Because hundreds of beheadings, horrific crucifixions, mass murder, rape, brutality and tens of thousands of Ferguson refugees have been seen fleeing Missouri for the safer venues of the Illinois mountains…..  or something.

One of the inconvenient truths liberals and progressive-minded Obama supporters seem to be overlooking is the 2001 and 2002 Authorization’s for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), that President Obama is now using to justify his 2014 attacks inside Syria, was a direct result of President George W Bush going to congress and asking for authorization (ie. a vote) prior to launching attacks on terror entities.
Despite the anxiety it produces for Democrats the fact remains. George W Bush never went to war, or used the military as an offensive weapon, without consulting with congress and seeking approval. Regardless of opinion, no amount of spin can remove this obvious fact.
When Obama uses the military for his versions of “the war on terror” he does not consult with congress.
President Obama used the U.N. to authorize his military campaign in Libya, and never did consult congress even after the legally required 30 day timeline of the War Powers Act. And for Syria, well, President Obama is relying on the Bush AUMF’s without further consult.
For this reason we find ourselves in agreement with the New York Times.

Wrong Turn on Syria: No Convincing Plan – President Obama has put America at the center of a widening war by expanding into Syria airstrikes against the Islamic State, the Sunni extremist group known as ISIS and ISIL. He has done this without allowing the public debate that needs to take place before this nation enters another costly and potentially lengthy conflict in the Middle East. (more…)

In President Obama’s notification to congress you might note his reference to the 2002 AUMF Public Law #107-40 (underlined).

However, has anyone in the media noted that only two months ago, July 25th 2014, he requested that law to be repealed, citing “the 2002 Iraq AUMF is no longer used for any government activities”.?
(more…)

OK, now it’s all beginning to make sense. Let’s take a look at this pretzel logic legal authority to attack inside Syria shall we.    Sheesh.

Unlike Libya in 2011, the U.N. did not have a resolution permitting President Obama to launch offensive military attacks inside a foreign and sovereign nation, Syria. Without a U.N. resolution there was no international law permitting President Obama to attack ISIS inside Syria.
Without a legal basis in international law, President Obama needs to use U.S. law for his Syria ISIS campaign.
So unlike Libya in 2011, and absent of international law to support the legality, for his 2014 Syria attacks to be legal President Obama needed to use US law; specifically, the War Powers Act.
President Obama is using two constructs. #1) The War Powers Act -and- #2) AUMF The 9-11-01 Authorization for the Use of Military Force.
But there’s a catch or two.
First, because President Obama is going to use the War Powers Act, and is not acting to defend the U.S. homeland, and is engaging in offensive military actions, he has to notify congress in writing immediately – and then update in writing within 30 days. It’s how the law works. But note what’s missing.

There is no mention of ISIS, because legally there can’t be. In order for Obama to use the 2001 AUMF he has to be attacking “al-Qaeda”, specifically “al-Qaeda”.
The AUMF only applies to al-Qaeda, not ISIS or any other group or state. (more…)

Tomahawks into Syria as Turkey remains chicken

Just so we are clear on this – There is a HUGE difference between President George W. Bush attacking al-Qaeda (‘War on Terror’) within Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen, and what President Obama is doing now.
The most notable difference is President Bush had authorization and agreement, with each sovereign nation, to attack the terror entity within it’s border; Obama has no such agreement with Syria.
And remember, according to President Obama 2013, the “2003 George Bush war on terror is over“.   OVER!   Not to mention the post 9-11 AUMF was specifically only for al-Qaeda, and ISIS is admittedly, by Obama and al-Qaeda, not al-Qaeda.   So what exactly is the “legal authority” President Obama is using?

Secretary of State John Kerry would not answer that question to congress last week. Senior White House National Security and Foreign Policy advisor Susan Rice would not answer that question last Friday. White House spokesperson Josh Earnest would also not answer that question last Friday.  President Obama’s chief of Staff, Denis McDonough, would not answer that question on Saturday, and U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power would not answer that question on Sunday.
The mysterious “legal authority” is said to exist, but has never been outlined.
Yet on Monday the attacks began.
Under what legal authority? We are not under attack, this is not a defensive decision. This is 100% offensive. (more…)

These are the same “fighters” President Obama is relying upon to be the ground troops in the fight against ISIS.

BAGHDAD — The army base in Iraq’s western Anbar province had been under siege by Islamic State militants for a week, so when a convoy of armored Humvees rolled up at the gate, the Iraqi soldiers at Camp Saqlawiyah believed saviors had arrived.
But this was no rescue attempt. The vehicles were driven by militants on suicide missions, and within seconds on Sunday the base had become a bloody scene of multiple bombings.
On Monday, a day after the attack, five survivors — including three officers — said that between 300 and 500 soldiers were missing and believed to be dead, kidnapped or in hiding. Army officials said the numbers were far lower, leading to accusations that they were concealing the true toll.
(more…)

The Pentagon is announcing U.S. Tomahawk missiles are being launched from U.S. combat vessels to strike ISIS targets in Syria.
A group of coalition fighter jets (fighter and bomber units) may also participate. Initial reports did not indicate U.S. airplanes are involved, however there are some contradictions. It is being reported that 25 initial targets are being announced. 
Bombers, drones, missiles and fully equipped F-18 fighter bombers.  The UAE, Qatar, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are also reported to be participating.


WASHINGTON — The United States and allies launched airstrikes against Sunni militants in Syria early Tuesday, unleashing a torrent of cruise missiles and precision-guided bombs from the air and sea on the militants’ de facto capital of Raqqa, Syria, and along the porous Iraq border.
VIDEO ADDED:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd7Zj6Dem8E
American fighter jets and armed Predator and Reaper drones, flying alongside warplanes from several Arab allies, struck a broad array of targets in territory controlled by the militants known as the Islamic State. American military officials said the targets included weapons supplies, depots, barracks and buildings the militants use for command and control. Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from United States Navy ships in the region.
(more…)

Qatar owns Al-Jazeera media as the PR campaign to manipulate Western public opinion. Qatar finances The Muslim Brotherhood, and the newest terror group, Libyan Dawn. It’s one of the biggest open secrets in Washington DC, and yet no-one does anything. Qatar’s Ruling head is Emir Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani.

George Stephanopolous is horrible for obvious reasons. Again, WHAT LEGAL BASIS ?

Surprisingly, or perhaps not, the media seem to be avoiding a rather obvious question:

Under what authority is President Obama claiming to be able to fly into Syria to attack NI-ISIS?

You might have noted a few, well, probing flights recently outlined by media of Russian incursions into U.S. and NATO qualified defense zone airspace. Yet interestingly no-one seems to be connecting the dots between the Russian pokes, and Obama’s proclaimed Syrian strategy. Remember, Russia is an ally the “state of” Syria, and Bashir Assad.
The U.S. State Department, and the U.S. White House team, have been very careful to note they will not be coordinating any offensive NI-ISIS engagements with Iran or Syria.
For all current intents and purposes the matter with Iran is a non-issue, however the matter with Syria is an entirely divergent situation altogether.
As far as we can tell there is no precedent for hostile U.S. action into the sovereign territory of another nation, even to target terror threats, without a specific agreement in hand before the action. (more…)