Why Did Obama Tells Leaders No Vote Needed on ISIS?

From an article in The Hill:  “President Obama told congressional leaders at a White House meeting on Tuesday he doesn’t need their authorization to expand his military campaign against Islamic terrorists.

The president offered the assurance one day before a prime-time address he’s scheduled to give to the nation.

Wednesday’s address is a pivotal moment for the president just months before a midterm election season in which the Senate’s majority hangs in the balance.  Polls show that confidence in Obama’s foreign policy is eroding just as anxiety over the threat posed by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has peaked.

Seven in 10 Americans believe the group has the ability to launch an attack against the United States, according to a CNN poll released Monday, while just 30 percent say Obama has presented a clear plan for dealing with the group.

The president is expected to use the speech to announce the expanded use of airstrikes against ISIS targets in Iraq, as well as his administration’s efforts to build an international coalition to confront the terror threat.

The president is also weighing the possibility of airstrikes against ISIS targets in Syria, as well as asking the United Nations to pass a binding resolution requiring governments to prevent the flow of foreign fighters to the region.

While Obama told the House and Senate leaders he would welcome congressional action that demonstrates a unified front, the president told the bipartisan group “he has the authority he needs to take action against (ISIS) in accordance with the mission he will lay out in his address,” according to the White House.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have called on Obama to better clarify his strategy this week, and the White House has said the president will offer a frank “assessment of this critical national security priority.”

White House press secretary Josh Earnest cautioned that the address would not provide a timeline for the military campaign, nor was Obama expected to outline costs for the operation.

Just a year ago, Obama asked Congress to authorize military action against Syria after reports that the country’s military had used chemical weapons against its opponents. Obama argued he did not need Congress’s authority to launch strikes but responded to calls at the time from both parties that lawmakers be given a say in the decision.

Obama’s move appeared to backfire when it became clear his administration would lose a vote on the strikes. A diplomatic deal brokered in part by Russian President Vladimir Putin, in which Syria agreed to give up its chemical weapons for destruction, ended up canceling the vote.

Tuesday’s meeting with congressional leaders offered little additional insight into Obama’s plans, only reinforcing a growing sentiment that 12 months after the last Syria debate, lawmakers in both parties want to avoid a politically difficult authorization vote ahead of the midterm elections.

None of the four leaders present in the meeting mentioned the need for congressional action following the meeting, nor did they offer many clues as to what new strategy elements Obama might announce.

An aide to Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the president used the meeting to lay out “some of the ideas he has already discussed publicly about how to combat this threat.”

The official said Boehner signaled support for the president if he decided to deploy the military to train and advise Iraqi forces or target ISIS leadership, and that the group also discussed training and equipping the moderate Syrian opposition, which is battling both ISIS and the central government in Damascus.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Obama spent the meeting offering “a valuable opportunity for consultation on advancing security and stability in the region and beyond.”

“I’m just waiting for the president’s speech tomorrow,” added Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). “I’m glad to have been at the White House, had a little preview of it, I look forward to it.”

It’s not clear how the president’s declaration that he does not need a vote to pursue his expanded military strategy will play on Capitol Hill.

While some congressional aides have suggested most lawmakers would like to avoid a vote, several bills have been offered to give the president Congress’s authority to take further actions against ISIS.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), speaking before the meeting with the president, said he believed Obama should seek some sort of congressional approval “because that’s the way you hear from those of us who represent everyone in the country.”

“He really ought to be asking for our support whether or not he may think he’s authorized to do what he intends to do. I think it would be in his best interests and the country’s best interests,” he added.

An aide later clarified that McConnell was not necessarily demanding a vote on a new use-of-force resolution, and some prominent GOP lawmakers — including Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) — have said Obama does not need explicit approval.

Separately, the White House said it was committed to working with Capitol Hill. Earnest said Tuesday that “dozens” of members of both parties had received classified briefings from administration officials in the past week, and that every member of Congress would be welcomed to classified briefings on Thursday.

“That is an indication and just gives you a little snapshot of this administration’s commitment to robust consultation with Congress,” Earnest said.


Views: 37

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I know Frank, Obama all most destroyed this country, imagine what his woman would of done, Hillary Clinton, but some men have poor taste in trashy women. Or they like HO's like her.

I did not know Obama did this. I have to read this again.

God, more Obama news, good night to all.

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

ALERT ALERT

 After Years Of Stagnation Under Obama 
Household Income Hits 50-Year High

Image result for money

Former President Barack Obama got plenty of praise for shepherding us through the recovery from the 2008 economic crisis. However, those on Main Street, USA, knew the truth — things weren’t any better than they had been when George W. Bush left office.

As The Weekly Standard reported in 2016, median household income when Obama came into office in 2009 was $56,731. In 2015, six years into his presidency, that number was $56,516 — a decrease of just over $200.

By the time he left office, it’s true that media household income had risen to $59,471 — but that was essentially the same as it had been in December, 2007, at the end of the “Great Recession” and just a few weeks before Obama took office, when it was $59,549.

So, how’s The Donald doing?

Well, as Investor’s Business Daily reported, a new study from Sentier Research found that the median household income in April was $61,483 — a 50-year high.

That’s up from $59,471 in January of 2017.

The firm tracks income using census data and adjusts for inflation — so even a slightly weaker dollar doesn’t account for the increase.

Donald Trump Jr.   @DonaldJTrumpJr  

Bad News For Dems: Household Income Hits All-Time High Under Trump … And He's Getting Credit For It!!! 

Household Income Hits All-Time High Under Trump, And He's Getting Credit For It

A new report shows that the median household income has climbed 3% since President Trump took office. It's another sign of a strong economy, and at least one poll shows the public credits Trump for...

That’s great news for the country, but maybe not the best news for Democrats.

“This is just another indication that the economy has notably strengthened under Trump. And polls show that the public’s mood has brightened considerably as a result,” Investor’s Business Daily reported.

“The latest IBD/TIPP Economic Optimism Index is 53.6. This index has been in positive territory (anything over 50 is optimistic) since Trump took office. The Quality of Life Index, meanwhile, hit a 14-year high in May and the Financial Stress Index is at an all-time low.”

That economic data is followed by a lot of polls that seem to show that the “blue wave” expected in the November midterms breaking and rolling back into the sea.

A new Reuters poll found that a generic Republican would beat a generic Democrat by six points. Back in March, the Democrats were up by nine points. A CBS poll found that Democrats had a two-point advantage on the generic ballot — hardly “wave” material.

The CBS poll also found that 68 percent of Americans believed Trump’s policies deserved at least some of the credit for the economic situation, with 35 percent saying he deserved a “great deal” of the credit.

Sixty-four percent of respondents rated the economy as “somewhat good” or “very good.” In a CNN poll, 57 percent of voters said that “things are going well in the U.S.” In February, that was 49 percent.

Perhaps the most important figure: Under Obama, when Gallup asked whether it was a good time to find “a quality job in the U.S.,” the highest number that administration ever achieved was 45 percent. Under Trump, that number is 67 percent — the highest number in the 17-year history of the poll.

While Trump’s personal numbers haven’t seen the same bounce, they’re still up — and that’s the important thing. Thanks to the relentless campaign of personal attacks against him, Trump’s stated approval rating has always been a lot lower than it probably is.

Don’t believe me? Just ask Hillary Clinton. For all of the personal barbs and attacks, 2016 ultimately came down to the economy. So will 2018 — and that’s not good news for the Democrats.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service