What do we all think of the President's speech yesterday?


carlimac
 Share

Recommended Posts

I didn't hear the whole thing but I thought it was good, direct and forceful...till I started listening to the critics. Lots of hairsplitting and agonizing lazer focus on details happening on the news channels.  I'm no liberal but why can't we just take what he said at face value and trust that he's doing the right thing...finally.

 

Any other opinions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't listen to it.  From what I hear of it in commentary/news reports:  Not tickled that he thinks he can do all this without Congress' authorization, and I have some trepidation about arming and training even more rebel groups (I'm sorry--weren't we talking about helping ISIS in its fight against Syria barely a year ago?). 

 

I do think he's on the right track with the airstrikes and got the distinct impression that he had major international buy-in, which had me thinking "Nice going, Mr. Pres." 

 

But now I'm hearing that Britain and Germany are backpedaling on the airstrikes--at least, with regard to Syria.  Apparently Secretary Kerry is still on the travel circuit trying to drum up more international support.  So I guess I'll call myself "cautiously approving" at this point.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe someone can explain something to me that I have never understood.

 

The President said, "Now let’s make two things clear:  ISIL is not Islamic.  No religion condones the killing of innocents."

 

Leaving aside some troublesome parts of the Old Testament, I suppose that's true.  And, in fairness to our Muslim brothers and sisters, a growing number of muftis have declared fatwas against terrorism, suicide bombers, and even al-Qaeda.  (A few fatwas have also come out against odd things, such as Jerry Falwell and the "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" television show, but that's for another thread.)

 

What I don't understand is why international Islamic leaders don't unite and issue a united set of strong fatwas against all forms of terrorism and the killing of innocents.  From what I understand, the sporadic existing fatwas against terrorism have originated from countries outside the Middle East and don't feel like the force of law yet.

 

As for Obama... I think Michael Moore has got it about right.  Young students of the year 2114 will be stumped when they're asked what Obama is famous for other than being the first black president.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have entered the era of 1984 and doublespeak.

"ISIL is not Islamic.  No religion condones the killing of innocents."  Isn't this the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

 

And Kerry "we are not at war with ISIS".  Ooookaaaay, bombings don't mean war.  Well I guess Russia could bomb and fire artillery at another country (Ukraine) and it's not war.  China could bomb the US and they wouldn't be at war with the US . . . . good to know!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have entered the era of 1984 and doublespeak.

"ISIL is not Islamic.  No religion condones the killing of innocents."  Isn't this the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

 

And Kerry "we are not at war with ISIS".  Ooookaaaay, bombings don't mean war.  Well I guess Russia could bomb and fire artillery at another country (Ukraine) and it's not war.  China could bomb the US and they wouldn't be at war with the US . . . . good to know!  

I think the implication here was that for there to be war, there'd have to another country to fight. We, nor anyone else recognizes the ISIS as a country therefore this is a really big terrorist operation, not a war.

I didn't listen to it, but seems like it's better than the last one: "We ain't got no plan, where is my nine iron?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[King George III has, among other things,] kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

Declaration of Independence

 

The Congress shall have Power ... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;  To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years....

U.S. Const. art. I, § 8.

 

"[A vote on going to war against ISIS] is not necessary and I don't think we need to do it. We'll see what the president lays out. That will be more dispositive."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).

 

"[Although the president doesn't need our approval,] it certainly is helpful to have Congress fully engaged."

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).

 

“What if [a presidential request for war] comes over and [Congress] can’t pass it? That would be a disaster. And what if you put so many conditions on it that it makes any military operations ineffective? That’s what I worry about."

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

 

The Congress shall have Power ... To be fully engaged, as is certainly helpful, in the declaring of War; and to declare War at the request of the President, provided that Congress shall not Fail to declare War should the President so request; To raise and support permanent Standing Armies and to appropriate Money for the Arming of local Police Forces.

U.S. Const. art. I, § 8 (as amended).

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty shocked that military action is not going to congress, from what I understand (and I may be wrong because I haven't ever studied your constitution in depth) the President's grounds for relying on a 13 year old authorization for the use of force is pretty shaky.

Edited by Wordnerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wordnerd, actually, it's been going on since the "Police action" in Korea.  WWII, for a lot of people, was the last constitutionally supported use of our military.

 

Some folks take it as a sign that we're not really much of a constitutional republic any more, but more of an empire.  Gotta declare war to use the military?  Meh.  We don't need to do that.  Too many vital national interests at stake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe someone can explain something to me that I have never understood.

 

The President said, "Now let’s make two things clear:  ISIL is not Islamic.  No religion condones the killing of innocents."

 

Leaving aside some troublesome parts of the Old Testament, I suppose that's true.  And, in fairness to our Muslim brothers and sisters, a growing number of muftis have declared fatwas against terrorism, suicide bombers, and even al-Qaeda.  (A few fatwas have also come out against odd things, such as Jerry Falwell and the "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" television show, but that's for another thread.)

 

What I don't understand is why international Islamic leaders don't unite and issue a united set of strong fatwas against all forms of terrorism and the killing of innocents.  From what I understand, the sporadic existing fatwas against terrorism have originated from countries outside the Middle East and don't feel like the force of law yet.

 

As for Obama... I think Michael Moore has got it about right.  Young students of the year 2114 will be stumped when they're asked what Obama is famous for other than being the first black president.  

I wonder who most of the young students will be around the world in the year 2114 after watching this. I stumbled on to this the other day and found it quite interesting.

 

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1312110880060

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share