've ever seen come out of the White House. That includes "genocide-like activities," "We're on a crusade," and "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." It might be the dumbest thing I've ever heard come out of DC - including "Won't Guam capsize?" Anyone with an iota of sense would vote against this simply because of the crass incompetence it represents. But at least we're finally seeing some transparency in the White House. Not every day the President looks the American public right in the face and transparently tells them "Yeah, I'm gonna fight to lose." Congress should just send him a formal declaration of war, and be done with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Half-assing wars is NEVER a good idea. Never. It's immoral and counter-productive - it guarantees long, unresolved, deadly wars. Either have the resolution to fight aggressively and effectively, or don't start a war. So what would "full-assing" it look like then? Iraq under Bush? That went well. Obama is just, as usual, being pragmatic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) At last. We see where isis came from. No. They're playing for keeps. The president and his ilk are playing golf, and word games. It's all they're suited for. It's not even just this President, but the previous ones as well... we've had some sort of war in the middle east for quite some time. Just feels like lobbyists pushing for this stuff to give us a reason to buy more weapons. Edited February 12, 2015 by Dorkington Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts