NY Times Is Not Impressed With Obama’s Anti-ISIS Plan

Uh oh, Obama’s lost the NY Times Editorial Board

Wrong Turn on Syria: No Convincing Plan

President Obama has put America at the center of a widening war by expanding into Syria airstrikes against the Islamic State, the Sunni extremist group known as ISIS and ISIL. He has done this without allowing the public debate that needs to take place before this nation enters another costly and potentially lengthy conflict in the Middle East.

He says he has justification for taking military action against the Islamic State and Khorasan, another militant group. But his assertions have not been tested or examined by the people’s representatives in Congress. How are Americans to know whether they have the information to make any judgment on the wisdom of his actions?

There isn’t a full picture — because Mr. Obama has not provided one — of how this bombing campaign will degrade the extremist groups without unleashing unforeseen consequences in a violent and volatile region. In the absence of public understanding or discussion and a coherent plan, the strikes in Syria were a bad decision.

Mr. Obama has failed to ask for or receive congressional authorization for such military action. The White House claims that Mr. Obama has all the authority he needs under the 2001 law approving the use of force in Afghanistan and the 2002 law permitting the use of force in Iraq, but he does not. He has given Congress notification of the military action in Iraq and Syria under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, but that is not a substitute for congressional authorization.

They make an interesting case. For my part, though, I more than approve him authorizing strikes against Islamic terrorists. Any Islamic terrorists

The military action early Tuesday was quite different from what Mr. Obama explained in a televised speech on Sept. 10. For months the administration has focused on the ISIS threat, yet these strikes also targeted Khorasan, a group the government says is linked to Al Qaeda and engaged in “active plotting that posed an imminent threat to the United States and potentially our allies.”

It is puzzling that Mr. Obama would address the nation on a terrorist threat and not mention the group that officials now say poses an imminent threat to the United States, which ISIS does not. They say they kept details about Khorasan secret so the group would not know it was being tracked. But past threats, including Osama bin Laden, were discussed openly even as they were tracked.

A NY Times front page article discusses these air strikes against Khorasan, and highlight a claim by the Obama admin that the group was planning a strike against the U.S. or some European nation. They also not that the vast majority of air strikes were performed by the United States military, with very little contribution from other countries.

Interestingly, the Times seems Very Concerned about whether ISIS/ISIL is a threat to the U.S. Didn’t liberals used to care about people in danger around the world? Because ISIS is killing opponents left and right.

As far as Congress goes, since when has the NY Times cared about Obama involving Congress? Obama doesn’t care about Congress. Did he actually go to Congress to act for some sort of war resolution? No. He did ask for support for helping Syrian rebels, which passed the Republican led House, as did the Democrat led Senate. In both cases, it was a narrow authorization, and they expected a broader debate once they were back in session (something else the Times complained about, because they apparently missed that Congress is not always in session. The members go home (supposedly) to converse with their constituents. And campaign. They were never meant to be full timers in D.C.)

Again, I approve of Obama striking the Islamic terrorists. How about you?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

10 Responses to “NY Times Is Not Impressed With Obama’s Anti-ISIS Plan”

  1. bob sykes says:

    Actually, I don’t. If ISIS et al threaten Western oil supplies in the Middle East, then fight them with a large army on the ground. If they just go around beheading journalists (not obviously a bad thing) and running a Caliphate in the Syrian-Iraqi desert, let them be. (By the way, the Army that twice defeated Hussein no longer exists.)

    But if you insist on fighting them then you have to consider what to do about Turkey and Qatar, both of whom seem to be aiding and abetting ISIS. You also have to consider whether or not breaking up Syria and Iraq along ethnic/religious lines is good or bad. It looks like a good idea right now. And then, how deeply do we have to get in bed with Iran to do it? Do we go back to the old arrangement we had with the Shah to use Iran to dominate the Gulf? That would require letting Iran have nukes.

    Finally, all of the actors in the Middle East, on all sides, have publicly stated that they don’t want American or NATO troops on the ground. They don’t want another player in the game that they cannot control. They will, however, accept air strikes (on targets they choose), arms and trainers.

    A squadron of A10’s is being despatched to the theater, either to Kurdistan in the north of Iraq or Baghdad. The squadron will require some protection, so a company of so of infantry (not announced) will likely accompany them.

  2. david7134 says:

    Good response Bob, agree with your analysis. The Middle East is like a bunch of wild dogs. Just throw a bone in the bunch and watch them tear each other apart.

  3. david7134 says:

    Oh, in the meantime outlaw Islam here, just like the KKK.

  4. Jeffery says:


    Your KKK is not outlawed in the US. In addition, it is/was a violent faction rooted in Christianity but did not represent Christianity itself.

    Islam is a major religion. ISIS would be a better analogy to your KKK.

    What would Jesus think of the KKK?

  5. david7134 says:

    Yea, we used that tactic in WWII. We only attacked the extremist Nazis and not the moderates.

  6. david7134 says:

    Also, I think Christopher Hitchens summed up my attitude to Islam. He felt that we are at war with them.

  7. Jeffery says:


    We did not outlaw the KKK. “Outlawing” Islam will require repealing the 1st Amendment, won’t it?.

    Nazism was a political movement. Islam is a religion with over a billion adherents worldwide and over 2 million in the US, many of them US citizens. How would you outlaw Islam? Many of the Africans kidnaped and shipped to the US as slaves were Muslim but your ancestors in the confederacy suppressed their religion.

    Should we have outlawed Christianity when Christians were bombing abortion clinics and shooting abortion providers?

    Maybe we should outlaw all religions with mythology and magic at their core, i.e., Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism etc. or do you favor one religion over another?

  8. jl says:

    Actually, the KKK as originally founded was a vehicle for white southern Democrats “to oppose the Republican party’s Reconstruction-era policies of trying to obtain political and economic equality for blacks.”

  9. Jeffery says:


    You’re right. So?

  10. Jl says:

    Your “rooted in Christianity but did not represent Christianity itself” was misleading. So, what else is new?

Pirate's Cove