NYT: Obama’s rush to war
You know you’ve lost the country when the New York Times‘s Editorial Board turns on the Democrat President and criticizes him for his rush to war;
The administration…claims that the airstrikes are legal under international law because they were done in defense of Iraq. In a Sept. 20 letter to the United Nations, Iraq complained that the Islamic State was attacking its territory and said American assistance was needed to repel the threat. But the United Nations Security Council should vote on the issue.
Meanwhile, Congress has utterly failed in its constitutional responsibilities. It has left Washington and gone into campaign fund-raising mode, shamelessly ducking a vote on this critical issue. That has deprived the country of a full and comprehensive debate over the mission in Syria and has shielded administration officials and military commanders from tough questions about every aspect of this operation — from its costs to its very obvious risks — that should be asked and answered publicly.
I don’t agree with them at all, by the way, just like I didn’t agree with Obama Administration while it sat on it’s hands for six months while ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State cut it’s bloody swath across Iraq and Syria. The president should have acted without the UN and Congress back in January when IS captured Fallujah and maybe it wouldn’t have reached the crisis tipping point where we are perched now.
But at least everyone is finally admitting that President Bush had authority for war in Iraq. But, something I’d like to point out; this whole idea about preempting an attack on the US by the use of force is all part of the “Bush Doctrine” that was derided, by the Left – including the current president.
So, I’m watching the President addressing the UN General Assembly and there’s hope for him yet. He just told the assembled delegates that there’s no reasoning with the Islamic State – that the only thing they understand is force. I may be ready to support him at this point, if his actions match his words.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Terror War
The only way President Obama would “rush” to war is if someone told him it was a fundraiser and it had a golf course.
The Golfer in Mom Jeans sees the terrorists, the beheaders, the rapists, the mass murderers of ISIS as criminals. I am certain that he would like to apprehend them and bring them to justice, whatever that means to him. Granted, occasionally, for political reasons, he recognizes the need to kill one or two of them, but this is the ineffective exception, not the rule. His starting point remains that the ISIS bastards are criminals and that their religion is irrelevant. He said as much in the UN today, taking great pains to separate ISIS from Islam. And that’s a problem, a big problem. One cannot destroy a religion, to be sure, but one can devastate the nations which harbor the lion’s share of the Golfer’s criminals. And there’s the rub, as it has been for years now. At what point can one say, “Enough. The governments are responsible for not snuffing out the ‘criminals’ and the governments and their nations are, therefore, criminally responsible? It won’t happen, least of all under on the Golfer’s watch. Besides, I am not at all certain that his latest action doesn’t have more to do with the midterm elections than it does anything else. What’s more, there are no balls in them there Mom jeans of his. It will be up to the next president to take appropriate action–if it’s not too late by then.
Rush? What??
Compare and contrast:
“As for the “war on terrorism,” Mr. Brennan said, the administration will not use the phrase “because terrorism is but a tactic – a means to an end…”
“we must declare war on war…”
What a preening bunch of arrogant idiots.
Well, not all Germans were bad people and few of them were Nazis…but we bombed the shit out of them, didn’t we? And I’m not quite certain how many Japanese living in Nagasaki and Hiroshima between August 5th and 10th, 1942 were older than dirt or little shavers, but we know what happened to them in those cities. Now, it would be nice if ISIS, its sympathizers, and its fraternal terrorists orgs held a convention so that they were all in the same place at the same time. But that’s not going to happen. If it’s containment we’re after, it’s not working. So, we’ll see, I guess, what has to happen to us or another nation before somebody says, “That’s it. Done. We’re not living this way any longer.” And then brings it.
Maybe it’s time for us to clean the dust off of some tactical nuclear warheads and use them, possibly a 5 or 10KT strike here and there to give them a taste of what we’re ready to do?
Yipes. 1942? I wish. Make that 1945.
He was in so big a hurry to rush out of the war, that he sowed the seeds for the next one. Reminds me another progressive Democrat. Woodrow Wilson allowed the victorious European leaders to write a treaty that guaranteed a new war only a generation later. When the allies rejected his Fourteen points he folded his tent and went home. Obama did the same thing when Iraq rejected the SoFA. Progressives, tent foalders all.
Progressives, unwilling to learn from history. Your post describes them, perfectly.