Counterview: Terrorism Persists, But America’s War On Terror Must End

Remember how the Obama administration stopped using the phrase “War on Terror”? And remember when President Obama gave that speech back in May where he called for an official end to the War on Terror and repeal of the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF)? “I look forward to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF’s mandate,” said Obama. “And I will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further. Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue. But this war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises. That’s what our democracy demands.”

• • •

GOP Chickenhawks Suddenly Gone Soft: Republicans Have No Appetite For War

The war party, otherwise known as the Republican Party, has gone soft. The GOP likes to pride itself on being strong on national defense, looking to pick a fight with the next dictator or tyrant. And for at least the last three or four decades Republicans have taken great pleasure in deriding Democrats and liberals for being soft when it comes to war. But suddenly the chickenhawk Republicans find themselves in unfamiliar territory, having to defend their anti-war stance on Syria. What has the world come to?

• • •

Do We Stamp A ‘Moral High Ground’ Guarantee On Each Cruise Missile We Launch At Syria?

So it looks like we are getting ourselves involved in yet another war. And I don’t really care what the Obama administration wants to call it. When you launch cruise missiles into another country, that’s an act of war. You can attempt justify it, you can make your case, and even if you were correct, it changes nothing. War is war. Or let’s put it another way so that everyone can understand. If another country took an aggressive action against the United States, and we called that aggression an act of war (which we would), than it is still an act of war when we do it to them.

• • •

What Will U.S. Military Force Against Syria Accomplish?

Today President Obama announced he decided the United States will use military force against Syria for its chemical weapon use. The President said he would seek the approval of congress, but noted that he has the executive power to authorize this action without congressional approval. That is something in stark contrast to his previous stance as Senator. In 2007, while on the presidential campaign trail, Obama said, “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” I know we are supposed to believe presidents are privy to more information than us mere mortals, but this seems like a huge compromise of ethics, not to mention constitutionally questionable.

• • •

Counterview: Syria Chemical Weapon Use. Does It Change Anything?

Today Secretary of State John Kerry said, “What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world.” He added that is was “undeniable” despite “excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured,” which is likely directed at Russia. And of course he’s right. There is no excuse. But does that mean there can be a viable excuse for use of conventional (non-chemical) weapons?

• • •

Republicans Want To Impeach President Obama, And They Don’t Need A Reason

Increasingly conservative constituents are asking Republican elected officials, “Why can’t we impeach President Obama?” And in many cases, these Republicans (Senator Ted Cruz, Representative Blake Farenthold) answer by saying it’s a good question, and that they would love to impeach Obama, but the problem is the Democratically controlled Senate. Republicans lack any solid reasoning for impeachment (surprise), but that’s not what stands in their way. What stands between Republicans and an impeachment attempt is a tiny sliver of acumen remaining in the United States Congress.

• • •
1 4 5 6 7 8 27