Obama was against the war statute before he was for it (and if you like your health plan, you can keep it)

In the New Testament Book of James, Chapter 1:8 (NASV) warns of, “the double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.” And so it is with President Barack Hussein Obama and his hypocrisy.

This time (and there have been so many) it is in his handling of the savage, barbaric Islamic terrorist army ISIS. As reported by the Washington Times, “President Obama’s first initiated war against an Islamic terrorist group is authorized, the White House says, by George W. Bush-signed legislation that Mr. Obama has criticized and wanted to repeal since last year. Since beginning airstrikes last month against the Islamic State, the White House has said it does not need congressional approval to carry out such missions. Last week, on the 13th anniversary of al-Qaida’s attacks on the United States, the administration announced why, saying President Bush’s Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) resolution in 2001 is all the authority Mr. Obama needs.”

Now, you’re probably saying, so what Allen? Well, the AUMF and the Obama administration have a very interesting history.

Right now, Obama wants to hide behind the AUMF, which prevents him from going to Congress and making his case. Instead, he’s using the AUMF to continue down the path of an imperial president who doesn’t require Congress — seems a bit of cherry-picking from Obama. However, as The Times says, “in a May 2013 speech to a military audience at the National Defense University, Obama portrayed the law as dated and as a potential blank check to get the U.S. into wars.”

In other words, Obama was against the AUMF war statute before he was for it – shades of John Kerry dual-mindedness.

Here are Obama’s words from 16 months ago: “The AUMF is now nearly 12 years old. Unless we discipline our thinking, our definitions, our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight, or continue to grant presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states.”

So the anti-war president and recipient of the Noble Peace Prize is now hiding behind something he previously said was dated — nothing like delaying or changing to fit one’s own imperial executive aspirations. Or does Obama consider ISIS a war we don’t need to fight?

If you want to know just how confused the Obama administration is and why there is such a lack of confidence in this group of amateurs, heed this statement.

The Washington Times asked a National Security Council spokeswoman whether the president still wants to repeal the authorization, given the rise of the Islamic State terrorist group. “On the 2001 AUMF, we remain committed to engaging with Congress and the American people to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF,” the spokeswoman said. “The president has made clear that he wishes to take America off a permanent war footing.”

So which is it? Do they want to engage with Congress or not? Obama has made it quite clear he doesn’t want to and will use the AUMF – as a matter of fact, last week in his Wednesday evening speech, he said he is within his authority to take action. Yet this spokesperson says Obama wants to repeal the AUMF, but that’s not what he’s doing. And take American off a permanent war footing? I think the enemy has a deciding vote in your security posture, unless Obama is an ostrich and prefers to bury his head in the sand — which exposes a certain part of the anatomy that ISIS is whipping.

How does anyone believe a coalition could be built with this extreme level of confusion? Even White House mouthpiece Josh “Not So” Earnest further exacerbates the situation saying, “the president is ready to engage in a conversation with members of Congress as it relates to this specific AUMF and we welcome or would welcome a show of support from the United States Congress for the strategy that the president has laid out.”

So according to Earnest, Obama expects blind obedience from the Congress – yes, your highness.

We have no name for this operation. We have no idea as to whom is part of any coalition and their level of participation. We have conflicting tasks of “degrade” and “destroy” — the latter which cannot be achieved without any ground combat force and which we are supposedly outsourcing to the Free Syrian Army who entered into a cease fire agreement with ISIS. The Times reports that “in August, the White House justified its bombing campaign in Iraq as the prerogative of the commander in chief. It also has sent at least seven notifications to Congress about actions against the Islamic State to comply with the 1973 War Powers Act.”

My assessment is that Obama truly doesn’t want to engage and destroy the ISIS threat. He will seek whatever means he can to skirt the fine line of embarking upon a combat operation — a war. He will try to use every other reference possible to evade and avoid seeking Congressional approval — approval of the American people. In his mind what he spent 15 minutes on last week presented us with a viable strategy — hardly the case. Obama is a prisoner to his ideology, and the leftist progressive socialist base.

All the while, ISIS gains more fighters, resources and confidence, and at some point will launch into its next phase — while we sit in the Western world and hold debate clubs and meetings.


  1. Allen…why do you always point blame when you have no intentions on trying to change ANYTHING….if you are not running for office please be quiet!


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here