President Trump is objecting to the Congressional resolutions attempting to end US involvement in the Saudi-led war in Yemen through a War Powers Act challenge. The president has promised to veto the resolution.
The War Powers Act challenge notes that the war was never authorized by Congress. The Senate passed the resolution last year, but new versions are advancing this year through the House and Senate. Getting a veto-proof majority is uncertain.
The White House says this challenge is “inappropriate” because all they are doing is refueling Saudi warplanes, not sending combat troops. The Pentagon made a similar argument to Congress last year, though it was subsequently revealed that the US does in fact have combat troops in Yemen, a fact that officials seem to forget about whenever a vote is imminent.
Officials are also arguing that withdrawing from the war would risk US-Saudi relations. This is, for many in Congress, sort of the point, as opposition to the war spiked after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi by the Saudis, and many are arguing this is an appropriate rebuke for the murder.
This must be the Trump “good war.” After all, they are just “refueling” the death machine.
Consider who is fighting in Syria and in Yemen because that tells me all I need to know.
Syria: Various Syrian forces, Russia, Israel, US, a few Iranians.
Yemen: Various Yemenite forces, Saudi Arabia, US, perhaps a few Iranians.
I’m not sure murdering one journalist warrants fundamentally altering the US-Saudi relationship, but murdering countless Yemenis to keep them from self-rule certainly should.
Also 9/11.
Good, why the hell should we support these butchers?
It’s better late than never, plus they need to do something besides rebuking Trump for pulling the ground troops out of Syria and trying to end the war in Afghanistan. It’s not like they waited until after there is a ceasefire and until after we are no longer even refueling jets, oh wait they did wait until the war might actually be over.
But regardless, I know there are good people working on this too and if they use the political hacks that will vote against Trump for anything, then great, at least that’s one way to get them to do something good for something for a change. It’s a nice change from telling him he can’t lift sanctions or for that matter imposing sanctions of their own all the time.
It would be nice if it would include some kind of permanent language that applies to more than just Saudi Arabia. How about putting some teeth into the ban against selling weapons that get used for any non-defensive reason? We have those laws on the books already, why not include some serious penalties for nations like Israel, Saudi Arabia or anyone else, if they use our weapons on innocent people? Aren’t we a “Nation of Laws” as Trump likes to scream?
Like I said, it is against the rules set in place for nations like Saudi Arabia to use the weapons we sell to them this way already. Why do they need to pass something new that will probably get ignored or that will change with the next administration, more than likely?Veto or not they can act can’t they?
Another thing that would need to be in this; is something to make it permanent and binding and have some kind of enforcement mechanism. It’s a good idea to tie Trump’s hands but it’s just as important to tie the next president’s as well and in a way that actually works.
The bill should be meaningless if we aren’t doing anything to assist the Saudis in Yemen so why would Trump feel the need to veto? Same with the “risk(to the) US-Saudi relations”. If we are no way involved in the war, how would we be risking the relationship?
Seems that way, considering congress’ feckless performance the last 20 years. But, the meat in Iran/contra was congressional shutdown of contra support. Hence, investigations to crime. Yes I know, ended up less meat, more Mcnugget. Reporting on US military action is at an all time low, part of exactly what trump promised in the campaign, ” we aren’t going to let our “enemy” know what we are doing”. We are left to guess what US assets are involved in Yemen. We know the US navy is involved in the blockade (reason enough), and you can bet the ranch US satellites, drones, and operatives are providing Intel (refueling is a distraction) for airstrikes. If the congress does it’s job, whoever orders these units into action will have to sit on the congressional dock. Tho Iran/contra failed to pin the tail on the Reagan ass, it did shut down much funding for the fascist contras, and force them further into dark money.
NATrump&gangz=SalmanGCC hamir=criminalz
I suppose Trump and the other US leaders also think that sanctions are not war crimes either.
Why should a bill like this be subject to a veto? That makes the President a judge at his own trial.
Any military action of this scale should be dependent upon explicit endorsements from both Congress and the President. Not only was Congress never involved in the decision to take action in Yemen, passage of this resolution would constitute an explicit rejection of such action. For the President to defy that rejection would, it seems to me, trigger a Constitutional crisis, the President having ignored Congress regarding a power (the declaration of war) the Constitution grants to the legislature. If I were Mrs. Pelosi I’d immediately seek injunctive relief from SCOTUS.