Aumf

[Guest]

Back in February of this year, the President submitted to congress a request for a new AUMF to replace the one from 2003 which has been the ongoing authorization for any action he took.

BOTH parties want an AUMF. The President this week took much time to crow and complain about the Republicans in congress not giving him an AUMF when he asked.

The AUMF that the President sent to congress " "does not authorize the use of the United States armed forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations."

Obama's AUMF is largely meaningless, but a good idea anyway | TheHill (http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/defense/233747-obamas-aumf-is-largely-meaningless-but-a-good-idea-anyway)

He neglected to say that when he was berating the Republicans that this facet was in there.

Republicans, and i am speaking generally feel this is to limiting, and some Democrats, again speaking generally, feel it is not limiting enough especially in not giving boundaries as to where.

Thus this died and is now being resurrected.

"Separately, two influential senators, Republican Jeff Flake and Democrat Tim Kaine, responded to the Paris attacks by renewing their push for Congress to vote on a formal authorization for the use of military force for the campaign against Islamic State.


Read more at Reutershttp://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/18/us-france-shooting-usa-idUSKCN0T62FB20151118#0UD6pSCFQrxEMRgF.

There was a post earlier saying that as a liberal a poster would like to discuss issues but blamed conservative posters for not allowing that.

Here is one that can be discussed.

Are you for or against a new AUMF ? Should it be limiting in anyway ? If so, what limitations do you think congress should apply ?

[Guest]

I'm for killing the bastards. And frankly, setting a red line and then saying "never mind" when it's crossed doesn't give one much confidence in the leadership. It also leads to boldness on the part of the enemy, take Paris for example. H'mm, if ISIS is the JV team, what will happen when we face the varsity.

[Guest]

My concern thus far with this, is that it appears he wants an AUMF BUT with an out for him.

In other words it appears if it has any restrictions he can say that his hands are tied by congress.

It is becoming a bi partisan drum beat now, and I hope the pundits who say he is trying to write his legacy before doing what is best are wrong.

Nobody wants US troops in on the ground....nobody wants an all out war, but any AUMF that's says you cannot have ground troops is meaningless.

[Guest]

This morning, I listened to stories about the restrictive "rules of engagement" imposed on our pilots flying missions to destroy ISIS. Awhat is frustrating is that other than Fox, you don't read about this.

What I heard this morning on MSNBC "Morning Joe" was stories (and liberals were on that panel..actually two VERY LIBERAL) about the WH restrictions...example, we were to bomb oil tankers, and as we came across them we dropped leaflets which explained..we are going to bomb your tankers, and if you don't want to die or get hurt, you better run. Then, we come back and bomb the oil tankers after the "soldiers" ran. We are not allowed to bomb in any other way.

Last evening, our sec'y of defense, when asked said he "hoped" those kind of restrictions are lifted soon.

So when we hear about our bombing.....that is what is happening and the restrictions placed on our planes.

[Guest]

This is the reason Obama doesn't want a "no fly zone" because then he might be called on to enforce it......as Bush did in Iraq. A "No Fly Zone" is just another embarrassing "red line" being drawn and Obama definitely got some egg on his face on that one.