Obama speech on ISIS coverage msnbc

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Watch and listen carefully. Rachel Maddow lays out exactly what we’re up against in this “fight against ISIS” that, per new polls, Americans have started to support. But ISIS has anti-aircraft artillery. The group upon which we’re dropping bombs inside Iraq? They have anti-aircraft weapons. That means pilots and crews who are dropping bombs are at risk. P.S. and by the way, this is not being called “combat,” yet pilots and crews fighting ISIS can be shot down.


So politically, it may be very convenient to say to you, “Support air strikes, but not combat.” Or to say to you, “Support air strikes, but not ‘boots on the ground.'”…

And God forbid, if American aircraft start to get shot down by this militant group with their anti-aircraft artillery, then you better believe there are gonna be “boots on the ground,” and very quickly…

… If something goes wrong, air strikes have a way of not just staying in the air…  Is it still then “no boots on the ground”?…

It’s a hard question… If you don’t want boots on the ground, but you do want pilots in the sky, where do you draw the line?… That deserves a debate…

The administration wants Congress to approve $500 million to provide additional support to rebel groups inside Syria that are already fighting against ISIS. Rather than have U.S. troops fight ISIS on the ground, send support and send weapons to the people who are already there fighting them. What could possibly go wrong?

Lots of members of Congress are saying… there should have been more of that already…


ISIS armed Maddow show

ISIS armed Maddow show 2

To quote failed former presidential candidate and current Texas Gov. Rick Perry, “Oops.”

Rachel then cited a CNN report that claimed Steven Sotloff was “sold at the border”:

The so-called “moderate” rebels in Syria who so many people say ought to be armed and supported by the U.S. government, those “moderate” rebels, are the people who handed Steven Sotloff over to ISIS in the first place.

That is beyond tragic. Rachel continued:

So. Arm the “good” rebels? Arm the “moderate” rebels?… This is a question that defies easy, polling-tested answers….

[It] deserves rigorous debate

Rachel then described the terrible options we have for going after ISIS in Syria. Watch the video for her description of that dilemma, and our other dilemma: An absent Congress. A Congress that is not willing to put themselves on record when it comes to a crisis like this. Why? Because it’s an election year. Starting at about 12:00, you can watch Rachel stick it to our elected officials for shirking even more responsibility by refusing to debate and make difficult decisions about such vitally important issues such as, you know, war.

Instead, they’d rather let President Obama make decisions that they can either agree with and crow about, or criticize and attack. All while the GOP is threatening lawsuits and impeachment over his making unilateral decisions (due to their own inaction).


Not a skit, our actual Congress, gaa! Maddow


Constitutionally, Congress doesn’t have the option of opting out…. Congress makes the decision about war and peace.

Doyle McManus wrote an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times that ends this way:

As Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) told the New York Times in a moment of unusual candor: “A lot of people would like to stay on the sideline and say, ‘Just bomb the place and tell us about it later.’ It’s an election year…. We like the path we’re on now. We can denounce it if it goes bad, and praise it if it goes well and ask what took him so long.”

But that’s no way to run a foreign policy. Those calling for a debate over this war are right, and if Obama doesn’t go to Congress to request authorization, the leaders of both parties on Capitol Hill should craft resolutions themselves. Next time you hear a member of Congress complain about the president’s overuse of executive power, ask why the legislators haven’t exercised their own rights when it comes to war and peace.