General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsObama to Congress: I don't need new permission on Iraq
Washington (CNN) -- I'll let you know what's going on, but I don't need new congressional authority to act, President Barack Obama told congressional leaders Wednesday about his upcoming decision on possible military intervention in Iraq.
The White House meeting sounded more like a listening session for the top Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate about options for helping Iraq's embattled Shiite government halt the lightning advance of Sunni Islamist fighters toward Baghdad that Obama is considering.
According to a White House statement, Obama went over U.S. efforts to "strengthen the capacity of Iraq's security forces to confront the threat" from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) fighters, "including options for increased security assistance."
Earlier, spokesman Jay Carney spelled out one limit to any U.S. help, saying: "The President hasn't ruled out anything except sending U.S. combat troops into Iraq."
While the White House statement emphasized Obama would continue to consult with Congress, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said the President "basically just briefed us on the situation in Iraq and indicated he didn't feel he had any need for authority from us for the steps that he might take."
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California agreed with McConnell's assessment, adding she believed congressional authorization for military force in Iraq back in 2001 and 2003 still applied.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/18/politics/us-iraq/
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Pelosi, Obama et al claim the 2003 AUMF for Iraq were ill-advised at best and established under false pretenses at best but now they claim these AUMFs are still in effect and legally legitimate.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Up until now, this is a mess caused by the Bush Administrations lies.
The first bomb Obama drops on Iraq will redefine the aftermath as his.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)political cover. Here is Obama -- Nobel Peace Prize Laureate -- declaring he can do what he wants unilaterally in Syria, saying he can act without a new AUMF for Iraq and actually starting a war in Libya. This makes no political sense. If it's so damned important for US national security, or even cynical interests, GET CONGRESS TO ****ING SIGN-OFF ON IT!
This is going to haunt us for generations after Obama has left office.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)They did?
The war was illegal.
Still, is that what matters? Are you implying that if Congress gave Obama "political cover" it would be OK for him to act?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)AUMFs were not legitimate as they were based on falsehoods. However, they still provided political cover. There is a tremendous gulf between legitimate and politically expedient.
If Obama acts he will be assuming Bush's every mistake. If he does so unilaterally he won't even have political cover to spread the blame. It will be his debacle and his alone. Granted he will be going to confront ISIS rather than under the false pretext of WMDs but that will be his only saving grace, though I doubt that will suffice.
Might I add, if the President does act unilaterally the War Powers Resolution is effectively dead.
mysuzuki2
(3,521 posts)They were voted by Congress and signed by the then president. President Obama did NOT say he thought that they were a good idea. I trust Mr Obama not to misuse that authority a LOT more than I ever trusted Mr Bush!!
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)mysuzuki2
(3,521 posts)but an act of Congress is not a contract.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)A person/body cannot give legitimate consent when they have been misled.
mysuzuki2
(3,521 posts)I think congress would have to pass a new law withdrawing that authorization and that would have to be signed by the president. Which, I might add, sounds like a very good idea to me.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Skidmore
(37,364 posts)the last few congresses have truly represented the people at all. I really like when he points out to them how the rules they have set in place are inconceived. The logical step would be to get themselves in session and work on the nation's business as it relates to Iraq, but they won't. They won't make any hard decisions. It's an election year and incumbents really love their jobs.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)"Oh yes, you do!"
Then they would have to vote on it.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)At least that would be more honest.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)...that this isn't the big news.
Stay out of Iraq.
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)What reporters were in that meeting?
I am skeptical, i will admit.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California agreed with McConnell's assessment, adding she believed congressional authorization for military force in Iraq back in 2001 and 2003 still applied.
Obama "did not give us an array of actions he was planning to take," Pelosi said. "He just talked about his perspective on what was happening there."