House Rejects Measure to End War on Terror

House Rejects Measure to End War on Terror | Affirms status quo in $601 billion military budget

Rep. Adam Schiff’s (D – CA) efforts to repeal the 2001 Authorization on the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which the Bush and Obama Administrations have used as the legal cover for virtually all military operations since, failed today in a 191-233 vote.

The bill had initially been seen as having some administration support, but that myth evaporated after yesterday’s fiasco in the Senate, where officials argued the AUMF had nothing to do with anything, and that President Obama would attack whomever he pleased, whenever he pleased. The officials came out for vague, non-specific changes to AUMF, but not for repeal.

This led hawks to angrily condemn Rep. Schiff’s bill, with Rep. Mac Thornberry (R – TX) accusing him of having “forgotten” 9/11. The Senate’s AUMF efforts don’t look promising either, with some now arguing in favor of “revisions” that would greatly expand the war powers to authorize President Obama’s attacks on groups not even cursorily linked to al-Qaeda.

Underscoring just how little appetite there is for even the illusion of change, Rep. Adam Smith (D – WA) introduced an amendment to allow transfer of Gitmo detainees, something President Obama demanded, and that too was rejected. The White House had threatened a veto if they didn’t get this, but where they stand now is unclear.

In the end, the $601 billion military spending bill, which was bigger than even the Pentagon sought, passed easily in a 325-98 vote, and is now just waiting for the Senate to come up with their version, so they can reconcile the two.

Last 5 posts by Jason Ditz

Author: Jason Ditz

Jason Ditz is news editor of Antiwar.com.

  • persnipoles

    If, rather than falling straight down, three Manhattan towers had, instead, lifted off and traveled to the moon…the congenital GWoT-Sucker would have quickly embroiled us in The Intergalactic War on Little Green Men (IWoLG! only slightly less catchy.).

  • wars r u.s.

    What's the point anymore. It's fruitless. They win, we lose. F**k it.

  • Dan Good

    Sleepwalkers

  • SongRemainstheSame

    Nothing surprising here, just further proof that what the voter base wants means absolutely nothing when votes count and that they act in the interest of the richest constituents. The illusion of democracy on the largest animal farm on earth.

    • Amanda

      Of course the voter base has no say in what the representatives do in Washington, since Washington is not a part of the United States and is in fact a separate legal entity from the USA. Washington and environs is a legally incorporated company that is owned by Europeans and is totally separate from the US. Look up the " Act of 1871" that your treasonous representatives at the time passed on February 21st of that year. ALL of your treasonous representatives today know all about this and they continue to fool the people by perpetrating the lie that they represent them.

  • RockyRococo

    War! (uh!) It's what we're good for!

    • Given the decades' long disasters in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, what on earth leads you to call Americans "good for" or "good at" war. No objective evidence exists to support such a silly assertion.

      • curmudgeonvt

        It's just a little poetic license with lyrics by Edwin Starr's "WAR" – and originally went, "War, huh, yeah
        What is it good for"…

        Rocky's point is that war is all we have to offer the rest of the world now…not that' we're good at it. But, on the other hand, if the intent is to have permanent war, not winning, then, yeah, we're pretty good at it. And as long as the citizens keep supplying the fodder and glorifying them when they come home damaged or dead the endless war will continue.

    • persnipoles

      I wonder if there's a story in why certain (well, at least one) performances dropped "absolutely nothing." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMa10pGpANc
      It was not an improvement over the original i.t.o. musical entertainment.

  • Rob

    It's like if some Al Qaeda person proposed ceasing violence against US targets, and his other group members scolded him by asking, "Have you forgotten the USA's killing of millions of Muslims over the last few decades? Have you forgotten the 750,000 Muslim children the USA targeted and killed in Iraq?"

  • Guest

    This is just a beginning, USG been at war for last 60 years and they just added boko haram to the list of terrorists groups. Just wait for Hillary Clinton to be predominated and preselected for presidency.

  • liberal

    Quite newsworthy is the fact that the vote was pretty much along partisan lines, with only about 30 in each party voting the other way.

    • curmudgeonvt

      It's election time…

  • AmericaFirst

    Same old same old out there on the Potomac. Why is anyone surprised that this happened? America, the welfare/warfare state. It doles it out and marches on. But we're the "good," guys.

    • musings

      What surprised me were the ones who voted to end this thing. 191 of them. Catchy kind of number too, like it has 9/11 in it. I don't usually pay attention to that. But since 233 still want it, want dictatorship, we have to keep acting like we're in perpetual warfare, because 191 is only 81% of 233. It's something though, and it means an opposition of sorts, who will have to explain to their constituency why they could not carry through. I would like to look at the roll call. It kind of gives a measure of hope. Wonder how many will survive re-election?

  • Jay Hall

    Great comments.

  • walt

    Time to start shooting some congress…err, our mouths off about how bad it is getting.

  • redwood

    The War On Terror should be called the War For More Terror.