Oh...I'm not speaking of Presidential Campaigns. What Hitler didn't learn from Napoleon, I'm sure they think they learned from Stalingrad. Third time's the charm. The heightened economic skirmishes of the winter will continue, and have only been laying the groundwork of which neither previous invader might dream. Walk, not fight, through Ukraine and...
From the National Journal:
Neither Republicans nor Democrats knew the majority leader planned to set up a possible debate on authorizing the use of force against ISIS.
Sarah Mimms, Alex Rogers
Jan. 21, 2016, 11 p.m.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell offered members a snow-weekend surprise late Wednesday night: Quietly teeing up a potential debate on the legal underpinning for the fight against ISIS.
After months of worrying that such a resolution—known as an authorization for the use of military force—would tie the next president's hands, McConnell's move to fast-track the measure surprised even his top deputy, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, who was unaware that McConnell had set up the authorization.
"He did?" Cornyn asked National Journal on Thursday morning.
The AUMF put forward by McConnell would not restrict the president's use of ground troops, nor have any limits related to time or geography...
Lots of interesting things going on here, don't you think? I'm not speaking of the Majority Whip so glaringly out of the loop. Who cares? That's obviously only important to those who follow the game, not those who run it.
As much more as I have to say, I guess that 'much more' might be summarized by one question:
Are we watching the purely political fight over which wing of the national authoritarian party will run WWIII (and over its concomitant powers)?
*Have a whack at an answer...
I'll answer in discussion, though I'm sure mine can be discerned simply from my framing and wording of the question itself.
*Those answers that include some form of 'for the good of the country' will not be considered.