In vetoing the Congressional bill demanding
the US withdraw from the Yemen War, President Trump may have thought he
had the final word on the matter. It is unlikely, after all, that there
will be enough votes in the Senate to override the veto.
But the debate isn’t over. The Yemen War remains as unauthorized and as
unpopular as ever, and with lawmakers still salty about Trump’s
do-nothing attitude toward the Saudi murder of Jamal Khashoggi, there
are likely to be myriad new resolutions aiming to limit US involvement
int he war, and also US military backing of the Saudi kingdom.
The veto itself only added to the controversy, as it directly amounted
to a US president overruling Congress on a matter of war-making,
something the constitution clearly puts in Congress’s hands.
Even many Conservatives who would generally back Trump are saying the Yemen War is plainly unconstitutional. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) took things a step further, saying Trump is turning the US into the “prostitute of Saudi Arabia” with the veto.
In the end, Trump vetoed the bill because he could, and because Saudi
Arabia wanted it vetoed. Throughout months of debate on the War Powers
challenge, his administration never offered any credible defense of the
war, mostly trying to sell it as being small enough that it didn’t
matter, and adding that since Saudis bought US warplanes they were
entitled to mid-air refueling as customer service. They were bad
arguments then, and now, and one veto isn’t going to make everything
else go away.
What? When did the US declare war on Yemen? Likewise, under the War Powers Act, Congress has to authorize the use of military force within 60 days.
Democrats need look no farther that Trumps actions in regards to Yemen to have a real impeachable offense. But they won’t. Because multiple previous Democrat Presidents did the same things. Congress can also defund the assault on Yemen. But Congress won’t do that either.
The Pentagon has so many slush funds and accounting black holes that Congress has no realistic hope of passing legislation to effectively defund this war of aggression.
And last time I checked, the Republic party held the majority in the House, they’re the ones who can’t get enough votes together to override the veto, so why bring up the Democrat party?
The dems are easier to pick on. Dem critics pretend they are conservative. Sheesh, more true conservatives in the dems nowadays.
Suggest you re read my comment Dave. You seem to have missed the point. Btw, you might remember that I believe every POTUS in the last three decades and more should have been impeached and removed from office. Hint: that includes Democrats and Republicans.
Picking on Democrats is amusing though. Poor things are obviously being unfairly maligned. Along with their Republican brethren.
Of course your right. GOP votes in a bloc, they are given talking points. The dems are all over the board.
Obviously the Republicans aren’t looking to impeach Trump. Democrats are. I gave a reason why Democrats would not use a valid and legal reason to impeach Trump. Instead of the Russia bs .
Hard to understand why you were triggered. Indoctrinated masses in the US continue to be conned into the “sides”. Fact is both “sides” in the DC political class have more alike with each other than the general public.
Check again. The Democrats are the majority in the house. Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker. I know it’s hard to tell the difference anymore.
“I know it’s hard to tell the difference anymore.”
That’s because there isn’t one.
Two separate funding arms of the same, “loot and pillage”, party makes for a profitable little plutocracy.
Vote harder ! I’m pretty sure that’ll fix it………..
Wait…I thought Donald J. Trump was a peacenik non-interventionist who was going to pull all those boys off of foreign walls and get ’em home. WTF happened? This is of course rhetorical.
It’s certainly all about rhe Benjamins in this case. If we let them get away with providing the pilots to destroy downtown NY, then we have lost all illusions of self interest, and have been shown a country whose leaders must be more loyal to easy money than any thoughts of what is best for America or the American People….!!!!!!!!
Peace nick with No.2 in thermonuclear possession & means to deliver. Not necessarily so with lesser power (s)..
Clinton had “confront Ruaaia” as an item in her platform.. l don’t know about you, but I don’t want to go out drinking with the guy/lady that tells me “I plan to CONFRONT the biggest toughest GUY in the bar..” To me I seems like a good way to get lunged in the face with the broken end of a beer bottle, lose an eye, ot take a captain’s chair smash on the knoggin.. Better Hillary should have stuck to the weak that can’t end life as we know it. Maybe she could have won… but… She was out to show the world that she and women are tougher and badder than any man.. A dangerous witch.. “We came. We saw. He died” cackle, cackle, cackle, cackle. What a witch…..!!!!!!!
I’m still a little confused; is the constitutional ‘technicality’ here that the resolution / War Powers Act has no teeth here because this is a war that we’re only ‘supervising’ and not actually fighting in? Otherwise there is a clear absurdity in Trump asserting presidential authority to perpetuate something that neither he nor Obama had any right to do in the first place… What am I missing? Or was the resolution simply a symbolic one, whose purpose was just to signal broader opposition to US involvement generally, and Congress knew all along that it was not actionable in any immediate sense?
What this all signals is vast corruption and conspiracy with the big money.. It’s the Benjamins…
Anybody still believes in this two party nonsense? We have two CORPORATIONS in business of managing “democracy”, a theater with actors fullfilling their res on lical or natiknal stage, all with the purpose of delivering goods to their paying clients (other corporations, financial cartels, political lobbies, wealthy individuals. All candidates must audition (primaries) for their role, and if the audience (.voter) buys their act, corporation will then sponsore their election. If an individual gets public approval, and thinks he has a mandate to change the corporate direction, he is soon disabused of the notion. Obama was nailed even before convention, while Trump was obstinent enough to last a bit linger. But both corporations worked together to corner him, and now it is done, To get the bipartisan Mueller probe concluded, Trump had wholesale capitulated. Pull back on Korea, green light to neocon supremo, Abrams, to move against Venezuela. Digging heels in Syria, not getying out of Iraq, even after asked politely. Spoke has been put in the wheels of Afghan peace process. Agressjve mibilization of rent-a-crowds in Sudan. Trump has to eat it. A d smile while both vote-manufacturing corporations shove s—t in his face.
But let them.
Trump may be just birn under lucky star, as all the tenfold agression would have one result — a one way ticket for many countries in the Rusdia-China orbit. Saudus included.
I f**king love Tulsi Gabbard.
It’s ridiculous that this is the object of debate when it has so little US involvement. AND the war would just continue with Saudi forces. It’s almost like the congress is using this as a shell game distraction to lure people away from more troubling conflicts. Hmm.