http://www.politico.com/story/2014/0...il-110847.html
The final two paragraphs of this article:
One lawmaker said he didn’t view Obama’s speech as call for lawmakers to provide what amounts to a new declaration of war.
“It was not clear at all to me that the president is asking us for additional authorization on the use of force,” Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) said on WTOP-FM. “ That’s an issue that would be hotly debated in the Congress of the United States. There are lots of different views. I think it would be difficult to get agreement on such a resolution in a short period of time.”
spell out President Obama's [political] strategy for dealing with this unpleasantness - he wants to shuck it off on Congress which will probably get tied down in an endless debate.
This "call for action" probably wouldn't be happening if it weren't for the bad optics - namely the two "journalists" being separated from their heads. That made Obama look weak and impotent - not a good spot to be in less than two months prior to an election. If the journalists had not been beheaded - with the very real prospect that more of this will be forthcoming - it's highly doubtful that the President would have been delivering his grave and sobering speech last night. After all, it was only a few months ago that the President was referring to the ISIL terrorists as the "JV team" and comparing them (mockingly) to Kobe Bryant.
So none of this is about combatting terrorism or "imminent threats" to the United States. This is more about the President trying to stop the political bleeding and saving [his own] face. We're now in the situation where we're going to let "bad optics" drag us further into the quicksand that is that part of the world.
President Obama calling for an unspecific "declaration of support" from Congress sounds like a masterful job of passing the buck. Did he request a specific declaration of war against ISIL - which would require a straight up or down vote from members of Congress in the same way FDR declared war against Japan on December 8, 1941? It didn't sound that way to me ... (Based on his comments in the Politico article, it sounds like at least one Democratic senator, Ben Cardin of Maryland, is not sure either exactly what it is that Obama wants from Congress.) Are we at war or not?
I suspect what Obama really wants is for Congress to get bogged down on this and unable to reach a consensus - especially in the period between now and the election. If Congress gets bogged down in a bitter partisan debate and is unable to deliver a clear statement of "support" to the President, he can wash his hands of the situation and blame anything "bad" that happens over there on Congress.
That's my cynical take on all this, but what do I know?
Last edited by Alan C. Lawhon; 09-11-2014 at 09:48 AM.
Reason: Minor edit.