Ohmar, Lee, Kaine, announce war powers resolution to prevent war with Iran

[Starlight]

Reps. Ilhan Omar and Barbara Lee Announce War Powers Resolution To Prevent War With Iran:



A similar measure was attempted in the Senate in June this year, and got 50 votes for and 40 votes against, but that failed to pass because a super-majority was required:



It seems clear who the party of peace and following the constitution is. Whereas the Republicans seem happy for America to enter unconstitutionally into a war against a country that didn't attack them. Peace and compliance with the law vs war and breaking the law, seem to be becoming big differences between the two parties and seem split down party lines. Only 4 Republican senators had morals to vote for peace and for following the constitution in June, lets hope more can find some morals this time round.

[seanD]

Just political virtue-signaling because A) they know it'll get shot down so it's essentially pointless, and B) I doubt Lee did anything like this when Obama reeked havoc in Libya, Syria and was killing folks with drone strikes, including American citizens.

[Starlight]

Just political virtue-signaling because A) they know it'll get shot down so it's essentially pointless

I don't think taking a stand for what's right is ever pointless. You might succeed, and if you don't you inspire others. It's also obviously worth making clear to voters what the different parties stand for, because next election the voters will be able to choose between the politicians that vote for peace and those who vote for war.

B) I doubt Lee did anything like this when Obama reeked havoc in Libya, Syria and was killing folks with drone strikes, including American citizens.

???

2011

NYT 2011

Barbara Lee 2011: "I maintain my belief that an increased U.S. military presence in Libya could inflame the situation and, ultimately, prove counterproductive to the end goal of sustainable peace... a more thorough discussion about the ramifications of U.S. military engagement in Libya should have occurred before the recent action was taken. Congress must have an opportunity for a robust debate on the risks associated with committing our military resources to Libya"

Barbara Lee 2013

The Atlantic 2013: Inside Congress, [Barbara Lee] has helped spearhead the lobbying effort against a Syria strike...

The story of how Lee emerged as one of Congress's most powerful antiwar voices on Syria is one that's well told by numbers. In 2001 when she voted against the use of force in Afghanistan, she acted alone. In 2003, when she sponsored legislation to repeal the congressional authorization of war in Iraq, her legislation received 72 votes. In August of 2013, a demand that Obama seek authorization from Congress before taking any action against Syria garnered the support of more than 150 lawmakers and from both sides of the political aisle.

That most recent push on Syria consisted of two letters sent to Obama last month. One was authored by Lee; the other was authored by Republican Rep. Scott Rigell

The Hill 2014

Barbara Lee has been consistent, principled, and outspoken for years in her views that military action must be authorized by the constitution, and that any military action must be a last resort not a first resort.

[seanD]

Okay, well, then I stand corrected. Good for her.

[Mountain Man]

It seems clear who the party of peace and following the constitution is.

Translation: "I'm not a constitutional scholar; I just play one on the internet."

In fact, the Constitution gives the President of the United States the authority to use military action without informing Congress and without formally declaring war. Just because the Democrats call it "an act of war" because one of their terrorist buddies was taken out doesn't make it so.

https://thefederalist.com/2017/05/04...king-congress/

[seer]

Reps. Ilhan Omar and Barbara Lee Announce War Powers Resolution To Prevent War With Iran:

Sound and fury signifying nothing... And BTW Trump made it clear that he does not want war with Iran....

[lilpixieofterror]

Starlight in 2017:

Seems like things are heating up with regard to North Korea. Is Trump going to bungle things and get South Korea nuked? I would be very worried if I lived in South Korea right now.

The background, of course, is that North Korea got nuclear weapons during the presidency of Bush, when he was asleep on his watch. Since then the US has largely followed the strategy of "let's just leave well enough alone and let the mad dictator take photos of himself in the ruins of his own country, and not in any way provoke him into doing anything precipitous like nuking South Korea."

But now, because Trump is incompetent and isn't just content to leave it alone, he's now sending forces to the region and there's talk about striking North Korea. Apparently the war-mongering cheer-leading from the corporate media that came when he did his symbolic strike against Syria seems to have gone to his head, and he isn't content with simply adding an 8th country to the number of Middle Eastern countries the US is conducting operations in, he now wants to bring war to an entirely new region of the world...



Which part of the mad dictator has nuclear weapons and keeps threatening to use them doesn't Trump understand? After all, that apples to himself too.

I get that Trump is incompetent and senile and wants to look strong... but getting South Korea nuked is not the correct way to do that.

[Mountain Man]

I often get the impression that liberals aren't afraid Trump will start a war, they're hopeful that he will.

[oxmixmudd]

Just political virtue-signaling because A) they know it'll get shot down so it's essentially pointless, and B) I doubt Lee did anything like this when Obama reeked havoc in Libya, Syria and was killing folks with drone strikes, including American citizens.

You are also leaving out the fact that the program, curtailed by Obama, has been expanded under Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/09/w...-military.html

The issue here is that Trump has carried out the targeted assassination of a military leader of another country. That is in a different class than military strikes against terrorists which typically do not have a direct association with a government.

I have been watching the various reports on this and don't have a solid opinion on if this fellow rose to the level of terrorist in a way that overrides the fact he was an official military leader, but I am keenly aware of the problem with what Trump has done. Beyond possibly starting a war with Iran w/o Congressional authorization, he has opened to door to officially sanctioned governmental assassinations of government leaders, and he has entered this realm carrying his 'hit back 10 times harder' business/personal way of dealing with the world into a military playing field and a potential for global conflict. And that just is a very, very bad Idea. Superficially, this is a response to our embassy being attacked. And his response was - for that act - way over the top. Further, he is threatening Iran that if they retaliate, He'll respond with what many agree is a war crime.

This man has no filter, no capacity to reason about consequences, and he is wholly incompetent to be making command decisions for the most powerful military on the planet. He is heading for war without the capacity to understand what war means.

[Ronson]

It seems clear who the party of peace and following the constitution is.

Yeah, Libertarians. Obama (the Democrat) was too busy droning innocent civilians out of existence and supporting rebellions to be bothered with "peace" (despite his honorary Peace Prize).

Whereas the Republicans seem happy for America to enter unconstitutionally into a war against a country that didn't attack them. Peace and compliance with the law vs war and breaking the law, seem to be becoming big differences between the two parties and seem split down party lines. Only 4 Republican senators had morals to vote for peace and for following the constitution in June, lets hope more can find some morals this time round.

War hawks exist in both major parties. To think that Democrats are flower children and aren't just playing partisan politics is unrealistic.

[lilpixieofterror]

I often get the impression that liberals aren't afraid Trump will start a war, they're hopeful that he will.

[lilpixieofterror]

You are also leaving out the fact that the program, curtailed by Obama, has been expanded under Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/09/w...-military.html

The issue here is that Trump has carried out the targeted assassination of a military leader of another country. That is in a different class than military strikes against terrorists which typically do not have a direct association with a government.

I have been watching the various reports on this and don't have a solid opinion on if this fellow rose to the level of terrorist in a way that overrides the fact he was an official military leader, but I am keenly aware of the problem with what Trump has done. Beyond possibly starting a war with Iran w/o Congressional authorization, he has opened to door to officially sanctioned governmental assassinations of government leaders, and he has entered this realm carrying his 'hit back 10 times harder' business/personal way of dealing with the world into a military playing field and a potential for global conflict. And that just is a very, very bad Idea. Superficially, this is a response to our embassy being attacked. And his response was - for that act - way over the top. Further, he is threatening Iran that if they retaliate, He'll respond with what many agree is a war crime.

This man has no filter, no capacity to reason about consequences, and he is wholly incompetent to be making command decisions for the most powerful military on the planet. He is heading for war without the capacity to understand what war means.

[lilpixieofterror]

Yeah, Libertarians. Obama (the Democrat) was too busy droning innocent civilians out of existence and supporting rebellions to be bothered with "peace" (despite his honorary Peace Prize).



War hawks exist in both major parties. To think that Democrats are flower children and aren't just playing partisan politics is unrealistic.

Democrats were beating the war drum months ago, willing to fight a war against Turkey (which according to the GFP listing, is the 9th most powerful military, in the world, quite a bit stronger than Iran and does have 50 of our nuclear weapons).

[Mountain Man]

Since the United States carried out an airstrike last week that killed Iranian terrorist Qasem Soleimani, Democrats have repeatedly taken issue with the fact that the Trump administration didn't ask for Congressional approval. President Barack Obama's Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Jeh Johnson completely debunked that notion during a Sunday morning interview with MSNBC's Chuck Todd on "Meet the Press."

"If you believe everything our government is saying about General Soleimani, he was a lawful military objective and the president, under his Constitutional authority as commander-in-chief, had ample domestic legal authority to take him out without additional Congressional authorization," Johnson explained. "Whether he was a terrorist or a general in a military force that was engaged in armed attacks against our people, he was a lawful military objective."

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethba...lling-n2558967

[rogue06]

I noted recently that this all sounds very familiar with similar complaints when Trump started negotiating with North Korea

Considering how the left responded when Trump opened up talks with North Korea (swinging wildly between proclaiming he would start WWIII to incompetently giving everything away while getting nothing back -- sorta like Obama and Iran), I think it is more than reasonable to say that if Trump didn't do anything the same folks now saying he wants to start a war would be lambasting him for the missed opportunity.