Posted on 05/25/2015 5:18:45 AM PDT by Libloather
Congress should act immediately on President Obama's request for new use of force powers in the fight against Islamic militants, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday.
“The ball is definitely in our court to take up this issue,” Pelosi said during a press briefing in the Capitol. “There should be an authorization for the use of military force as we go forward. It's long overdue.”
The remarks were a rebuke of Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who earlier this week called Obama's war powers request “irresponsible” and urged the president to “start over” with a fresh proposal.
“The president's request for an authorization of the use of military force calls for less authority than he has today. I just think, given the fight that we're in, it's irresponsible,” Boehner said Tuesday. “This is why the president, frankly, should withdraw the authorization of use of military force and start over.”
Pelosi rejected that idea, suggesting the Republicans are simply passing blame for Congress's inaction on the issue. First GOP leaders wanted to wait until November's elections had passed, she noted, and then they pushed Obama to offer an initial framework. Both of those conditions have now been met, and if Republicans don't like the terms, Pelosi argued, they should change them.
“The White House put a very clear authorization on the table for us to act upon, for Congress to work its will,” she said. “So the idea that it should be after the election — it's well after the election — [and] that the initiative should come from the White House — it has.
“Every timeline and requirement that the Speaker has asked for has happened,” she added. “Now it's up to us.”
Unveiled in February, Obama's resolution, known as an authorization for use of military force (AUMF), is designed to set the terms of the administration's fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). But many lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are opposed to the measure.
The Republican critics contend the measure is too restrictive, tying the hands of the Pentagon and threatening national security. Democratic opponents maintain it's too broad, granting too much power to the military and threatening another entrenched ground war in the Middle East.
As the AUMF debate has faded from the headlines, ISIS forces have gained steam, taking the Iraqi city of Ramadi and the Syrian city of Palmyra in recent days.
Pelosi suggested those setbacks should light a new fire under Congress to take up the AUMF in search of a better strategy for combating ISIS.
“How could it be that all of this is happening and Congress has refused to have this conversation on the floor of the House?,” she asked.
STFU, Nancy.
Let the Muslims fight each other. Protect Israel at any cost.
And besides, what powers did he use in Yemen?? That was another of his "did my own thing".
Obummer should give a speech in Ramadi.
You first Nancy, grab a gun.
I repeat: Remember when you used to be Speaker?
So do I. You're not any more. Shut up and take your Thorazine.
With an AMERICAN President, certainly.
With the Kenyan/Commie/Queer we’re stuck with???
................not so much.
Nancy The War Hawk.
hmmmm.
One brigade combat team could probably rid the world of most of ISIS if you would just cut them loose to get the job done and take no prisoners.
Too bad we wasted all that money on nation building.
Nancy needs to know that there’s “the only way to be sure”...
Not under this CIC.
And why are these democraps always ginning up wars that they can’t get out us out of fast enough?
It certainly can’t be both - which is it? Didn’t I hear yesterday on the news that “he” has no intention of getting further involved in the fight against ISIS? That he’ll leave it to the next administration? Did I hear right? Let the military bypass him - he’d have fun firing them all - and just get the cotton pickin’ job done once and for all, for crying out loud!
He purports to know nothing until he sees it or reads about it in the news so I guess he doesn’t know about the thousands of men/women/children being slaughtered! He doesn’t take his oath seriously so neither should the military! And we’re supposed to believe that he really cares about this country’s security? How naïve and stupid does he think we are?
“”The Republican critics contend the measure is too restrictive, tying the hands of the Pentagon and threatening national security. Democratic opponents maintain it’s too broad, granting too much power to the military and threatening another entrenched ground war in the Middle East.””
I wonder why she is even being quoted. She became (more) irrelevant two elections ago.
He already had the authorization, under the war on terror.
He just doesn’t like the fact it was granted under Bush and he doesn’t like the fact this would confirm that this fight is just a continuation of the same war.
He wants a new war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.