FOWC with Fandango — Option


Welcome to Fandango’s One-Word Challenge (aka, FOWC). I will be posting each day’s word just after midnight Pacific Time (U.S.).

Today’s word is “option.”

Write a post using that word. It can be prose, poetry, fiction, non-fiction. It can be any length. It can be just a picture or a drawing if you want. No holds barred, so to speak.

Once you are done, tag your post with #FOWC and create a pingback to this post if you are on WordPress. Please check to confirm that your pingback is there. If not, please manually add your link in the comments.

And be sure to read the posts of other bloggers who respond to this prompt. Show them some love.

24 thoughts on “FOWC with Fandango — Option

  1. Rall May 19, 2023 / 1:36 am

    what are the options
    for leading a simple
    peaceful uncomplicated
    life here on earth?
    not many
    maybe none
    if you are are nice to mister musk
    and promise not to work from home
    he might take you on a joy ride
    and drop you off at another planet

    Liked by 1 person

    • Fandango May 19, 2023 / 5:57 am

      Isn’t it odd, if not crazy, that Musk thinks working home is not moral?


      • Rall May 19, 2023 / 7:28 am

        As we say Down Under…he’s not the full catastrophe !

        Liked by 1 person

      • Marleen May 19, 2023 / 12:13 pm

        He doesn’t mind them living at work, though — per his own push to get beds in there. Yet, I’m pretty sure I read an article some weeks ago where he fired someone for sleeping. Then, I saw a headline today that he wanted to install a bathroom right next to his own office so he wouldn’t have to wake his security guards when … [I didn’t click on it].

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Pingback: #FOWC – Option
  3. breckenridgeann May 19, 2023 / 11:30 am

    You have the option of either going left or right either way. It’s your little red wagon you can either push it or pull it

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Marleen May 19, 2023 / 11:58 am

    Jamaal just wants us all to consider our options.

    … during his first term in Washington, Mr. Bowman mostly kept his head down and proved to be a reliable ally of House leaders. His tenure started just before the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and played out as Congress struggled to move past the coronavirus pandemic.

    That began to change this spring, after Mr. Bowman won re-election by a wide margin and as Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has pulled back from some of the fights she helped steer as a new member of Congress.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Marleen May 26, 2023 / 10:20 pm

      Jamaal Bowman [disgusted] with
      Biden Over Debt Ceiling Weakness

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Marleen May 19, 2023 / 12:03 pm

    Nancy Pelosi and the governor don’t want us to have options.

    Exposed: Nancy [… controlling] Dianne Feinstein’s Senate Seat

    Liked by 1 person

    • Marleen May 19, 2023 / 12:47 pm

      Lee gained national attention in 2001 as the only member of Congress to vote against the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), stating that she voted no not because she opposed military action but because she believed the AUMF, as written, granted the president overly broad powers … [wiki on her name]

      The majority 75% of Democrats oppose the war. The USA Today – Gallup poll conducted September 22–23, 2009 found that the majority 62% of Democrats oppose sending more U.S. troops, while the majority 63% of Republicans favor sending more U.S. troops.
      [International public opinion on the war in Afghanistan wiki]

      Liked by 1 person

      • Marleen May 19, 2023 / 1:02 pm

        The historic bipartisan vote moves to reassert Congress’ [Constitutional] power over the use of military force abroad.

        *The last time an authorization of military force was repealed was in 1974.


        House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said last week that he would support the measure, as long as a separate authorization — the 2001 AUMF enacted after 9/11 — remains in place.


        *The 2001 AUMF, which authorizes the U.S. to target perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, is viewed as a far more sweeping, blank-check resolution that has been cited for U.S. military activity all over the world.

        *The 2001 AUMF is still in effect and there is no sign that it will be repealed by Congress in the near future.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Marleen May 19, 2023 / 1:27 pm


          Rep. Lee has been working for two decades to repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force after her lone vote in opposition to the 2001 AUMF following … 9/11. In the 117th Congress, the House of Representatives adopted H.R. 256, Congresswoman Lee’s legislation to repeal the 2002 AUMF, by a bipartisan vote of 268-161. The Biden Administration issued a Statement of Administrative Policy in support of H.R. 256.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Marleen May 19, 2023 / 2:01 pm


          In the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Force, or AUMF, Congress authorized the President to “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11th, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.” Congress granted … statutory authority “in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.”

          The 2001 AUMF provides statutory authority for ongoing U.S. military operations against al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces, including against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS. The administration relies on the 2001 AUMF as a domestic legal authority for our own military actions against these entities, as well as the military actions we take in conjunction with our partners in the coalition to defeat ISIS. The 2001 AUMF provides a domestic legal basis for our detention operations at Guantanamo Bay …

          Liked by 1 person

          • Marleen May 19, 2023 / 2:55 pm

            There’s an interesting map, representing actions in over a dozen countries, maybe a quarter of the way into the report here. (I realize that, while I agree with Barbara Lee, I might be providing fodder for people to back Pelosi’s commandeering of Feinstein’s position.)


            One week after al-Qaeda’s shocking attacks of 11 September 2001, the U.S. Congress authorised President George W. Bush to use all necessary and appropriate force against the group and those who aided and harboured them.

            The 2001 Authorisation for Use of Military Force (or AUMF) became the legal foundation for the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan, but it also became much more. As the Bush administration and its successors expanded militarised counter-terrorism operations (often referred to as the “war on terror”), they did not seek fresh authorisations from Congress. Rather, they developed novel legal theories to explain why the 2001 AUMF afforded them all the authority they felt they required.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Marleen May 19, 2023 / 8:55 pm

            Three days after the September 11th terror attacks, the House and Senate passed the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (2001 AUMF) with near-unanimous approval. In just sixty words, the 2001 AUMF granted then-President George W. Bush sweeping authority to retaliate against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Since the perpetrators of the attacks were not yet known, the 2001 AUMF used broad language, authorizing force against those who “planned, authorized, committed, or aided” in the attacks and those who “harbored” the attackers. But […] the executive branch has interpreted the resolution to apply to a growing number of groups in multiple countries with no connection to the 9/11 attacks. These wars have been extraordinarily costly: in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan alone, the fighting has killed more than half a million people, created 21 million refugees and displaced persons in the region, and cost the United States six trillion dollars.

            The lack of specificity, geographic boundaries, or a sunset provision in the 2001 AUMF has allowed four administrations to interpret the authorization in a manner that effectively cedes to the president the congressional role of authorizing military action. The 2001 AUMF has been used to justify 41 operations in 19 countries by the administrations following the President George W. Bush administration.


            The following year, Congress passed the 2002 Iraq Authorization for Use of Military Force (2002 AUMF) to authorize war against Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq. The 2002 AUMF legally justified “necessary and appropriate” military action to “defend U.S. national security” against the threat posed by Hussein’s regime. During the Trump administration, President Trump claimed that the 2002 AUMF permitted the continued use of force against ISIS in Iraq, as well as authorized the use of force to address other threats from Syria and elsewhere. The 2002 AUMF was also used by the Trump administration to authorize the assassination of Qassem Soleimani.

            The Constitution was crystal clear in giving Congress – not the Executive Branch – the power to declare war. The president may send U.S. armed forces into conflict after a declaration of war, following a national emergency predicated upon an attack, or after receiving “specific statutory authorization” from Congress.

            THE LATEST

            The Biden-Harris administration indicated its willingness to work with Congress to repeal the 2002 AUMF early in 2020. Multiple proposals to repeal the 2002 AUMF have been introduced in Congress, including Senator Kaine’s S. J. Res. 10, Rep. Barbara Lee’s H.R. 256, and Rep. Gallagher’s H.R. 2014. Under the leadership of Chairman Gregory Meeks and Chairman James McGovern, both the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the House Rules Committee held hearings early in 2021 to consider the path forward on reclaiming Congress’s authority to declare war. In advance of a vote on H.R. 256, the Biden-Harris Administration issued an official statement of policy supporting Rep. Barbara Lee’s bill. On June 17, 2021, Rep. Barbara Lee’s H.R. 256 passed the House and was referred to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. After decades of neglect, Congress is poised to finally repeal the outdated 2002 AUMF and begin the process of reining in the forever wars that have defined the last two decades.

            Most recently, in June of 2022, the House Appropriations Committee voted to include two amendments authored by Rep. Lee to repeal the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs in its annual defense spending bill. These provisions introduced by Rep. Lee would repeal the two AUMFs that have been used to justify twenty years of U.S. wars. Similar amendments were added to the FY2023 National Defense Authorization Act alongside amendments offered by Reps. Peter Meijer and Abigail Spanberger that repeal a 1957 and 1991 AUMF respectively.


            Liked by 1 person

      • Marleen May 22, 2023 / 9:32 pm

        CIA Whistleblower John Kiriakou: Rudi Giuliani Aide
        Told Me Presidential Pardon Would Cost $2 Million

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s