|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 30 2017 05:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
yeah see that's the kind of garbage nonsense that makes me mad
spending would still be increasing
just increasing less
this is portrayed as a 'decrease'
if something is actually increasing now how can it be decreasing? well i'm sure the media and the democrats have a very reasonable explanation as to how an increase is actually a decrease
|
On June 30 2017 05:30 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2017 05:23 Plansix wrote:On June 30 2017 05:20 Gorsameth wrote:On June 30 2017 05:19 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 30 2017 05:10 zlefin wrote:On June 30 2017 05:00 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 30 2017 04:47 Nyxisto wrote:On June 30 2017 03:44 Gorsameth wrote:On June 30 2017 03:18 Nyxisto wrote:On June 30 2017 01:35 Nevuk wrote:
People seem especially freaked out by the facelift tweet for some reason. And by people I mean both GOP and others. Why? It is no worse than anything he's said in the past the way by which autocrats operate: move the goalpost a single bit every day and make palatable what could not be said yesterday. This is exactly the kind of mental exhaustion that people like Trump are going for when they bombard you with this stuff. Do you notice that even you, who I assume doesn't like Trump, now grudgingly accepts something that could not have been part of political discourse even three years ago? You ought to combat that process or else you're going to end up with Erdogan style politics sooner than later For some it works like that. Not for Trump. he simply does it because his ego will not allowed him to be criticized so he needs to lash out anyone who does and belittle them to make himself feel better. I would agree that Trump is more of a reflection of that process rather than conscious about it, but that doesn't make it less effective. By breaking taboo after taboo people like him take the political culture and process apart. Doesn't really matter in the end if Trump is just complicit in it or whether it's Steve Bannon or a lot of people at the base. I mean, he already broke all the rules about tax returns, corporate holdings, presidential budget... If he doesn't face any repercussions for the things he does, your political system is completely fucked from here on out. Trump himself doesn't have the brains to do anything with the lack of controls, but every future President and Presidential candidate will know that the checks and balances are entirely lip service. the typical way it works; is someone violated the norms a bunch; then after they've left office, plus maybe 10-20 years if there's a lot of politics involved; new rules are put in to prevent such violations. But aren't things like corporate holdings already rules? There are rules for the Presidents cabinet. Not the President himself. Its just that previously every other President held himself to the same standard out of common sense. But congress will have to enforce those laws and investigate violations. Any president that is elected will likely have a majority in congress of the same party. Then the obviously solution is to not leave it up to Congress?
Who else is there?
Justice Dept: AG is appointed by the president, deputy hired by AG.
FBI: Director appointed by the president and serves at the pleasure of the president.
White house ethics office: No at law enforcement agency and only recommends how to proceed.
White House counsel: works for the executive branch. Not their role.
And so on.
There is a reason they call the president the most powerful person in the world. While they are in office, they are only accountable to congress for high crimes and criminal acts. Even if they created a law, what is or is not a high crime is still controlled by the constitution. Once the president is in office, the damage is done. To stop conflicts of interest, make disclosure of assets and business ties a requirement to run for the office.
|
On June 30 2017 05:41 DeepElemBlues wrote:yeah see that's the kind of garbage nonsense that makes me mad spending would still be increasing just increasing less this is portrayed as a 'decrease' if something is actually increasing now how can it be decreasing? well i'm sure the media and the democrats have a very reasonable explanation as to how an increase is actually a decrease
If your salary was set to increase by 10% every year as part of your package, and then they tell you that you are only going to be getting 5% every year, would you consider this a decrees or an increase?
|
On June 30 2017 05:41 DeepElemBlues wrote:yeah see that's the kind of garbage nonsense that makes me mad spending would still be increasing just increasing less this is portrayed as a 'decrease' if something is actually increasing now how can it be decreasing? well i'm sure the media and the democrats have a very reasonable explanation as to how an increase is actually a decrease
But the need health care services, including elder services, will increase at the same rate or more. As there is less Medicaid spending, there will be a larger gap and most areas will simply go without healthcare services. It will lead to a decrease in health services nationwide.
|
And this is how the GOP will attempt to stay in power.
|
|
|
|
|
I am assuming the journal at least confirmed some of this stuff to make sure he wasn’t making it up. But god damn, in what reality did he think any of that was a good idea? How high on your own rhetoric do you to be to contacting criminal hackers to “find” stolen emails?
|
Pathetic. It's another do-nothing commission that gathers information and releases recommendations. It's still the states primarily, followed by Congress and court rulings. I wonder how many perpetually outraged types actually believe this stuff?
|
On June 30 2017 06:55 Plansix wrote:I am assuming the journal at least confirmed some of this stuff to make sure he wasn’t making it up. But god damn, in what reality did he think any of that was a good idea? How high on your own rhetoric do you to be to contacting criminal hackers to “find” stolen emails?
IF it is real it also lends some background to Flynn's attempt to cut a deal for immunity.
|
Congress may finally be getting fed up with war on autopilot.
A powerful House committee voted unexpectedly Thursday to require Congress to debate and approve U.S. military action in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and other far-flung countries — in an unexpected victory for a longtime Democratic critic of the nearly two-decade-old war on terrorism.
The amendment from Rep. Barbara Lee of California — one of countless she has offered in recent years — is only a modest first step in getting Congress to update the authorization of military force that lawmakers adopted after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. But Thursday's voice vote in the GOP-controlled Appropriations Committee is a symbolic move forward.
Even Republicans with military experience embraced Lee's defense spending bill amendment, which would repeal the 2001 authorization. They noted that the anti-terror struggle has evolved markedly since the days when U.S. troops hunted Osama bin Laden in the mountains of Afghanistan, yet Congress has never debated and authorized the fight against newer extremist groups like the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
Members of the military “notice that we don’t have the courage to debate this and to give them the authority to go do this," said Chris Stewart (R-Utah), who served in the Air Force and comes from a family of soldiers. "And I know that from my friends who are in the military right now."
Scott Taylor (R-Va.), a former Navy SEAL, echoed that sentiment. “I think we’ve seen a disproportionate sacrifice with the military community that has gone over and over again,” he said. “And I believe that we owe them the debate.”
Others on the appropriations panel credited Lee with pushing the fight for so long.
"When I came in this morning, I was going to vote 'no,'" Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.) said during the debate, telling Lee: "I love the fact that you are in a position to take a lot of positions that I don’t take. That’s what we need. I’m going to be with you on this, and your tenacity has come through."
Appropriations Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) also turned to the San Francisco-area lawmaker. “You’re making converts all over the place, Ms. Lee," he said. "And indeed, you have been incredibly persistent and perseverant on this issue for a number of years. I think we recognize you, and obviously you have allies in the room. We share your concern.”
The vote comes as President Donald Trump is steadily delegating more authority to military commanders in the battle against the Islamic State and a host of other extremist groups on several continents, raising new concerns that civilians are exerting too little oversight.
Thursday's action "sends a positive signal that the time is right to have this discussion," Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who has pushed similar measures in the Senate to no avail, told POLITICO. "It sets a deadline to try to force congressional action, and we need congressional action."
Lee's amendment would repeal the 2001 authorization within 240 days of the enactment of appropriations for fiscal year 2018 — forcing Congress to take up a new one.
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said it's all the more urgent for Congress to pass a new military-force authorization.
“I think the 2001 [law] is very ill-fitting for today," said Flake, who is offering a new authorization bill with Kaine that he expects to be marked up in July. But he added: "You shouldn’t get rid of it and have nothing, so it’s time for a replacement. And I think we’ve got the bill to do it."
Only Kay Granger (R-Texas), who chairs the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, spoke against Lee's amendment in Thursday's committee meeting, arguing that it would cripple the military's ability to conduct counterterror operations.
"The amendment is a deal-breaker and would tie the hands of the U.S. to act unilaterally or with partner nations with regard to Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists," Granger said.
Although the Pentagon has been reluctant to disclose the number of U.S. troops stationed throughout the Middle East, recent reports indicate approximately 8,400 are stationed in Afghanistan, 7,000 in Iraq, and more than 900 in Syria.
Source
|
On June 30 2017 05:41 DeepElemBlues wrote:yeah see that's the kind of garbage nonsense that makes me mad spending would still be increasing just increasing less this is portrayed as a 'decrease' if something is actually increasing now how can it be decreasing? well i'm sure the media and the democrats have a very reasonable explanation as to how an increase is actually a decrease
The miracles of baseline budgeting: spending would fall even as spending increases. If you want to talk per capita or availability of services, say it, and don't tell all these lies in my opinion.
|
On June 30 2017 06:58 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2017 06:55 Plansix wrote:I am assuming the journal at least confirmed some of this stuff to make sure he wasn’t making it up. But god damn, in what reality did he think any of that was a good idea? How high on your own rhetoric do you to be to contacting criminal hackers to “find” stolen emails? IF it is real it also lends some background to Flynn's attempt to cut a deal for immunity.
I doubt the WJS would just posthumously dump the interview without doing some real fact checking. Especially after the CNN dumpster fire. But the guy could be full of shit about working with Flynn. But Flynn is that stupid, so anything is possible.
|
On June 30 2017 06:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Congress may finally be getting fed up with war on autopilot.
A powerful House committee voted unexpectedly Thursday to require Congress to debate and approve U.S. military action in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and other far-flung countries — in an unexpected victory for a longtime Democratic critic of the nearly two-decade-old war on terrorism.
The amendment from Rep. Barbara Lee of California — one of countless she has offered in recent years — is only a modest first step in getting Congress to update the authorization of military force that lawmakers adopted after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. But Thursday's voice vote in the GOP-controlled Appropriations Committee is a symbolic move forward.
Even Republicans with military experience embraced Lee's defense spending bill amendment, which would repeal the 2001 authorization. They noted that the anti-terror struggle has evolved markedly since the days when U.S. troops hunted Osama bin Laden in the mountains of Afghanistan, yet Congress has never debated and authorized the fight against newer extremist groups like the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
Members of the military “notice that we don’t have the courage to debate this and to give them the authority to go do this," said Chris Stewart (R-Utah), who served in the Air Force and comes from a family of soldiers. "And I know that from my friends who are in the military right now."
Scott Taylor (R-Va.), a former Navy SEAL, echoed that sentiment. “I think we’ve seen a disproportionate sacrifice with the military community that has gone over and over again,” he said. “And I believe that we owe them the debate.”
Others on the appropriations panel credited Lee with pushing the fight for so long.
"When I came in this morning, I was going to vote 'no,'" Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.) said during the debate, telling Lee: "I love the fact that you are in a position to take a lot of positions that I don’t take. That’s what we need. I’m going to be with you on this, and your tenacity has come through."
Appropriations Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) also turned to the San Francisco-area lawmaker. “You’re making converts all over the place, Ms. Lee," he said. "And indeed, you have been incredibly persistent and perseverant on this issue for a number of years. I think we recognize you, and obviously you have allies in the room. We share your concern.”
The vote comes as President Donald Trump is steadily delegating more authority to military commanders in the battle against the Islamic State and a host of other extremist groups on several continents, raising new concerns that civilians are exerting too little oversight.
Thursday's action "sends a positive signal that the time is right to have this discussion," Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who has pushed similar measures in the Senate to no avail, told POLITICO. "It sets a deadline to try to force congressional action, and we need congressional action."
Lee's amendment would repeal the 2001 authorization within 240 days of the enactment of appropriations for fiscal year 2018 — forcing Congress to take up a new one.
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said it's all the more urgent for Congress to pass a new military-force authorization.
“I think the 2001 [law] is very ill-fitting for today," said Flake, who is offering a new authorization bill with Kaine that he expects to be marked up in July. But he added: "You shouldn’t get rid of it and have nothing, so it’s time for a replacement. And I think we’ve got the bill to do it."
Only Kay Granger (R-Texas), who chairs the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, spoke against Lee's amendment in Thursday's committee meeting, arguing that it would cripple the military's ability to conduct counterterror operations.
"The amendment is a deal-breaker and would tie the hands of the U.S. to act unilaterally or with partner nations with regard to Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists," Granger said.
Although the Pentagon has been reluctant to disclose the number of U.S. troops stationed throughout the Middle East, recent reports indicate approximately 8,400 are stationed in Afghanistan, 7,000 in Iraq, and more than 900 in Syria. Source
At this point, I wouldn't even mind if Dems take credit for repealing the AUMF2001 despite their silence in the Obama years. Just get it done.
|
On June 30 2017 07:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2017 06:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Congress may finally be getting fed up with war on autopilot.
A powerful House committee voted unexpectedly Thursday to require Congress to debate and approve U.S. military action in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and other far-flung countries — in an unexpected victory for a longtime Democratic critic of the nearly two-decade-old war on terrorism.
The amendment from Rep. Barbara Lee of California — one of countless she has offered in recent years — is only a modest first step in getting Congress to update the authorization of military force that lawmakers adopted after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. But Thursday's voice vote in the GOP-controlled Appropriations Committee is a symbolic move forward.
Even Republicans with military experience embraced Lee's defense spending bill amendment, which would repeal the 2001 authorization. They noted that the anti-terror struggle has evolved markedly since the days when U.S. troops hunted Osama bin Laden in the mountains of Afghanistan, yet Congress has never debated and authorized the fight against newer extremist groups like the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
Members of the military “notice that we don’t have the courage to debate this and to give them the authority to go do this," said Chris Stewart (R-Utah), who served in the Air Force and comes from a family of soldiers. "And I know that from my friends who are in the military right now."
Scott Taylor (R-Va.), a former Navy SEAL, echoed that sentiment. “I think we’ve seen a disproportionate sacrifice with the military community that has gone over and over again,” he said. “And I believe that we owe them the debate.”
Others on the appropriations panel credited Lee with pushing the fight for so long.
"When I came in this morning, I was going to vote 'no,'" Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.) said during the debate, telling Lee: "I love the fact that you are in a position to take a lot of positions that I don’t take. That’s what we need. I’m going to be with you on this, and your tenacity has come through."
Appropriations Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) also turned to the San Francisco-area lawmaker. “You’re making converts all over the place, Ms. Lee," he said. "And indeed, you have been incredibly persistent and perseverant on this issue for a number of years. I think we recognize you, and obviously you have allies in the room. We share your concern.”
The vote comes as President Donald Trump is steadily delegating more authority to military commanders in the battle against the Islamic State and a host of other extremist groups on several continents, raising new concerns that civilians are exerting too little oversight.
Thursday's action "sends a positive signal that the time is right to have this discussion," Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who has pushed similar measures in the Senate to no avail, told POLITICO. "It sets a deadline to try to force congressional action, and we need congressional action."
Lee's amendment would repeal the 2001 authorization within 240 days of the enactment of appropriations for fiscal year 2018 — forcing Congress to take up a new one.
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said it's all the more urgent for Congress to pass a new military-force authorization.
“I think the 2001 [law] is very ill-fitting for today," said Flake, who is offering a new authorization bill with Kaine that he expects to be marked up in July. But he added: "You shouldn’t get rid of it and have nothing, so it’s time for a replacement. And I think we’ve got the bill to do it."
Only Kay Granger (R-Texas), who chairs the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, spoke against Lee's amendment in Thursday's committee meeting, arguing that it would cripple the military's ability to conduct counterterror operations.
"The amendment is a deal-breaker and would tie the hands of the U.S. to act unilaterally or with partner nations with regard to Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists," Granger said.
Although the Pentagon has been reluctant to disclose the number of U.S. troops stationed throughout the Middle East, recent reports indicate approximately 8,400 are stationed in Afghanistan, 7,000 in Iraq, and more than 900 in Syria. Source At this point, I wouldn't even mind if Dems take credit for repealing the AUMF2011 despite their silence in the Obama years. Just get it done.
They were not silent during Obama's term. The GOP was just more than happen to turn it on them and claim they were against national security. They loved not having to clean up Iraq and blame it all on Obama.
|
They definitely could have repealed the AUMF during the 2008-2010 period if they had really wanted to even with GOP opposition.
|
On June 30 2017 07:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2017 07:10 Danglars wrote:On June 30 2017 06:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Congress may finally be getting fed up with war on autopilot.
A powerful House committee voted unexpectedly Thursday to require Congress to debate and approve U.S. military action in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and other far-flung countries — in an unexpected victory for a longtime Democratic critic of the nearly two-decade-old war on terrorism.
The amendment from Rep. Barbara Lee of California — one of countless she has offered in recent years — is only a modest first step in getting Congress to update the authorization of military force that lawmakers adopted after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. But Thursday's voice vote in the GOP-controlled Appropriations Committee is a symbolic move forward.
Even Republicans with military experience embraced Lee's defense spending bill amendment, which would repeal the 2001 authorization. They noted that the anti-terror struggle has evolved markedly since the days when U.S. troops hunted Osama bin Laden in the mountains of Afghanistan, yet Congress has never debated and authorized the fight against newer extremist groups like the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
Members of the military “notice that we don’t have the courage to debate this and to give them the authority to go do this," said Chris Stewart (R-Utah), who served in the Air Force and comes from a family of soldiers. "And I know that from my friends who are in the military right now."
Scott Taylor (R-Va.), a former Navy SEAL, echoed that sentiment. “I think we’ve seen a disproportionate sacrifice with the military community that has gone over and over again,” he said. “And I believe that we owe them the debate.”
Others on the appropriations panel credited Lee with pushing the fight for so long.
"When I came in this morning, I was going to vote 'no,'" Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.) said during the debate, telling Lee: "I love the fact that you are in a position to take a lot of positions that I don’t take. That’s what we need. I’m going to be with you on this, and your tenacity has come through."
Appropriations Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) also turned to the San Francisco-area lawmaker. “You’re making converts all over the place, Ms. Lee," he said. "And indeed, you have been incredibly persistent and perseverant on this issue for a number of years. I think we recognize you, and obviously you have allies in the room. We share your concern.”
The vote comes as President Donald Trump is steadily delegating more authority to military commanders in the battle against the Islamic State and a host of other extremist groups on several continents, raising new concerns that civilians are exerting too little oversight.
Thursday's action "sends a positive signal that the time is right to have this discussion," Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who has pushed similar measures in the Senate to no avail, told POLITICO. "It sets a deadline to try to force congressional action, and we need congressional action."
Lee's amendment would repeal the 2001 authorization within 240 days of the enactment of appropriations for fiscal year 2018 — forcing Congress to take up a new one.
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said it's all the more urgent for Congress to pass a new military-force authorization.
“I think the 2001 [law] is very ill-fitting for today," said Flake, who is offering a new authorization bill with Kaine that he expects to be marked up in July. But he added: "You shouldn’t get rid of it and have nothing, so it’s time for a replacement. And I think we’ve got the bill to do it."
Only Kay Granger (R-Texas), who chairs the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, spoke against Lee's amendment in Thursday's committee meeting, arguing that it would cripple the military's ability to conduct counterterror operations.
"The amendment is a deal-breaker and would tie the hands of the U.S. to act unilaterally or with partner nations with regard to Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists," Granger said.
Although the Pentagon has been reluctant to disclose the number of U.S. troops stationed throughout the Middle East, recent reports indicate approximately 8,400 are stationed in Afghanistan, 7,000 in Iraq, and more than 900 in Syria. Source At this point, I wouldn't even mind if Dems take credit for repealing the AUMF2011 despite their silence in the Obama years. Just get it done. They were not silent during Obama's term. The GOP was just more than happen to turn it on them and claim they were against national security. They loved not having to clean up Iraq and blame it all on Obama.
I never heard a damn peep. They were more than happy to let Obama drone strike his way around five or six countries because he was their guy. The Rand Paul types were the only noteworthy ones.
|
On June 30 2017 07:24 Nevuk wrote:
They definitely could have repealed the AUMF during the 2008-2010 period if they had really wanted to even with GOP opposition.
It would be weird to repeal the authorization while we had troops deployed and had not killed Osama.
On June 30 2017 07:25 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2017 07:15 Plansix wrote:On June 30 2017 07:10 Danglars wrote:On June 30 2017 06:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Congress may finally be getting fed up with war on autopilot.
A powerful House committee voted unexpectedly Thursday to require Congress to debate and approve U.S. military action in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and other far-flung countries — in an unexpected victory for a longtime Democratic critic of the nearly two-decade-old war on terrorism.
The amendment from Rep. Barbara Lee of California — one of countless she has offered in recent years — is only a modest first step in getting Congress to update the authorization of military force that lawmakers adopted after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. But Thursday's voice vote in the GOP-controlled Appropriations Committee is a symbolic move forward.
Even Republicans with military experience embraced Lee's defense spending bill amendment, which would repeal the 2001 authorization. They noted that the anti-terror struggle has evolved markedly since the days when U.S. troops hunted Osama bin Laden in the mountains of Afghanistan, yet Congress has never debated and authorized the fight against newer extremist groups like the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
Members of the military “notice that we don’t have the courage to debate this and to give them the authority to go do this," said Chris Stewart (R-Utah), who served in the Air Force and comes from a family of soldiers. "And I know that from my friends who are in the military right now."
Scott Taylor (R-Va.), a former Navy SEAL, echoed that sentiment. “I think we’ve seen a disproportionate sacrifice with the military community that has gone over and over again,” he said. “And I believe that we owe them the debate.”
Others on the appropriations panel credited Lee with pushing the fight for so long.
"When I came in this morning, I was going to vote 'no,'" Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.) said during the debate, telling Lee: "I love the fact that you are in a position to take a lot of positions that I don’t take. That’s what we need. I’m going to be with you on this, and your tenacity has come through."
Appropriations Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) also turned to the San Francisco-area lawmaker. “You’re making converts all over the place, Ms. Lee," he said. "And indeed, you have been incredibly persistent and perseverant on this issue for a number of years. I think we recognize you, and obviously you have allies in the room. We share your concern.”
The vote comes as President Donald Trump is steadily delegating more authority to military commanders in the battle against the Islamic State and a host of other extremist groups on several continents, raising new concerns that civilians are exerting too little oversight.
Thursday's action "sends a positive signal that the time is right to have this discussion," Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who has pushed similar measures in the Senate to no avail, told POLITICO. "It sets a deadline to try to force congressional action, and we need congressional action."
Lee's amendment would repeal the 2001 authorization within 240 days of the enactment of appropriations for fiscal year 2018 — forcing Congress to take up a new one.
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said it's all the more urgent for Congress to pass a new military-force authorization.
“I think the 2001 [law] is very ill-fitting for today," said Flake, who is offering a new authorization bill with Kaine that he expects to be marked up in July. But he added: "You shouldn’t get rid of it and have nothing, so it’s time for a replacement. And I think we’ve got the bill to do it."
Only Kay Granger (R-Texas), who chairs the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, spoke against Lee's amendment in Thursday's committee meeting, arguing that it would cripple the military's ability to conduct counterterror operations.
"The amendment is a deal-breaker and would tie the hands of the U.S. to act unilaterally or with partner nations with regard to Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists," Granger said.
Although the Pentagon has been reluctant to disclose the number of U.S. troops stationed throughout the Middle East, recent reports indicate approximately 8,400 are stationed in Afghanistan, 7,000 in Iraq, and more than 900 in Syria. Source At this point, I wouldn't even mind if Dems take credit for repealing the AUMF2011 despite their silence in the Obama years. Just get it done. They were not silent during Obama's term. The GOP was just more than happen to turn it on them and claim they were against national security. They loved not having to clean up Iraq and blame it all on Obama. I never heard a damn peep. They were more than happy to let Obama drone strike his way around five or six countries because he was their guy. The Rand Paul types were the only noteworthy ones.
It was after 2011 and the withdrawal from Iraq. It isn't really a headline grabbing statement by a house member or senator, wanting to do something that will never happen and won't get out of committee. .
|
On June 30 2017 07:25 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2017 07:15 Plansix wrote:On June 30 2017 07:10 Danglars wrote:On June 30 2017 06:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Congress may finally be getting fed up with war on autopilot.
A powerful House committee voted unexpectedly Thursday to require Congress to debate and approve U.S. military action in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and other far-flung countries — in an unexpected victory for a longtime Democratic critic of the nearly two-decade-old war on terrorism.
The amendment from Rep. Barbara Lee of California — one of countless she has offered in recent years — is only a modest first step in getting Congress to update the authorization of military force that lawmakers adopted after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. But Thursday's voice vote in the GOP-controlled Appropriations Committee is a symbolic move forward.
Even Republicans with military experience embraced Lee's defense spending bill amendment, which would repeal the 2001 authorization. They noted that the anti-terror struggle has evolved markedly since the days when U.S. troops hunted Osama bin Laden in the mountains of Afghanistan, yet Congress has never debated and authorized the fight against newer extremist groups like the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
Members of the military “notice that we don’t have the courage to debate this and to give them the authority to go do this," said Chris Stewart (R-Utah), who served in the Air Force and comes from a family of soldiers. "And I know that from my friends who are in the military right now."
Scott Taylor (R-Va.), a former Navy SEAL, echoed that sentiment. “I think we’ve seen a disproportionate sacrifice with the military community that has gone over and over again,” he said. “And I believe that we owe them the debate.”
Others on the appropriations panel credited Lee with pushing the fight for so long.
"When I came in this morning, I was going to vote 'no,'" Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.) said during the debate, telling Lee: "I love the fact that you are in a position to take a lot of positions that I don’t take. That’s what we need. I’m going to be with you on this, and your tenacity has come through."
Appropriations Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) also turned to the San Francisco-area lawmaker. “You’re making converts all over the place, Ms. Lee," he said. "And indeed, you have been incredibly persistent and perseverant on this issue for a number of years. I think we recognize you, and obviously you have allies in the room. We share your concern.”
The vote comes as President Donald Trump is steadily delegating more authority to military commanders in the battle against the Islamic State and a host of other extremist groups on several continents, raising new concerns that civilians are exerting too little oversight.
Thursday's action "sends a positive signal that the time is right to have this discussion," Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who has pushed similar measures in the Senate to no avail, told POLITICO. "It sets a deadline to try to force congressional action, and we need congressional action."
Lee's amendment would repeal the 2001 authorization within 240 days of the enactment of appropriations for fiscal year 2018 — forcing Congress to take up a new one.
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said it's all the more urgent for Congress to pass a new military-force authorization.
“I think the 2001 [law] is very ill-fitting for today," said Flake, who is offering a new authorization bill with Kaine that he expects to be marked up in July. But he added: "You shouldn’t get rid of it and have nothing, so it’s time for a replacement. And I think we’ve got the bill to do it."
Only Kay Granger (R-Texas), who chairs the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, spoke against Lee's amendment in Thursday's committee meeting, arguing that it would cripple the military's ability to conduct counterterror operations.
"The amendment is a deal-breaker and would tie the hands of the U.S. to act unilaterally or with partner nations with regard to Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists," Granger said.
Although the Pentagon has been reluctant to disclose the number of U.S. troops stationed throughout the Middle East, recent reports indicate approximately 8,400 are stationed in Afghanistan, 7,000 in Iraq, and more than 900 in Syria. Source At this point, I wouldn't even mind if Dems take credit for repealing the AUMF2011 despite their silence in the Obama years. Just get it done. They were not silent during Obama's term. The GOP was just more than happen to turn it on them and claim they were against national security. They loved not having to clean up Iraq and blame it all on Obama. I never heard a damn peep. They were more than happy to let Obama drone strike his way around five or six countries because he was their guy. The Rand Paul types were the only noteworthy ones.
Barbra Lee has been singing that song since before Iraq. I was one who certainly had a problem with it during the Obama presidency, but congress was pretty quiet save a few you would expect and some with no attention, and iirc it was 7 countries.
Democrats in general are lying to themselves if they try to pretend they cared though. Those "If Hillary won we'd be at Brunch" type of signs say it all. Most Democrats had checked out on holding their rep's accountable for fear any substantive critique would weaken them to Republican opposition. Others just accepted/embraced it as "better than the alternative".
|
On June 30 2017 07:25 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2017 07:15 Plansix wrote:On June 30 2017 07:10 Danglars wrote:On June 30 2017 06:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Congress may finally be getting fed up with war on autopilot.
A powerful House committee voted unexpectedly Thursday to require Congress to debate and approve U.S. military action in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and other far-flung countries — in an unexpected victory for a longtime Democratic critic of the nearly two-decade-old war on terrorism.
The amendment from Rep. Barbara Lee of California — one of countless she has offered in recent years — is only a modest first step in getting Congress to update the authorization of military force that lawmakers adopted after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. But Thursday's voice vote in the GOP-controlled Appropriations Committee is a symbolic move forward.
Even Republicans with military experience embraced Lee's defense spending bill amendment, which would repeal the 2001 authorization. They noted that the anti-terror struggle has evolved markedly since the days when U.S. troops hunted Osama bin Laden in the mountains of Afghanistan, yet Congress has never debated and authorized the fight against newer extremist groups like the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
Members of the military “notice that we don’t have the courage to debate this and to give them the authority to go do this," said Chris Stewart (R-Utah), who served in the Air Force and comes from a family of soldiers. "And I know that from my friends who are in the military right now."
Scott Taylor (R-Va.), a former Navy SEAL, echoed that sentiment. “I think we’ve seen a disproportionate sacrifice with the military community that has gone over and over again,” he said. “And I believe that we owe them the debate.”
Others on the appropriations panel credited Lee with pushing the fight for so long.
"When I came in this morning, I was going to vote 'no,'" Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.) said during the debate, telling Lee: "I love the fact that you are in a position to take a lot of positions that I don’t take. That’s what we need. I’m going to be with you on this, and your tenacity has come through."
Appropriations Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) also turned to the San Francisco-area lawmaker. “You’re making converts all over the place, Ms. Lee," he said. "And indeed, you have been incredibly persistent and perseverant on this issue for a number of years. I think we recognize you, and obviously you have allies in the room. We share your concern.”
The vote comes as President Donald Trump is steadily delegating more authority to military commanders in the battle against the Islamic State and a host of other extremist groups on several continents, raising new concerns that civilians are exerting too little oversight.
Thursday's action "sends a positive signal that the time is right to have this discussion," Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who has pushed similar measures in the Senate to no avail, told POLITICO. "It sets a deadline to try to force congressional action, and we need congressional action."
Lee's amendment would repeal the 2001 authorization within 240 days of the enactment of appropriations for fiscal year 2018 — forcing Congress to take up a new one.
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said it's all the more urgent for Congress to pass a new military-force authorization.
“I think the 2001 [law] is very ill-fitting for today," said Flake, who is offering a new authorization bill with Kaine that he expects to be marked up in July. But he added: "You shouldn’t get rid of it and have nothing, so it’s time for a replacement. And I think we’ve got the bill to do it."
Only Kay Granger (R-Texas), who chairs the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, spoke against Lee's amendment in Thursday's committee meeting, arguing that it would cripple the military's ability to conduct counterterror operations.
"The amendment is a deal-breaker and would tie the hands of the U.S. to act unilaterally or with partner nations with regard to Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists," Granger said.
Although the Pentagon has been reluctant to disclose the number of U.S. troops stationed throughout the Middle East, recent reports indicate approximately 8,400 are stationed in Afghanistan, 7,000 in Iraq, and more than 900 in Syria. Source At this point, I wouldn't even mind if Dems take credit for repealing the AUMF2011 despite their silence in the Obama years. Just get it done. They were not silent during Obama's term. The GOP was just more than happen to turn it on them and claim they were against national security. They loved not having to clean up Iraq and blame it all on Obama. I never heard a damn peep. They were more than happy to let Obama drone strike his way around five or six countries because he was their guy. The Rand Paul types were the only noteworthy ones.
it's not uncommon for things to happen that don't circulate that widely; especially depending on what news sources you use. Also possible for something to happen and you simply don't remember cuz you didnt' make much note of it when it was mentioned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
11715
3095
126
160
EPT
