Replies

1. Create a foreign terrorist crisis:
Now the truth emerges: how the US fuelled the rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq
By Seumas Milne

The sectarian terror group won’t be defeated by the western states that incubated it in the first place...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq

2. Exacerbate problem bring terrorist crisis to our “Homeland”:
Senate Democrats Block Syrian Refugee Bill From Advancing
By richard lardner, associated press

WASHINGTON Jan 20, 2016, 4:07 PM
Senate Democrats on Wednesday blocked a bill that would crack down on Syrian and Iraqi refugees coming to the US.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/senate-leader-fearmongering-syrian-refugee-bill-36391409

3. Create intended massive increase of power solution:
Mitch McConnell Takes A Step Toward Declaring War on ISIS - The Atlantic

“Essentially a modern-day equivalent of a declaration of war, an authorization of military force, or AUMF, would allow Congress to spell out its priorities in the fight against the Islamic State. And the resolution introduced by McConnell highlights a clear contrast with the administration on foreign policy. It authorizes the president to:

From the Act language: “use all necessary and appropriate force in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, its associated forces, organizations, and persons, and any successor organizations.”

*NOTHING in its provisions CONSTRAINS the length of that fight, LIMITS its GEOGRAPHIC scope, or imposes restrictions on the nature of the forces that could be deployed.

That may be well received by Republican lawmakers concerned that the administration’s proposal didn’t go far enough. But it is likely to alarm war-weary Democrats fearful that the U.S. could become locked into a protracted conflict abroad.

The resolution is co-sponsored by Graham along with Republican Senators Orrin Hatch, Joni Ernst and Daniel Coats.

The administration did not immediately signal opposition to the proposal on Thursday, instead indicating a potential willingness to compromise. â€œWe certainly welcome Republicans taking an interest in specifically authorizing the continued use of military force against ISIL,â€ a White House spokesperson said, adding that the administration â€œremain[s] open to reasonable adjustmentsâ€ to the presidentâ€™s proposal.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/islamic-state-war/426528/

I believe McConnell (establishment), are up to some sort of shenanigan with this one, however I can’t quite put my finger on precisely what this move is about. Many possibilities, but which? Whatever it is it isn’t good for America just by the players involved.

“*NOTHING in its provisions CONSTRAINS the length of that fight, LIMITS its GEOGRAPHIC scope, or imposes restrictions on the nature of the forces that could be deployed.”

Perhaps I’m missing something here, or read something to mean other than your interpretation.

I’m not happy with McConnell’s wording in this bill with this President, but I’m not happy with any wording with anything with this President, however I think any constraints would have a detrimental effect on any such a law. Telegraphing our intentions in a law of this nature would seem foolish to me. I’d believe such intentions should be war room material based upon current events at the time it becomes necessary to implement such an act.