Illegal? Obama Wants to Use Bush's 2001 War Authorization to Justify Attacks on ISIS

Townhall.com ^ | September 12, 2014 | Katie Pavlich

[Dahoser]

And, of course, then he can blame Bush.

[God luvs America]

ironic- a month and a half ago he sent a letter to Boehner demanding repeal of the Iraqi War Authorization:

“The Obama administration is calling on Congress to fully repeal the war authorization in Iraq to ensure that no U.S. troops return to the country, which is under siege by the extremist Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS).”

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/white-house-wants-repeal-of-iraq-war-authorization/

[TomGuy]

For the same reason he campaigns against his own policies — he doesn’t want HIS name associated with a War Authorization.

That way, he can still blame Bush, while claiming now and in the future that HE never authorized the war.

Also, if it turns into an even worse mess than he made of Iraq, he can disassociate HIMSELF from the results.

[Iron Munro]

It's probably a good thing that Obama isn't mad at the Japanese.

[Fightin Whitey]

That's like wanting to use an old condom on a different date."

"You mean that's not a good idea?"

[refermech]

Great idea. Put him in a box. He deserves it.

[TomGuy]

Then he obviously hasn't read the Authorization, which basically holds Iraq accountable for violating the cease fire agreement of 1991.

The GWBush authorization was against the government of Iraq that existed at that time.

Obama withdrew all troops, basically ending THAT war.

It would make no sense for him to return troops based on THAT war, since THAT government was defeated and replaced with a new elected government. If Obama uses the Bush Declaration of War, he would basically have to go after the existing government of Iraq, not ISIS/ISIL.

Calling all lawyers! A potential windfall may be coming soon.

[Ray76]

Nice find!

[Rockitz]

God forbid that he soil his Nobel Peace Prize with a nasty war on his record.

[Cubs Fan]

[kevslisababy]

I like your idea!

[4rcane]

It also doesn’t give him authority to go into Syria either

[4rcane]

Obama is so obsessed with regime change in Syria. I wonder if Assad mocked his ears or something.

[DoughtyOne]

Obama is a maggot feeding off the flesh of the United States.

[Defiant]

This is literally insane. The leftists, including Obama, insisted that Bush needed a NEW authorization to go into Iraq, even though the original authorization was arguably broad enough to include Iraq. So Bush said, OK, and got an authorization for Iraq, which infuriated leftists like Hillary and Kerry, because they were forced to vote FOR it.

To say that it authorizes a new action in Iraq not only contradicts those prior positions (which I believe would have been stated by Obama, too, although he was a state senator in Illinois at the time), but it is also no longer viable, given that Obama has declared the Iraq war ended, and has pulled out all the troops that were there previously. To rely on the 2001 authorization would be to use logic that would also allow him to attach Japan and Germany under the December 8, 1941 declaration of war.

[Vaduz]

That must be the poster on every network news lobby wall.

[Ray76]

One too many “m’s” and you’re short an “f”

[Hoodat]

Any time some lib brings up Bush going to war for non-existent WMD, I always ask them if they had ever read the Authorization For Use of Military Force Against Iraq - 2002, passed by the Democrat-controlled Senate. Without exception, I have yet to meet one who has.

[DoughtyOne]

Hey..., I hate it when you make a good point.

[AZLiberty]

The administration won't admit Obama is starting a war for two reasons. The first is political in that it upset Obama's far left base. The second is that declaring war would require Obama to ask Congress for authorization, which in return would require the President to come up with a coherent strategy and be accountable to lawmakers for implementing that strategy as planned and promised. Obama doesn't want to answer to anyone, but especially Congress.

Third reason: every member of Congress would have to vote yes, no, or present on such a resolution. The Democrats' heads would be spinning trying to figure out whether to support "their" president -- in a time of "war" -- or play to the Democrat voters, who apparently prefer Sharia law over fighting terrorists.