Remember when ‘ritual human sacrifice’ was an archaic term? …Yeah, I miss those days, too.
I don’t care what he says here: Bruce Braley did not make the vote that he says that he made.
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) September 29, 2014
As in “I recently had the opportunity to vote to give the President limited authority to begin strikes against terrorists in Iraq and Syria.” Except… that there hasn’t been a vote. The President simply up and did it, because he says that the 2002 AUMF covers his actions with regard to Syria and Iraq.
Less than two months after President Barack Obama’s administration called for repeal of the Congressional authorization for the 2002 Iraq war, he is formally citing the 12-year-old measure as a basis for newly expanded airstrikes against the Islamic State of Syria and the Levant.
…Now, I happen to agree with the President on this, but I’m not going to pretend that there’s some kind of new Congressional authorization that covers this. Why did Bruce Braley? – Because what Bruce Braley DID vote for was something considerably less bomb-related: (more…)
Translation: expect more US troops to be deployed to the Middle East.
The Pentagon is deploying 300 airmen and 12 A-10 combat jets to the Middle East in early October, according to the Indiana Air National Guard.
The six-month deployment from the 122nd Fighter Wing is not specifically part of President Obama’s fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, but the airmen and jets could provide air support to troops battling ISIS on the ground.
“I don’t know of a time in Blacksnake history we have taken this kind of aviation footprint forward,” said Col. Patrick R. Renwick, 122nd Fighter Wing commander, in a statement. “The A-10 ‘Warthog’ is uniquely suited for the Combatant Commander’s needs, and the Blacksnakes are the right team to bring that capability to combat.”
A-10s are essentially flying tanks: that ‘air support’ thing is typically ‘close air support.’ Warthogs are aboust as subtle as a depleted-uranium round in the face, so wherever they’re going, it’s going to be somewhere where you want that. That means supporting ground troops.
This is just a thing that is.
PS: I suppose that we could be putting the Warthogs at the service of somebody else’s ground troops. …Whose? The Kurds? Because if we’re sending the ANG units there, that’s just more American troop buildup in Iraq anyway.
I honestly and truly do not like to tell people that the best thing that they can do for the Republic is not to vote.
…if Joe Biden’s argument here swayed you – if the thought that Mitt Romney, if elected, would try to:
– and you thought that this was all a bad thing; then I will submit to you that in voting for Obama-Biden you made the single most foolish, uninformed, and downright dangerous Presidential vote that you are likely to make in your life. And while I absolutely respect the right of you to exercise your franchise – better men and women than either you or I died to protect that right – it is my humble request that you refrain from damaging the country that we both love in the future. I have kids, you see. I don’t want to see them worse off than I was, at their age.
Moe Lane (crosspost)
— Daniel Foster (@DanFosterType) September 23, 2014
Two months before the 2012 presidential election, Vice President Biden warned on the campaign trail that Mitt Romney wanted to go to war with Syria.
The video, which was posted by BuzzFeed, was of Biden speaking to supporters at a rally in York, Pa. on Sept. 2, 2012.
“He said it was a mistake to set an end date for our warriors in Afghanistan and bring them home. He implies by the speech that he’s ready to go to war in Syria and Iran,” Biden said in his speech.
Here’s the thing, though: MITT ROMNEY WOULDN’T HAVE HAD US END UP BEING ON BASHAR AL-ASSAD’S SIDE.
You have got to be… kidding me.
There’s a battle raging inside the Obama administration about whether the United States ought to push away from its goal of toppling Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and into a de facto alliance with the Damascus regime to fight ISIS and other Sunni extremists in the region.
As President Obama slowly but surely increases the U.S. military presence on the ground in Iraq, his administration is grappling with the immediate need to stop the ISIS advance and push for a political solution in Baghdad. The 3 1/2-year grinding civil war is Syria has been put on a back burner for now. Some officials inside the administration are proposing that the drive to remove Assad from power, which Obama announced as U.S. policy in 2012, be set aside, too. The focus, these officials argue, should instead be on the region’s security and stability. Governments fighting for survival against extremists should be shored up, not undermined.
Starting with the title:
The American nurse, 19, arrested at Denver airport as she prepared ‘to join and fight with ISIS militant who seduced her on Skype and wanted to make her his wife in Syria’
A 19-year-old Denver woman has been arrested on terrorism charges for allegedly plotting to travel to Syria and join an Islamist extremist she had met online and was planning to marry.
Since when did we start cranking out nurses at 19?
You know, the one with Later For YOU written on the cover.
The United States and Russia agreed Saturday on an outline for the identification and seizure of Syrian chemical weapons and said Syria must turn over an accounting of its arsenal within a week.
Senior administration officials had said Friday the Obama administration would not press for U.N. authorization to use force against Syria if it reneges on any agreement to give up its chemical weapons.
The Russians had made clear in talks here between Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Kerry that the negotiations could not proceed under the threat of a U.N. resolution authorizing a military strike. Russia also wanted assurances that a resolution would not refer Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to the International Criminal Court for possible war-crimes prosecution.
Because that would not be smart. Pejman Yousefzadeh:
This story informs us that “the CIA has been delivering light machine guns and other small arms to Syrian rebels for several weeks, following President Barack Obama’s decision to arm the rebels.” It also informs us that “in the northeastern province of Hassakeh, clashes pitting Kurdish fighters against members of the al-Qaida-linked Nusra Front and the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant in the past two days killed 13 Kurdish gunmen and 35 militants.” So, armed rebel groups are fighting other armed rebel groups, some of which are Islamic fundamentalist militants related to al Qaeda. Query: How do we know that the weapons that we are providing to “Syrian rebels” don’t fall into the hands of the wrong kind of “rebels”?
Short answer: we don’t. We don’t even know that the Obama administration has the necessary mother-wit to even ask the right questions. Which means that we could very well be arming the people who are shooting at affiliates of one of our most reliable client groups. Which, again, is not smart.
I mean, the seriously, Kurds are enthusiastic when it comes to accommodating Uncle Sugar; can we not endanger that, please?
1,121 words (or thereabouts) in this Frank Bruni NYT article whining about how Syria is being seen in terms of the 2016 Presidential election, and not a one of them takes the time to even remotely blame the true reason why that’s happening: it’s happening because the current administration has shown a demented genius in taking the small (and moderate, but decreasing) foreign affairs problems it inherited from the last administration and turning them into big problems. Under the circumstances, I think that the Beltway Establishment can be permitted a certain nervous apprehension, and even a certain stubborn emphasis on discussing who should be in the next administration.
Because God knows that Barack Obama is kind of useless, right now. Which is probably one reason why Bruni’s so upset; it’s always a tribulation when one’s idol turns out to have feet of clay.
Via Hot Air.
PS: God, but I am getting tired of writing about Syria. Yeah, I know: try living there, right now, so I should just count my blessings. And I should.
Let me just nip this errant nonsense right in the bud:
Some Obama loyalists make the case that the Syria resolution, if approved, could lead to other successes. Working across party lines might prove contagious, precipitating a search for more common ground.
…because it caters to a peculiar delusion of the Democratic party: to wit, that the reason why there has been (blessedly) gridlock in Congress since 2011 is because of partisanship.
The reason why there has been gridlock in Congress since 2011 is because in 2010 the Republican party was able to elect enough federal legislators to make our collective opinions relevant, particularly the one that goes The Democrats are flipping wrong on the economy. It boils down to this: the other side had two years of full control of the government, and they spent it passing Obamacare and the Lily Ledbetter Act*. Oh, and going outhouse crazy with new levels of deficit spending; levels that they’ve been trying to make the new normal ever since. Democratic reflexes, in other words, are lacking when it comes to a sour economy; which is merely me finding a polite way to suggest that the typical Democrat with access to the treasury is like the average rat with the pleasure center of its brain wired to the red, candy-like button under its paw**. (more…)