Shep Smith to State Dep’t spokesman: You guys have basically adopted Dick Cheney’s theory of preventive war now, huh?

[mystery-ak]

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/09/24/shep-smith-to-state-dept-spokesman-you-guys-have-basically-adopted-dick-cheneys-theory-of-preventive-war-now-huh/

Shep Smith to State Dep’t spokesman: You guys have basically adopted Dick Cheney’s theory of preventive war now, huh?
posted at 8:21 pm on September 24, 2014 by Allahpundit

   

Via Mediaite, indeed they have — and this isn’t the first time that point has been made by a reporter to a State Department mouthpiece. Shep is correct in the precision of his terms, too. Although lazy people like me refer to the Bush/Cheney approach as “preemptive” war, preemption really describes a case where you have reason to believe your enemy’s about to land a punch on you. You’re preempting the blow by hitting him first; the imminence of his attack is key. The Bush/Cheney approach vis-a-vis Saddam was really one of preventive war. It wasn’t a matter of Saddam preparing to hand off nukes to terrorists for use inside the U.S. imminently. It was a matter of believing that Saddam would do that eventually once he had the means, in which case better take him out first. The degrees of imminence that define preemption and prevention, respectively, are hard to pinpoint — see Noah’s thoughtful post yesterday about whether an attack from the Khorasan Group was “imminent” — but no one seems to think that ISIS has something big in the works for the U.S. anytime soon. Hitting them now is a matter of prevention, not preemption, blowing up a jihadi petri dish because it’s a fait accompli that some nasty terrorist bacteria will begin growing there … eventually. That’s Cheneyism. But then, it’s also basic counterterrorism, no? That’s one more reason why the White House is so slippery on the war/counterterrorism distinction. Americans get nervous at the thought of preventive war, with thousands of soldiers marching off to die in the name of defeating an enemy who’s not a threat yet, but droning a group of suspected Al Qaeda operatives who are meeting to talk about God knows what? Shoot, they’ll pull that trigger all day long. Better safe than sorry. Right, Dick Cheney?

So much for that. The other bit to pay attention to here is when Psaki starts rambling about legal justifications for the war and Iraq’s right of self-defense. What’s she talking about? Well, this:

    International law generally prohibits using force on the sovereign territory of another country without its permission or authorization from the United Nations, except as a matter of self-defense. American intelligence agencies have concluded that the Islamic State poses no immediate threat to the United States, though they say that another militant group targeted in the strikes, Khorasan, does pose a threat.

    Yet the letter asserted that Iraq had a valid right of self-defense against the Islamic State — also known as ISIS or ISIL — because the militant group was attacking Iraq from its havens in Syria, and the Syrian government had failed to suppress that threat. Because Iraq asked the United States for assistance in defending itself, the letter asserted, the strikes were legal…

    The argument seems to have persuaded Mr. Ban to issue an implicit nod to the airstrikes. He told reporters earlier Tuesday that the strikes had been carried out “in areas no longer under the effective control of that government.”

That argument, to be made to the UN, makes more sense than the White House’s domestic argument for intervening, that the 2001 AUMF against Al Qaeda and the 2002 AUMF against Saddam somehow magically combine to grant Obama the authority to fight ISIS. If a country’s under attack, which Iraq is from ISIS, it has the right to defend itself — and if it has the right to defend itself, then it also has the right to ask its allies for help. That’s a neat way to avoid having to get Security Council approval for U.S. intervention. But it’s also a risky diplomatic move to make in an age of proxy wars, no? For instance, can’t Iran use this same concept to justify its presence in Syria? The Syrian regime is under attack; it’s in the process of defending itself and it’s asked its ally in Tehran to assist. Case closed. Had Yanukovych, a Putin ally, hung on a bit longer in Kiev, presumably Putin could have exploited this idea to justify sending Russian troops into Ukraine to help the government defend itself from “insurrectionists” or whatever. No UN approval needed. I understand why Obama made the move he made — Czar Vladimir would have vetoed any UN resolution calling for U.S. action in Iraq, knowing that it could threaten his pal Assad eventually — but it’s passing strange to see a Democratic president, who leads a party that’s pro-UN and loves to whine about right-wing warmongers trying to bypass international diplomacy, now justifying his own Iraq bombing campaign by basically shrugging and saying, “Hey, self-defense.” Dick Cheney would be proud.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmvTlypRKH0

[Politics4us]

Is he saying this, because he disagrees with preemptive action or because Obama ran against the Iraq War?

[rangerrebew]

- The Daily Caller - http://dailycaller.com -



Shepard Smith UNLOADS On ‘Cowardly’ Congress [VIDEO]

Posted By Al Weaver On 4:23 PM 09/24/2014 In | No Comments

While interviewing State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki, Fox News host Shepard Smith went off on Congress, calling them “cowardly.”

Smith told his guest that members of Congress only want to “keep the job” they have, rather than make tough decisions and cast a vote for or against a war against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). “They don’t want to say yea or nay to war, and I say that’s cowardly,” said Smith:


Smith: “How cowardly do you think the Congress is?”

Psaki: “How cowardly? I certainly wouldn’t use that terminology.”

Smith: “I would. Because the Congress, I mean, it seems like if you were going to go get elected to represent the people, one of the things you would see as most important for you to have a say on is whether we are at war or we’re at peace. But what this Congress has decided, clearly, is that what’s more important is keeping the job, not doing the job. They want to keep the job and not do it because they really could vote. They’re going to have to vote, unless we keep skirting the constitution, because the president gets 90 days to send them, then he can tell the Congress ‘I’m going to keep them there for 90 more days,’ and after that, they have to vote. That’s 180 days. Your office is suggesting, everyone’s suggesting, this is going to take years so this Congress of ours is going to have to act. But right now they don’t want to put their name on this thing. They don’t want to say Yea or Nay to war, and I say that’s cowardly. What do you call it?”

Psaki: “Well, look, what I would say is dysfunction in Washington and with the United States Congress is not new. We’d certainly welcome their support and welcome action by Congress, but we’re also not going to wait when we’re talking about the interest of the United States. So we’ll see what they do…but we feel like we have the authority to act and that’s why we acted.”

Smith: “It’s interesting. Some on the ‘war right’ and the ‘peace left’ don’t want to vote. They all have their different reasons, but they don’t want to vote. Some of them want to vote. Tim Kaine, for instance, wants to vote. Tim Kaine has said we believe this is our responsibility. When we signed on the dotted line to represent the people, we have to vote on this sort of thing and a lot of people agree with him.”




Article printed from The Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com

URL to article: http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/24/shepard-smith-unloads-on-cowardly-congress-video/