Obama is losing his battle with perpetual war.
Barack Obama delivered a bewildering speech on Wednesday. The pledge to “destroy” the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria; the deployment of U.S. troops to do just that; the flag-flanked, sober-sounding president addressing the American people behind a podium in prime-time—all appeared to amount to a declaration of war.
But Obama never used the word “war” to describe his decision to launch airstrikes against ISIS and provide military assistance to regional forces fighting the extremist group. When he employed the w-word, it was to clarify what this isnot. It’s not “another ground war in Iraq.” It’s not Afghanistan. It’s a “counterterrorism campaign” to “take out ISIL wherever they exist.” Obama didn’t say how long the campaign would take, or how we’ll know when its mission is accomplished.
The effect was to thoroughly blur the boundary between peacetime and wartime. And maybe that was on purpose. After all, it was less than a year and a half ago that Obama promised, in an address at National Defense University, to remove America from the “perpetual war footing” it had assumed since the September 11 attacks. On Wednesday night, he seemingly tried to honor that pledge while simultaneously preparing the country for military operations against ISIS. Did the president announce a war? A military action? Targeted strikes? Are there meaningful differences between these terms? It’s not all that clear.
In the 13 years since 9/11, Americans have grown accustomed to the ambiguity of U.S. efforts to deter, disrupt, and preempt the threats posed by a shape-shifting cast of terrorist groups. The ebbs and flows of America’s inexorable counterterrorism campaigns have produced a tangled web of terminology. For evidence, take a look at the many ways the New York Times homepage referred to Obama’s intervention on Thursday:
What Obama didn’t quite foresee at National Defense University in 2013 was a group like ISIS, which had yet to split with al-Qaeda and seize vast tracts of territory. Instead, his vision of terrorism’s future included “lethal yet less capable al Qaeda affiliates; threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad; [and] homegrown extremists.” The United States, he said, could not combat these actors with force alone:
We cannot use force everywhere that a radical ideology takes root; and in the absence of a strategy that reduces the wellspring of extremism, a perpetual war—through drones or Special Forces or troop deployments—will prove self-defeating, and alter our country in troubling ways.
Obama also called for the repeal of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against “those responsible” for the 9/11 attacks—language often interpreted as referring to al-Qaeda and its “associated forces.” If America had adopted a perpetual war footing, he argued, the AUMF was the foundation on which it stood.
This week, however, perpetual war appeared to get the best of Obama. Administration officials are reportedly invoking the AUMF as a legal justification for the U.S. campaign against ISIS. As The Daily Beast‘s Eli Lake explains, that means, incredibly, that a resolution designed to justify attacks on al Qaeda-linked groups “would also apply to a terrorist organization that is itself at war with al Qaeda.” The definition of “those responsible” for 9/11 expands and explodes. The perpetual war continues. What Obama might have called “war footing” in 2013, he described Wednesday as a “comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism strategy.”
The question of whether the AUMF applies to U.S. military intervention in Iraq and Syria is part of a larger debate over whether the campaign is lawful, and whether it requires congressional authorization. But that debate, in turn, is partially a reflection of the merging of peacetime and wartime, and the resulting confusion about which legal frameworks apply to which actions.
The boundary between peace and war was already dissolving in 2002, when The West Wing aired an episode on this very phenomenon. In the scene below, Admiral Percy Fitzwallace, the joint chiefs chairman, makes the case for killing the defense minister of the fictional Middle Eastern country of Qumar, who is believed to be plotting terrorist attacks against the United States.
“Can you tell when it’s peacetime and wartime anymore?” Fitzwallace asks. “We measure the success of a mission by two things: Was it successful and how few civilians did we hurt. They measure success by how many. Pregnant women are delivering bombs. You’re talking to me about international laws? The laws of nature don’t even apply here.” Legal systems that clearly distinguish between peacetime and wartime, he argues, are antiquated and meaningless in today’s grinding battle against brutal terrorists.
“The two fuels that run Untruth, Inc., are, first, a realization that most of the president’s policies, whether deliberately or as a result of indifference and laziness, run counter to what most Americans support, and, second, a media establishment so invested in his agenda that it will not call the administration to account. So the engine of lying keeps humming. On any given day the president of the United States can step up to the teleprompter amid the latest disaster and swear that he did not do what he just did, or insist that someone else, not he, did the dastardly deed, or simply skip over recent history and make things up. The press at first quibbles, then nods in agreement, and Obama is empowered to do it again and again. We have not seen such a disingenuous president since Richard Nixon — but he, at least, was countered rather than enabled by the media.” — Victor Davis Hanson, Hoover Institution
‘Welcome to OldRadioWorld.com! Here at OldRadioWorld.com you will find some of the most popular radio programs of the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. Before television, radio provided entertainment by presenting radio plays and programs of mystery, intrigue, and comedy. Of course, news was present as were many soap operas.
I have been a big fan of Old Time Radio over the years and my preferences for programs have evolved, but one thing still amazes me, the sound effects and how the sound men created them. The nine minute video, “Back of the Mike”, begins with a child listening to the radio and his imagination is put on the screen. The camera then goes to a 1930s era radio sound studio where the program is originating. This video gives you an insightful look at how those intriguing and astonishing sounds were created. ‘
Who`s on First/Abbott & Costello always and forever funny.
Obama: If Assad Defends Against US Attack, US Will Attack
Only hours after delivering his ridiculous address to the American people regarding his strategy to combat an organization that is entirely the product of the United States and NATO and one that is still under complete control of these powers, Obama conducted a meeting with “foreign policy experts,” former government officials, and journalists.
The meeting, of course, is nothing more than round two in the volley of propaganda coming from the White House in its attempt to drum up more support from the American people for direct military intervention in Syria and an open use of U.S. military forces against the secular government of Bashar al-Assad. All of those within an ear’s reach of the reports regarding Obama’s meeting should be firmly aware that it is nothing more than an attempt to milk the original speech for more propaganda against Assad’s Syria and provide a since of inevitability about the coming conflict there.
With that in mind, Obama stated to those in the “after party” meeting, that if the Syrian government were to shoot down American military planes – American military planes engaging in aggressive air strikes on Syrian soil – then the United States would be forced to “wipe out” Syria’s air defenses. Obama also added that an attack against the Syrian air defenses would be a much easier task than attacking his pet ISIS terrorists and other related groups. Obama pointed out that eliminating Syria’s air defense capabilities would lead to his ouster and the overthrow of the Syrian government.
Essentially, Obama stated that the United States would violate Syrian sovereignty by launching airstrikes inside Syria allegedly for the purpose of bombing the terrorist group that was created, funded, and directed by the United States to overthrow the Syrian government. If Assad dares to defend his country against both an American destabilization of terrorism and aggressive American airstrikes, then the United States would retaliate against Assad’s retaliation.
Continue reading HERE.
Hillary Clinton porn…