You would think the darling of the liberal establishment would be the first to speak out following the president’s speech announcing more troops to Iraq. So far, silence from Democratic US Senate candidate Amanda Curtis (D-MT). Oddly enough, it is her Republican opponent who has already announced opposition to ground troops in Iraq.
As I previously reported, Curtis has already dodged questions on the topic in front of CNN cameras, and even a pool of Montana reporters. And the list goes: The Daily Beast, CNN, KGVO, and even this piece in The Wall Street Journal.
— CopperCommando (@CopperCommando) September 11, 2014
Meanwhile, the left is sounding off against the president’s speech. As Fox News reported in their “Fox News First” morning e-mail:
Same old song: Dissatisfied, anxious liberals abound and abound and abound. And the reviews from pro-administration outlets were ghastly. We’ve been here several times before. The president is unwilling or unable to get his own party on board, so he is relying on Republicans to carry his water on national security. Like Libya, Afghanistan, the Syria intervention prior to the new escalation and the power to kill enemy combatants and engage in domestic spying, it’s Republicans who have kept Obama propped up on foreign policy. And just as in the times before, the president isn’t helping them much at all. And this time it’s much worse because the president brings not just a more dubious legal authority but also his prior history. The hawkish GOP position has been that Obama, having been dragged into a fight, can be made to stick it out. But with Libya and Afghanistan in shambles, it will be that much harder for hawks to make the case that somehow, this time, it will be different. But that’s the task for Republican honchos today as they try to get their members to do what the president’s own party won’t.
Politico’s Playbook also had this:
–Eli Lake, The Daily Beast: “In a stunning turnaround, the Obama administration is arguing that a law authorizing a war on al Qaeda be used to justify strikes on al Qaeda’s foes.” http://thebea.st/1uns9jW
–Peter Baker, N.Y. Times: “After years of trying to avoid entangling the United States in another ‘dumb war,’ as he called the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Mr. Obama is now plunging the United States into the middle of one of the world’s bloodiest, most vicious and fratricidal conflicts.” http://nyti.ms/1qGktrR
–David Corn, Mother Jones: “Obama’s intentions are clear: he doesn’t want to return to full-scale US military involvement in Iraq. But now that he has committed the United States to renewed military action there, where’s the line?”
–David Nakamura, WashPost: “Obama’s escalation of airstrikes and the use of U.S. personnel … represents a major setback for a commander in chief whose early international appeal was built on a pledge to remove the United States from ‘permanent war footing.'” http://wapo.st/1qI3cir