Now Democrats scorch Obama for flip-flop

WASHINGTON – It was a Democrat senator who highlighted a deep irony in President Obama's claim that he doesn't need to consult Congress to make war on ISIS.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., pointed out in an interview with the left-leaning Huffington Post on Tuesday how Obama had abruptly flip-flopped by justifying airstrikes with the very 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF, he said should be repealed just last year.

In a speech to the National Defense University on May 23, 2013, Obama called for the repeal of the AUMF because of reduced threats from al-Qaida and, he suggested, the war on terror was coming to an end.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va.

TRENDING: Biden's choice: The anatomy of a cover-up

"Core al-Qaida is a shell of its former self. Groups like AQAP (al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula) must be dealt with, but in the years to come, not every collection of thugs that labels themselves al-Qaida will pose a credible threat to the United States," said the president.

"But this war, like all wars, must end," he concluded.

Former President George W. Bush originally acquired approval for the AUMF from Congress to fight al-Qaida after Sept. 11, 2001.

The media have covered widely the calls by many lawmakers asking the president to go to Congress for new and explicit authority to attack ISIS. But they have largely ignored the criticism of Obama, much of it from Democrats, that the reason he needs that new green light is because the president's new-found embrace of the AUMF is unjustifiable.

Many on Capitol Hill argue the 2001 AUMG no longer applies because it authorized force specifically against al-Qaida, not ISIS, which did not exist until recently.

Reporters did pepper administration spokesman Josh Earnest about the AUMF last week, and he justified its use by calling ISIS "the true inheritor of Osama bin Laden's legacy" and claiming the jihadist army has the same "ambition and aspiration" as when it was associated with al-Qaida.

But just as the mainstream media largely have not covered the AUMF issue, they have also mostly avoided reporting the outrage lawmakers, particularly Democrats, have expressed over the Obama flip-flop on the 2001 military force authorization.

Democrats such as Kaine are shocked to see Obama now using the AUMF to avoid seeking Congress' explicit authority to attack ISIS.

"It is highly immoral to ask servicemen and women to risk their lives around a mission if the president feels that it is inconvenient to ask Congress to bless it, or members of Congress are afraid of the political consequence of blessing it," charged the senator.

One Democrat appeared so annoyed with the president he went so far as to do what a leftist might consider a previously unimaginable insult – likening Obama to Bush.

"We don’t want to do (what) Bush (did) – shoot first and ask questions later," Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., said recently.

Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz.

Grialva was joined by other leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Reps. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., and Barbara Lee, D-Calif., in introducing a resolution on Sept. 11, that the 2001 AUMF "should not apply to ISIS because ISIS has no operational connection to al-Qaida or the Taliban and is not currently considered an 'associated force' of al-Qaida."

Democrats aren't alone in their condemnation.

Rep. Walter B. Jones, R-N.C., who said he has worked to repeal AUMF, told WND, "ISIS is a separate force than the al-Qaida terrorists who committed the 9/11 attacks, so I do not think President Obama is correctly invoking the AUMF to legitimize airstrikes in Syria 13 years after 9/11."

"I also believe that a true strategy has an end point, and President Obama has not explained what 'victory' looks like in this effort, much less how his chosen tactics will achieve it," he continued.

Jones said by not debating the issue, "Congress is leaving the strategizing up to a chief executive who has bungled foreign policy at nearly every turn and shown no respect for the Constitution and an insatiable appetite for spending money we don’t have.”

The North Carolinian is not the only lawmaker to criticize the president both for his justification of the war and his strategy.

In fact, the most scathing condemnation may have come from Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii.

The Army combat veteran who served two tours of duty in the Middle East issued a blistering critique from the House floor last week, seen in the video above.

Gabbard called the administration's strategy unrealistic, the mission unclear, and said the U.S. does not understand who the opposition forces are and cannot trust them. She raised the prospect that American weapons could fall into the hands of enemies.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii

She said the proposed strategy actually reflects "a lack of commitment to really destroy ISIS and the other Islamic extremist groups that we are at war with."

Gabbard insisted a vote to train and arm the Syrian rebels was "actually a vote to overthrow Assad, because overthrowing Assad is the primary objective of the so-called Free Syrian Army," and "we don’t really know who they really are. Presently, they are fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with al-Qaida and other Islamic extremists and, therefore, can’t be trusted."

She concluded, "Our mission should not be to topple the Assad regime, which would make the situation in the region even worse and more unstable than it is today. We’ve heard this story before. We know how it ends. Look at Iraq. Look at Libya. Clearly our leaders have not learned their lesson."

The bill to authorize the arming and training of the Syrian rebels did pass in the House on Wednesday by a vote of 273-to-156, and in the Senate on Thursday, 78-to-22, but not along partisan lines.

Like Gabbard, many Republicans who served in the armed forces were particularly disdainful of the president's strategy in Syria.

Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., who served as a 1st lieutenant in the 100th Division of the U.S. Army Reserves said he voted against the plan because "I agree with sentiments expressed by many Americans that there is a deep mistrust and lack of confidence in the president of the United States."

A former Marine and Persian Gulf War veteran, Rep. Steve Palazzo, R-Miss., said "[A]rming an unknown, un-vetted, and unreliable group of rebels is simply not the right strategy.”

"Arming an unknown guerrilla army with American weapons is reckless and dangerous. It is misguided to assume that Syrian rebels have any allegiance to the United States," said Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, who served in the Air Force Reserves.

He added, "In fact, it has been reported that some former rebels are now fighting with ISIS. Our so-called allies today could be our enemies tomorrow and use weapons to assist, not destroy ISIS. We cannot trust others to fight our battles for us."

Army reservist Rep. Joe Heck, R-Nev., explained he could not vote to support the Free Syrian Army rebels because, "It’s a ragtag collection of 100 disparate groups that just a little more than a month ago the president stated that the notion of arming the rebels, comprised of pharmacists, doctors and farmers, would make a difference as 'always been a fantasy.'"

"The Free Syrian army has no cogent leadership, no organization, no command and control, and without U.S. military advisers embedded with the forces that we train and send back into Syria, we will have no visibility on their effectiveness, their defections, whether or not our weapons are falling into the hands of our enemies."

Rep. Jim Bridenstine, R-Okla., is a lieutenant commander in the U.S. Navy Reserve. During his nine years of active duty, he flew combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan and made 333 aircraft carrier landings.

Rep. Jim Bridenstine, R-Okla.

He was as critical as his colleagues, saying, "If ISIS is a threat, we should eliminate it, not train and arm foreigners with extremely limited common interests and questionable loyalties. Certainly, we should build coalitions, but we should not lead from behind with half measures that will not accomplish the objective."

And Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and an officer in the U.S. Navy Reserve, was equally wary of outsourcing the actual combat to "the so-called moderate rebels."

"These mujahideen fighters are not dependable allies and will use the weapons to pursue their own interests," he said. "We cannot subcontract out our national security policies to Islamist rebels. The president's strategy is insufficient to achieve success."

Follow Garth Kant @DCgarth