Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
BERLIN — PRESIDENT OBAMA’s declaration of war against the terrorist group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria marks a decisive break in the American constitutional tradition. Nothing attempted by his predecessor, George W. Bush, remotely compares in imperial hubris.
Mr. Bush gained explicit congressional consent for his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. In contrast, the Obama administration has not even published a legal opinion attempting to justify the president’s assertion of unilateral war-making authority. This is because no serious opinion can be written.
This became clear when White House officials briefed reporters before Mr. Obama’s speech to the nation on Wednesday evening. They said a war against ISIS was justified by Congress’s authorization of force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that no new approval was needed.
But the 2001 authorization for the use of military force does not apply here. That resolution — scaled back from what Mr. Bush initially wanted — extended only to nations and organizations that “planned, authorized, committed or aided” the 9/11 attacks.
Mr. Obama is rightly proud of his success in killing Osama bin Laden in 2011 and dismantling the Qaeda network he built up. But it’s preposterous to suggest that a congressional vote 13 years ago can be used to legalize new bombings in Syria and additional (noncombat) forces in Iraq. In justifying earlier bombing campaigns in Yemen and Somalia, the administration’s lawyers claimed that the 2001 authorization covered terrorist groups that did not even exist back then. They said it sufficed to show that these groups were “affiliated” with Al Qaeda.
Even this was a big stretch, and it is not big enough to encompass the war on ISIS. Not only was ISIS created long after 2001, but Al Qaeda publicly disavowed it earlier this year. It is Al Qaeda’s competitor, not its affiliate.
Mr. Obama may rightly be frustrated by gridlock in Washington, but his assault on the rule of law is a devastating setback for our constitutional order. His refusal even to ask the Justice Department to provide a formal legal pretext for the war on ISIS is astonishing.
What efforts ? There weren't even arms sent to the rebels. Obama said no. The Libya thing lasted a few days, and Somalia and Sudan have had almost nothing done there. Certainly nothing comparable to the ideas raised in the Wesley Clark video.Wasn't enacted ? How about Libya ? How about our continuing efforts to destabilize Syria, Somalia and the Sudan. Just wait--Lebanon will go as well.
The reason why Americans are dying in this region is to defend the US from Islamic jihad, which the countries that he mentioned are all purveyors of. Sounds like the plan those guys had, might not have been so bad. If they had been enacted successfully, there wouldn't have been the slaughters of innocent people in Syria, Sudan, Iraq (by ISIS), etc. Events that have unfolded since,appear to justify that 7 nation plan to a very high degree.
The plan was originally written for Netanyahu----how does that grab you ?
Ignorant of US human rights violations in Iraq and a blind blood lust for more of the same (to save the women and children, of course):1. So you're comparing ISIS to the WMD talk of Saddam Hussein ? If so, bad comparison.A majority of Americans once believed Saddam and his mythical WMDs posed a threat to the US; were you one?So you link to a non-interventionist article. Whoopee! There's many more out there. And there's also a true statistic that shows that 90% of the American people consider ISIS to be a serious threat, based on US intelligence reports. Have a nice day. Click the linksUS faces bigger threat from Wall Street than from IS:
"The United States has a tradition of misinterpreting the Middle East. President George W. Bush invaded Iraq in 2003 with misplaced certainty, misconstrued assumptions and poor foresight.
"After the Arab revolts began in 2011, Washington misdiagnosed the problems and opportunities, and overestimated its influence to steer outcomes in its favor. Now, as the United States prepares to escalate military action against the Islamic State, misinterpretation is leading to another tragic foreign policy mistake."
The Islamic State threat is overstated - The Washington Post
CNN poll Majority of Americans alarmed by ISIS - CNN.com
ISIS attack on power grid could wipe out 90 of Americans
Did you happen to notice what Wesley Clark published in 2003 about a Pentagon plan calling for regime change in seven Arab states beginning in Iraq and including Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing in Iran.
How many more innocent Muslims will have to die before your ignorant, star-spangled blood lust will be satiated?
2. All the states you mentioned are jihadist in nature. Regime change wouldn't be a bad idea. For the citizens of those countries as well (especially women and children)
3. Upon what do you base > "ignorant" (of what ?), "blood lust" (how ?)
"Coalition forces and private contractors[edit]
This photograph released in 2006 shows several naked Iraqis in hoods, of whom one has the words "I'm a rapeist" [sic] written on his hip.
Iraq War - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
- Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse
- Haditha killings of 24 civilians (ongoing with some charges dropped)
- White phosphorus use in Iraq
- Gang-rape and murder of a 14-year-old girl and the murder of her family, in Mahmoudiyah[391]
- The torture and killing of prisoner of war, Iraqi Air Force commander, Abed Hamed Mowhoush
- The killing of Baha Mousa
- Mukaradeeb wedding party massacre[392] where 42 civilians were allegedly killed by coalition forces.
- Planting weapons on noncombatant, unarmed Iraqis by three U.S. Marines after killing them.[393][394]According to a report by The Nation, other similar acts have been witnessed by U.S. soldiers.[395] Members ofIraq Veterans Against the War tell similar..."
What is Obama going to do with Syria after he deposes Assad ? Replace him with an American puppet ?
What efforts ? There weren't even arms sent to the rebels. Obama said no. The Libya thing lasted a few days, and Somalia and Sudan have had almost nothing done there. Certainly nothing comparable to the ideas raised in the Wesley Clark video.Wasn't enacted ? How about Libya ? How about our continuing efforts to destabilize Syria, Somalia and the Sudan. Just wait--Lebanon will go as well.
Of course, sacking key people in the military and having the cooperation of the press never hurts. . . .A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn’t always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer. (A spokesperson for Petraeus denied the operation ever took place.)
The operation had not been disclosed at the time it was set up to the congressional intelligence committees and the congressional leadership, as required by law since the 1970s. The involvement of MI6 enabled the CIA to evade the law by classifying the mission as a liaison operation. The former intelligence official explained that for years there has been a recognised exception in the law that permits the CIA not to report liaison activity to Congress, which would otherwise be owed a finding. (All proposed CIA covert operations must be described in a written document, known as a ‘finding’, submitted to the senior leadership of Congress for approval.) Distribution of the annex was limited to the staff aides who wrote the report and to the eight ranking members of Congress – the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and Senate, and the Democratic and Republicans leaders on the House and Senate intelligence committees. This hardly constituted a genuine attempt at oversight: the eight leaders are not known to gather together to raise questions or discuss the secret information they receive.
The annex didn’t tell the whole story of what happened in Benghazi before the attack, nor did it explain why the American consulate was attacked. ‘The consulate’s only mission was to provide cover for the moving of arms,’ the former intelligence official, who has read the annex, said. ‘It had no real political role.’
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, but US officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamist militants, according to US officials and foreign diplomats.
No evidence has emerged linking the weapons provided by the Qataris during the uprising against Moammar Khadafy to the attack that killed four Americans at the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in September.
But in the months before, the Obama administration clearly was worried about the consequences of its hidden hand in helping arm Libyan militants, concerns that have not previously been reported. The weapons and money from Qatar strengthened militant groups in Libya, allowing them to become a destabilizing force since the fall of Khadafy.
Al Baghdadi already has the job. That's why obama released him from prison.What is Obama going to do with Syria after he deposes Assad ? Replace him with an American puppet ?
You know, usually you are a very informed and with it poster. I had to check this one out. It really seemed too obvious and didn't pass the smell test. In the research I have been reading, NO WHERE was this mentioned.Al Baghdadi already has the job. That's why obama released him from prison.What is Obama going to do with Syria after he deposes Assad ? Replace him with an American puppet ?
As the Duran Duran songs of the 1990s used to say > "Too Much Information" - and especially when I'm bogged down in another forum and other threads. Maybe I'll read all this gunk later.What efforts ? There weren't even arms sent to the rebels. Obama said no. The Libya thing lasted a few days, and Somalia and Sudan have had almost nothing done there. Certainly nothing comparable to the ideas raised in the Wesley Clark video.Wasn't enacted ? How about Libya ? How about our continuing efforts to destabilize Syria, Somalia and the Sudan. Just wait--Lebanon will go as well.
Incorrect. The whole Benghazi scandal was an attempt by the administration to hide the involvement in funneling heavy weapons, WMD, etc. to the rebels and more radical elements in Syria. Elements that would later become ISIS. Apparently their cover-up job worked on you.
The Red Line and the Rat Line
Seymour M. Hersh on Obama, Erdoğan and the Syrian rebels
Seymour M. Hersh The Red Line and the Rat Line Erdo an and the Syrian rebels LRB 17 April 2014
A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn’t always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer. (A spokesperson for Petraeus denied the operation ever took place.)The operation had not been disclosed at the time it was set up to the congressional intelligence committees and the congressional leadership, as required by law since the 1970s. The involvement of MI6 enabled the CIA to evade the law by classifying the mission as a liaison operation. The former intelligence official explained that for years there has been a recognised exception in the law that permits the CIA not to report liaison activity to Congress, which would otherwise be owed a finding. (All proposed CIA covert operations must be described in a written document, known as a ‘finding’, submitted to the senior leadership of Congress for approval.) Distribution of the annex was limited to the staff aides who wrote the report and to the eight ranking members of Congress – the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and Senate, and the Democratic and Republicans leaders on the House and Senate intelligence committees. This hardly constituted a genuine attempt at oversight: the eight leaders are not known to gather together to raise questions or discuss the secret information they receive.
The annex didn’t tell the whole story of what happened in Benghazi before the attack, nor did it explain why the American consulate was attacked. ‘The consulate’s only mission was to provide cover for the moving of arms,’ the former intelligence official, who has read the annex, said. ‘It had no real political role.’
US OK’d sending arms to Libya
US approved sending weapons from Qatar to Libyan rebels but then worried they were ending up in hands of Islamic militants - World - The Boston Globe
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, but US officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamist militants, according to US officials and foreign diplomats.
No evidence has emerged linking the weapons provided by the Qataris during the uprising against Moammar Khadafy to the attack that killed four Americans at the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in September.
But in the months before, the Obama administration clearly was worried about the consequences of its hidden hand in helping arm Libyan militants, concerns that have not previously been reported. The weapons and money from Qatar strengthened militant groups in Libya, allowing them to become a destabilizing force since the fall of Khadafy.
I hope Russia is OK with that. Assad is their pet dictator.
I hope Russia is OK with that. Assad is their pet dictator.
No one claimed otherwise, but that hardly excuses the US for installing their oet dictators.
I hope Russia is OK with that. Assad is their pet dictator.
No one claimed otherwise, but that hardly excuses the US for installing their oet dictators.
The US will have no leverage whatsoever as far as selecting the next leader of Syria
As the Duran Duran songs of the 1990s used to say > "Too Much Information" - and especially when I'm bogged down in another forum and other threads. Maybe I'll read all this gunk later.What efforts ? There weren't even arms sent to the rebels. Obama said no. The Libya thing lasted a few days, and Somalia and Sudan have had almost nothing done there. Certainly nothing comparable to the ideas raised in the Wesley Clark video.Wasn't enacted ? How about Libya ? How about our continuing efforts to destabilize Syria, Somalia and the Sudan. Just wait--Lebanon will go as well.
Incorrect. The whole Benghazi scandal was an attempt by the administration to hide the involvement in funneling heavy weapons, WMD, etc. to the rebels and more radical elements in Syria. Elements that would later become ISIS. Apparently their cover-up job worked on you.
The Red Line and the Rat Line
Seymour M. Hersh on Obama, Erdoğan and the Syrian rebels
Seymour M. Hersh The Red Line and the Rat Line Erdo an and the Syrian rebels LRB 17 April 2014
A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn’t always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer. (A spokesperson for Petraeus denied the operation ever took place.)The operation had not been disclosed at the time it was set up to the congressional intelligence committees and the congressional leadership, as required by law since the 1970s. The involvement of MI6 enabled the CIA to evade the law by classifying the mission as a liaison operation. The former intelligence official explained that for years there has been a recognised exception in the law that permits the CIA not to report liaison activity to Congress, which would otherwise be owed a finding. (All proposed CIA covert operations must be described in a written document, known as a ‘finding’, submitted to the senior leadership of Congress for approval.) Distribution of the annex was limited to the staff aides who wrote the report and to the eight ranking members of Congress – the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and Senate, and the Democratic and Republicans leaders on the House and Senate intelligence committees. This hardly constituted a genuine attempt at oversight: the eight leaders are not known to gather together to raise questions or discuss the secret information they receive.
The annex didn’t tell the whole story of what happened in Benghazi before the attack, nor did it explain why the American consulate was attacked. ‘The consulate’s only mission was to provide cover for the moving of arms,’ the former intelligence official, who has read the annex, said. ‘It had no real political role.’
US OK’d sending arms to Libya
US approved sending weapons from Qatar to Libyan rebels but then worried they were ending up in hands of Islamic militants - World - The Boston Globe
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, but US officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamist militants, according to US officials and foreign diplomats.
No evidence has emerged linking the weapons provided by the Qataris during the uprising against Moammar Khadafy to the attack that killed four Americans at the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in September.
But in the months before, the Obama administration clearly was worried about the consequences of its hidden hand in helping arm Libyan militants, concerns that have not previously been reported. The weapons and money from Qatar strengthened militant groups in Libya, allowing them to become a destabilizing force since the fall of Khadafy.
Republicans should vote for the use of force and then decide to change their minds. It worked when the Democrats did that to Bush.We can beat ISIS with R&D funds...
I'll take the US military, if operations are planned, over any other force on earth.
What's you exit strategy ?
