ANOTHER Iraq war? How about a vote in Congress?

Tom Jackson
Aug 12, 2014

Before going out of town for his latest vacation, President Barack Obama ordered air strikes in Iraq and told reporters that the U.S. military mission could go on "for months." In a nice bipartisan touch, the president has been carrying out the air attacks from the aircraft carrier George H.W. Bush. 

That sounds an awful lot like a new war. 

Article One of the U.S. Constitution, supposedly the supreme law of the land, says that Congress shall have the power "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water .... "

So if we're going to have another war, and we can't be bothered to have a formal declaration of war, can we at least have a vote in Congress? Let's ask Sherrod Brown, Rob Portman, Marcy Kaptur, Jim Jordan and all of the other members of the Ohio delegation in Congress to declare publicly, in a yes or no vote, if they think yet another Iraq war is a good idea. 




Ha! Exactly! I used to say just that: the more days Bush was on vacation, the fewer days he was around to mess things up. Unfortunately, he still found a way, huh?


Like with a 'pen' and a 'Phone'?

just observing

How long is Urkel in Martha's Vineyard this year?


That's true Ram.

AJ Oliver

As citizens of a republic, the government and what it does belongs to YOU. You have a duty to know what it going on, analyze it for yourself, and tell the government what it is supposed to do. It's nauseating to see folks duck the blame for the disastrous Iraq wars (since 1990, really) when the responsibility is THEIRS. Which of you even got off you lazy, apathetic butts to learn the basics of the region, like what countries border Iraq and their roles in the conflict?
How about you Tom, can you do it?


The civilized world has a duty to stop wholesale violations of human rights, especially genocide, quickly, effectively, and by force, when necessary. There is no injustice in the annihilation of perpetrators of genocide and mass murder; it may be the best option as a rescue strategy. Those who have the means to act and fail to do so are not righteous. Given the recent history of genocide on European soil, the reluctance and viciousness of the Europeans when faced with genocide anywhere is grotesquely shameful irony. U.S. should not have to act alone but must do so if necessary.

What we face is like a rabid dog at large, except that its bite results in instant death, and it bites everyone and everything it doesn't like as well as anyone who confronts it, and its explicit objective is to infect the world. Debating how to respond is idiocy that trivializes the value of lives of the victims. The Civilized world must act, not search for excuses to delay.


It has always seemed to me that you're right as concerns intervention in genocide. There can be all sorts of excuses and rationales offered up for war, and most of them involve one side or the other wanting something it doesn't have. In the case of genocide, though, how can you argue that the side engaging in such has a point, or that the side fighting to save all of those lives is wrong?

As a result, yes, I support anything and everything that can be done to stop ISIS in its tracks. What's being done now is nowhere near enough. These people are evil. No qualifiers, no need for some special context: EVIL.

I'd point out, however, that we don't have the most stellar history of protecting innocents against genocide. If we did, we would have intervened in certain African countries before now. Sadly, though genocide seems more than enough for ME, it apparently needs to be accompanied by something we need before we can summon up enough righteous indignation to act!

If you're looking for even more, by the way, I have to also agree with your definition of ISIS as a rabid dog at large. NO ONE is safe ANYwhere until ISIS is put down like the deadly ravening beast it is. Don't care about genocide? Don't care about oil? Don't care about politics or government on the other side of the planet? This one's coming here, folks, and a whole lot sooner and bloodier than we'd like if we don't stop it now!

The Big Dog's back

Wait a minute. I thought those kids at the border were the most danger to us. Now it's isis. sam , sit back in your bunker, we got this.


Clearly, you DON'T "got this." Illegal invaders continue to cross the southern border without repercussion (including gang members, drug cartel "employees," and yes, more children -- all of which means terrorists would have ZERO problems crossing as well). ISIS continues to stone, behead, crucify, and starve Christians as they take still more territory in the name of establishing a Caliphate -- and ISIS flags are flying outside houses in THIS country.

If that's what you call "we got this," what's next? A wholesale "we surrender" to all comers?

The Big Dog's back

Suit up sam and go do your part.

AJ Oliver

Sorry, Mr. Factitious, I don't buy it. In fact, the US government COMMITTED genocide quite recently in Guatemala, Indonesia, Iraq, Vietnam, Cambodia, and other countries. I must admit that the US did play a positive role in ending the genocide in Boania, but on the whole the militarists who dominate DC cannot be trusted. In Rwanda, they stood aside.


That's a non-sequitur. If one has the means (and presumably the inclination) to stop a genocide today, they have a duty to do so, quickly and effectively. It's not clear whether you are implying that a party who committed a genocide yesterday has no standing to stop one today, or has no duty today, but either way, it doesn't follow.

PS - just curious; why do you think you know my gender? Don't mean to appear pompous, but feel free to address me simply as "Factitious." I'd be happy to address you as Dr. Oliver, without sarcasm, if you prefer. Actually, If you don't mind; I'd prefer to, because you've earned it.

AJ Oliver

OK, how about "Facti"?
Sorry if I came off as disrespectful (of anyone besides Contagion or Sugar - ha ha)
But respectfully, I disagree about using genocide as a principal to guide foreign policy - mostly becuase it is such a slippery concept, and has been so ridiculously abused by so many actors.


No apology needed.

I'll give you that much, without conceding my position. The abuse, I mean. But I think you're avoiding addressing my point. What if it's really mass murder? If they're really going around beheading children for the crime of being born to parents of the wrong religion, do you favor action? Delay? Hands off? Surely you agree that although "genocide" is sometime used metaphorically, it does indeed happen? What then? Could Germany redeem itself by putting boots on the ground? Could the U.S.? Or would air strikes and support suffice? Can I goad you into confronting your inner conflicts and addressing this head-on? Doctor?


As far as vacations, no President whether Democrat or Republican is ever really on vacation. They are on call 24/7. If they can get a little R and R, great. They need it more then any of us. There is no job more stressful.


Lol. They need it more than any of us! Putting them on a pedestal huh?
I guess obama would be pretty tired traveling around in AF1 attending 400 fundraisers (yes! 400!) for democrats. I'm tired from it too. Can I go to Africa or Hawaii on taxpayers dime? How many vacations is acceptable in a year when this man puts down people who are prosperous? Hypocrisy!!!

The Big Dog's back

Were you born a moron or did you study to be one. What job in this country is more stressful than the POTUS's? Repub or Dem, it doesn't matter.


You crack me up sometimes with your silly comments. You have the ability to read, but your comprehension is still lacking. Where did I state that being the POTUS isn't a stressful job? Is it any more stressful being a neurosurgeon, a Pope, or being parents of a terminally ill child taking care of them 24/7? Tell me? Do they not deserve to have lavish vacations?

Thanks for the moron comment Dog, I'm sure your comment won't get deleted for name calling again.


Did you ever go for that walk I recommended? Seriously. You need to get some fresh air. You don't have to be so ... hmmmmm ... defensive all the time? Just say your peace and leave it at that. What good does name calling do? Not good for your soul to go around and call people names all the time. Lighten up.


This is why we need a mandatory draft. All abled bodied people should serve regardless of peace or war. Then we'd have less blo-rods.