No matter what Obama does/doesn’t do about Iraq, he won’t consult Congress apparently

The situation in Iraq is worsening by the hour and the duplicitous hypocrisy of Obama is deafening. If there were ever a “Red Line” moment, sure seems like it would be now, when an Islamic terrorist organization, deemed more outrageous than al-Qaida by al-Qaida itself, is taking over large swaths of territory in Iraq. All the while, they’re loading up catered American equipment and trucking it back to their established bases of operation and staging areas — but hey, Obama held a meeting and made another speech.

As reported in The Hill, “President Obama is not close to seeking congressional authorization for airstrikes in Iraq. After a White House meeting between Obama and the top four leaders in Congress, all sides involved signaled they want to leave options open for handling a politically delicate and fluid crisis that threatens to leave jihadist terrorists in control of Iraq.”

All of this is occurring under the unfolding events of militants (read “Islamic terrorists” — why do our media outlets have such a damn hard time saying this?) from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) reportedly seizing control Wednesday of Iraq’s largest domestic oil refinery, prompting a bloody showdown with Iraqi security forces that underscored the instability. The refinery represents more than a quarter of Iraq’s domestic refining capability, and could prompt fuel and power shortages across the country.

“I do not believe the President needs any further legislative authority to pursue the particular options for increased security assistance discussed today,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement released after the meeting.

“I think the authorization, the resolution authorizing use of force is still active, so I don’t think there is any requirement, legal requirement that he [seek congressional authority],” Thune said. “But I do think it would be advantageous for him to consult with Congress.”

What they are referring to is the AUMF (Authorized Use of Military Force) that was granted to President George W. Bush — who actually did go to Congress. Obama has a pen and a phone — why not use it in this case — oops, there is the hypocrisy in that if it affords him advantage for his liberal progressive agenda, or if he is hiding something (like releasing Taliban senior leaders) then he’s cool with unilateral decision-making.

Funny thing, I don’t recall Obama seeking Congressional approval for providing material support and assistance to Islamist rebel forces in Libya, do you? As a matter of fact, Obama was in complete violation of the War Powers Act — a law, by the way –but then again, “what difference at this point does it make?”

And then today, when speaking about Iraq, he had the gall to say “only leaders that can govern with an inclusive agenda are going to be able to truly bring the Iraqi people together and help them through this crisis.”

He’s lecturing about being inclusive? This is the most divisive president in my lifetime.

But it’s simple: Obama doesn’t want to be held responsible or accountable for anything. Campaign promises are indeed strategic decisions for him. So ending the war in Iraq, exiting Afghanistan and shutting down GITMO are his priorities – and the world be damned.

Someone needs to remind Obama that just because he wishes it so, it ain’t so. In warfare, the enemy always has a vote.

29 COMMENTS

  1. Why would barry want to bomb the people that are carrying out his wishes? Yes it is a rhetorical question. He is sending a mere pittance of “300 “advisers” to Iraq. An Aircraft Carrier in the Persian Gulf. Just for looks. He wants the Caliphate in Iraq and the rest of the middle east. He doesn’t care who governs then which is why he was “thinking” of allying with Iran.
    This whole thing reeks of barry’s stinking policies.
    He does not care if we spilled our own blood to give Iraq freedom. He only cares what the Saudi’s want and that is all of the Middle East as the beginning of the New World Order”

      • I’m not involved in the planning and it’s crazy to me. No way can 300 Troops can hold off thousands of Terrorists.

      • Nope they cannot. They are a bullseye on a target. They only hope they have is the carrier in the gulf. However that hinges on barry’s say so, That is if he isn’t playing with Reggie or doing crack or sleeping getting ready for another fund raiser

  2. And this is exactly why no one, not one single person, should be allowed to even RUN for the presidency without first serving in our military! How in the hell can a community organizer have EVER been elected into the White House, without any proven record of serving our nation??? NObama is sending just a few of our best to the embassy, why? Will there be another Benghazi? i fear that could very well happen. My God in Heaven, NObama is so out of control yet is getting away with it all!!! For the first time in MY adult life, i am ASHAMED of my country!!! Golfing, while Iraq burns. All i can say is that Satan has his hands on him, on all liberals, and are blinding these fools. Everything you have stated here, Allen, is so very true! America is desperate for a military leader such as yourself! i most certainly would vote for you in a heartbeat!

    • Colonel West is my preferred first choice for 2016 as well, because I believe that with his unique background, training and experience, he understands the grave geopolitical dangers facing this country better than any of the various lawyers (Obama, both Clintons, Biden, O’Malley, Warren, Edwards, Cruz, Christie, Santorum, Bachmann, Giuliani) businesspeople (Bush, Romney, Trump, Cain), doctors (Carson, both Pauls, Dean) and policy wonks/lifer government officials (Jindal, Ryan, Gingrich) also thought to be possibly running for President (or, who have recently run and may be running AGAIN), whether they have declared yet or not, and he would have some coherent idea about what do do about those problems.

      That having been said, though, I think it is a little simplistic to insist that ANY future president has to have had military experience as a qualification for office (besides it not being in the Constitution). Colonel West would be my ideal best candidate/President, but such GOPers I mentioned as Cruz, Carson or Jindal, to name just three, could give the country good leadership despite their civilian backgrounds (the Dem bozos are a whole different story). The worst, weakest U.S. president of the pre-Obama era was Annapolis graduate and former USN submarine officer Jimmy Carter. Vietnam vet Lt. John Kerry would have made an absolutely TERRIBLE president. Ditto for Al Gore or Ted Kennedy, both of whom did time in the Army. And much as I liked him, respected his military service and voted for him, TWICE, frankly, GWB’s hitch in the Texas Air NG flying jet fighters left him no more able to think outside the box and anticipate 9/11 than draft-dodger Bill Clinton was able to anticipate the USS Cole bombing.

  3. THEN WHY AREN’T WE ALL (INCLUDING CONGRESS) JUST WRITING COMMENTS AND TALKING ABOUT THIS INSTEAD OF GETTING RID OF HIM!!!!!???? Cassie, I’ve been saying that for years and years.

      • Considering the demographic shifts and the landslides of 2008 and 2012, there is not going to be another Republican in the Oval Office for a very long time.

      • [[ Considering the demographic shifts ]]

        That’s code for blacks. Don’t bullshit me. Just say what you mean race pimp.

      • Actually, I was referring to the gay vote, the women’s vote, the non-Christian vote, etc.

        There are plenty of non-racially defined demographics that are predominantly blue too.

      • Log Cabin Republicans ring a bell? And the women vote has swung back and forth. Non-Christians have never gone GOP for the most part. So where is this seismic shift you mentioned? We are back to my point. And 51% to 47% is a landslide? .Oh drama!

      • 51-47% in a presidential election is a landslide.

        The LGBT vote is pretty consistently about 80-95% Democrat (depending on the state), probably about 90% Democrat nationwide.

        The female vote has favored the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since 1992, by a margin that has increased with every subsequent election. For instance, in 2012, Obama won the female vote by a whopping 56-44% (a 12 point margin).

        Non-Christians have generally voted Dem for the past few decades. But both the number of non-Christians and the rate at which they vote Democrat in national elections has been rising for years now.

        And that’s before discussing racial factors. The Hispanic population, for instance, generally feels quite alienated by the GOP. However, Hispanics make up ~9% of the population currently eligible to vote; and that number will be ~10% by 2016.

        These are the demographic tides of change. Until the GOP can figure out how to appeal to women and minorities (whether racial, religious, or otherwise), it will never win another national election again.

      • [[ 51-47% in a presidential election is a landslide.]]

        And that is your biASSed opinion.

        The rest of your post does not prove your point. In fact, you seemed to have agree with me on non-Christians and also how the tide has shifted on women pre and post 1992. And?

        [[ Until the GOP can figure out how to appeal to women and minorities (whether racial, religious, or otherwise), it will never win another national election again.]]

        Looks like the GOP does fine in Congress. They control the purse which is far more important.

        And what does ‘appeal to women and minorities’ mean? Pimp, pander and lie to them?

  4. If the President asked for House Republicans to authorize air-strikes they’d vote against him.

    If the President asked for the House Republicans to authorize waiting to see what happens, they’d demand air-strikes.

    You guys have been playing this tired game for four years. Congressional Republicans have had one stated agenda for the past six years: obstruct everything this President tries to do at all costs.

    And now you have the nerve to cry foul when the President has learned that if he wants to accomplish anything he has to do as much of it as he can without congress.

    • Your Narcissist-In-Chief has never listen to or seriously consulted with anyone. Who the hell you kidding? He threw away the Simpson/Bowles recommendations, he didn’t listen to his advisers on the Bergdhal crap, and he has yet to listen to anyone outside of the self-absorbed voice in his head. The ONLY time he is engaged is if race comes up. Then his jaw tightens, the little vein in his head starts throbbing and he spews his race bating litany as he dispatches his equally racist AG Holder to do his bidding. Your POS POTUS has f–cked up yet one more foreign policy problem. Deal with it. You tell me where we have ever abandoned any area where we waged war. We are still n Europe, Japan, Korea, Bosnia and Kosovo. Your punk POTUS wanted out of Iraq so damn bad that he didn’t think about the consequences of total abandonment. And don’t give me that SOFA crap either. Obama did not want to negotiate new terms so he tucked tail and ran. This prick cares only about his 2008 campaign promise to get the US out of Iraq PERIOD.

  5. In a sombrero tip to Bogie’s “The Treasure of Sierra Madre,” Obama disdainfully
    makes like a Mexican bandito and sneers “Congressional authority? We don’t need no stinking Congressional authority!”

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here