Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Democrats Contort Themselves to Support Obama’s Airstrikes in Iraq

Democrats Contort Themselves to Support Obama’s Airstrikes in Iraq

You could say Democrats were for bombing Iraq, before they were against it, before they were for it again.

Protesting the Iraq War under President Bush was a cottage industry for Democrats, even though they voted for it. But now that Obama’s hand has been forced, Democrats are doing their best to lend cautious support.

Kristina Wong of The Hill describes the liberal predicament:

Left frets over Iraq mission creep

The president’s expansion of the U.S. military mission in Iraq is conjuring up two dirty little words for anti-war Democrats: Mission creep.

Just two months ago, when Obama announced he was going to send up to 300 American troops to Iraq, he emphasized that they would only have an advisory, non-combat role.

On Friday, however, U.S. fighters bombed terrorist targets in northern Iraq. Hours before, the president had announced he was authorizing such strikes as well as the airdropping of aid to Iraqi refugees stranded on a mountaintop.

The White House has stressed that the two missions — the airstrikes and the airdrops — are narrow and discrete. But neither has an end-date, prompting concern from some Democrats and liberal anti-war groups.

“I oppose open-ended military commitments, which the president’s actions in Iraq could become,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“I am deeply concerned that these actions could lead to prolonged direct military involvement, which I would strongly oppose,” he added.

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), another senior Democrat on the committee, said he supported the president’s actions, but “as one of only 23 senators who opposed the war in Iraq, I do not believe this should be an extended campaign involving US ground troops.”

Even Elizabeth Warren has been forced to make a statement on the subject. Naturally, she supports Obama’s decision.

Andy Metzger of Mass Live writes:

Warning against a new U.S. war in Iraq, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Friday stood by President Barack Obama’s decision to authorize targeted airstrikes to help defend Americans in Erbil, Iraq, and provide aid to a religious minority taking refuge in the Sinjar mountains.

“It’s a complicated situation right now in Iraq and the president has taken very targeted actions to provide humanitarian relief that the Iraqi government requested, and to protect American citizens,” Warren told reporters. “But like the president I believe that any solution in Iraq is going to be a negotiated solution, not a military solution. We do not want to be pulled into another war in Iraq.”

You could say Democrats were for bombing Iraq, before they were against it, before they were for it.

The anti-war movement has been conspicuously silent since Obama assumed office. Perhaps their time has come again.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:
,

Comments

“But like the president I believe that any solution in Iraq is going to be a negotiated solution, not a military solution.”

I expect Princess Running Bare to be the first to step forward for a peace mission, reaching out to ISIS.

I will mourn her. Really.

    Observer in reply to Ragspierre. | August 9, 2014 at 4:59 pm

    What would those negotiations sound like, I wonder:

    “ISIS, the U.S. will agree to stop air strikes on your positions, if you will agree to limit the number of Christian and Yazidi adults you rape, torture, and crucify to no more than 50,000 in any given calendar year, and if you also agree to limit the number of non-Muslim children whose heads you saw off to no more than 5,000 in any given calendar year.”

      Ragspierre in reply to Observer. | August 9, 2014 at 5:36 pm

      I think more like…

      “Hello, Mr. Muhamid, my name is Sen. Elizabe… Glack…gurgle…”

      With a neat video of her head on a picket fence somewhere, with very happy young men doing their Snoopy Dance of death.

        so…..a win win ??
        🙂

          Ragspierre in reply to dmacleo. | August 9, 2014 at 5:55 pm

          You BAD…

          I would feel terrible if Warren stepped up and went out to treat with ISIS for peace. And then she was killed as she was holding her female, unclean un-believer, non-tented hand out to Mr. Muhamid.

          Really. I’m serious. Stop smirking…!!!

JackRussellTerrierist | August 9, 2014 at 3:50 pm

This is the first time that obamullah has been forced to at least give the appearance of cleaning up one of his messes.

Now if he could just learn to change his own diapers.

“But like the president I believe that any solution in Iraq is going to be a negotiated solution, not a military solution.”
I still cannot fathom any intelligence in this particular sound bite.

Well…. who you gonna find to negotiate with?
And who might you send?

Or is it the people stranded on the Mountain that will do the negotiations?

Isis is currently working diligently on the Military solution.

inspectorudy | August 9, 2014 at 4:18 pm

“But like the president I believe that any solution in Iraq is going to be a negotiated solution, not a military solution. We do not want to be pulled into another war in Iraq.” Elizabeth Runnigbear Warren.
Has anyone on this planet ever seen a “Negotiated” settlement between a Western style government and a Muslim government that lasted more than a week?
“It’s a complicated situation right now in Iraq and the president has taken very targeted actions to provide humanitarian relief that the Iraqi government requested, and to protect American citizens,” Elizabeth Runningbear Warren.
Did you ever hear a Demorat say that Iraq or Afghanistan was a complicated situation? Nor did I. No, it was always being a cowboy that got us into it and there was no good reason or situation that could explain it except that the evil Bush did it because he was evil.

    Ragspierre in reply to inspectorudy. | August 9, 2014 at 4:31 pm

    The only person in DC that EVER failed to recognize Iraq was a “complicated” situation was Baracular’s BFF.

    Mr. Straw Man. He’s the ONLY guy who EVER thought success there could be won solely with military might.

      Milwaukee in reply to Ragspierre. | August 10, 2014 at 1:37 am

      Thanks for the clarification. Without a doubt there is a close relationship here: “…was Baracular’s BFF. Mr. Straw Man. ”

      You nailed it. President 0bama is really tight with phantoms like “some people say…” and those darn Republicans. He really knows the mind of Republicans well.

      Actually lots of Democrats are happy to tell the world what Republicans are thinking. Sounds like a relationship destined to not end well.

    Hepcat in reply to inspectorudy. | August 9, 2014 at 5:39 pm

    “Has anyone on this planet ever seen a ‘Negotiated’ settlement between a Western style government and a Muslim government that lasted more than a week?”

    The reason for that is simple. Islamists demand the rule of Allah, not the rule of man or man’s law.

    Democracy is anathema to radical islam. It is an insult to Allah.

    The Hamas Charter puts in in writing:

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

    HAMAS CHARTER

    ARTICLE THIRTEEN – Peaceful Solutions, Initiatives and International Conferences

    Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on that. For the sake of hoisting the banner of Allah over their homeland they fight. “Allah will be prominent, but most people do not know.”

    Now and then the call goes out for the convening of an international conference to look for ways of solving the (Palestinian) question. Some accept, others reject the idea, for this or other reason, with one stipulation or more for consent to convening the conference and participating in it. Knowing the parties constituting the conference, their past and present attitudes towards Moslem problems, the Islamic Resistance Movement does not consider these conferences capable of realising the demands, restoring the rights or doing justice to the oppressed. These conferences are only ways of setting the infidels in the land of the Moslems as arbitraters. When did the infidels do justice to the believers?

    “But the Jews will not be pleased with thee, neither the Christians, until thou follow their religion; say, The direction of Allah is the true direction. And verily if thou follow their desires, after the knowledge which hath been given thee, thou shalt find no patron or protector against Allah.” (The Cow – verse 120).

    There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with. As in said in the honourable Hadith:

    “The people of Syria are Allah’s lash in His land. He wreaks His vengeance through them against whomsoever He wishes among His slaves It is unthinkable that those who are double-faced among them should prosper over the faithful. They will certainly die out of grief and desperation.”

Fear of ‘Another Benghazi’ Drove White House to Airstrikes in Iraq via
The Walter Duranty Times

Gosh, THEY must be using that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula video, AGAIN..

Boy, those “is,is” (thanks Bill) “folks”,<barry likes that term had better lookout, 'cause if Lizzie sharpens her axe, wooo weee.

Negotiated solutions require that participants are speaking the same political lingo. Not the case here.
In these matters as with Russia and Iran and NK a magnum stick says “Make my day.”

    Henry Hawkins in reply to jennifer a johnson. | August 9, 2014 at 5:02 pm

    Further, negotiated solutions require that participants want a solution and have something to make trade-offs and/or compromises. The US has nothing ISIL wants, while Obama is C-in-C the US has noting ISIL fears, nor does Obama appear to care if there is any solution.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to jennifer a johnson. | August 9, 2014 at 6:40 pm

    Is that the evil empire again?

    If the west wants to get of top of Isis then the will need Russia &/ or Iran s co-operation.

    It is not as if the US are the only ones with a magnum . Russia & possibly NK & Iran have nukes

    But I agree , not likely negotiate with ISIS. Unfortunately the time to stup their founders is over now he have Northern Iraq & can plunder.

Airstrikes now, war later. Poke. Poke… This only works against nationalist regimes.

STOP it!
Since WHEN did BOMBINGS become “air strikes”?!?

IT’S ALL ABOUT THE LANGUAGE.
OBAMA is BOMBING Iraq!
BOMBING
BOMBING
BOMBING

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend