On Friday, the Senate fell short of the votes needed to add language blocking a US war on Iran to the new military spending bill. The amendment required 60 votes to be added, but fell short of that.
The amendment sought to preempt any Trump Administration attack on Iran by defunding any war on Iran that was not previously authorized by Congress. Similar language was included in the House version of the bill.
This vote comes amid repeated comments from Trump Administration officials suggesting that attacking Iran is being considered. Trump has also insisted, repeatedly that he does not believe he needs Congressional approval to wage war.
Even without the amendment in the spending bill, the law still clearly requires Congressional authorization. The US Constitution solely empowers Congress to declare war, and the War Powers Act similarly requires an authorization for the use of military force before any offensive war.
And yet, without this amendment, US law may not matter so much. If President Trump ultimately does illegally attack Iran, it would still put the onus on the Senate to try to do something about it, and if they don’t have the votes now, they probably still won’t have the votes after it starts.
Recent votes on the similarly unauthorized US involvement in the Yemen War has proven a test case on attempts to check presidential power. Even though War Powers Act challenges to the Yemen conflict passed both houses of Congress, they did not get a veto-proof majority, and subsequently President Trump vetoed Congressional oversight, which has so far meant the war could continue.
It must be great to live in the most vibrant democracy in the world. With any luck Trump, Pompeo and Bolton may ensure no countries survive except the USA and Israel.
Only one of those countries in indispensable to Trump, Netanyahu, Bolton and Pompeo.
“Only one of those countries in indispensable to Trump…”
Catchy line, and there is an element of truth to it, however, I don’t believe Trump, for instance, would actually like to live in Israel. It is important to him that he have a safe community to live in, far away from the likelihood of terrorism. The fact that he is too stupid to realize that his actions may bring more terrorism to the US is beside the point. He honestly wouldn’t know what to do without million dollar mansions and armed guards.
No kidding they won’t have the votes. They’re owned and operated by Israel and the military-industrial complex, the oil companies and the banks. The same “perfect storm” of support they had for the Iraq war.
The Iran war is a done deal. Nothing and no one – short of some other geopolitical crisis – can stop it.
Agree. They WILL have votes should Donald try to wiggle out.
It is a perfect storm indeed. But this time they are after Russia, and everybody knows it.
Hillary wanted to go on Iran and establish control over Caspian. Nothing has changed. Except Russian and Chinese weapons. Will we stay safe thus time around?
Once again Congress proves to be as useful for the general public as a ping pong table for a spider monkey. Of course they don’t want to go on record for anything related to war so they can lie about whether or not they supported it later depending how it goes. Just another gutless betrayal and shirking of responsibility.
Or, their weren’t enough Democrats in the Senate to pass it. Why ? Because idiot warmongering Amerikan voters keep the rethuglicans in there. Love how even thug mconnell has started using TDS as reason for opposition to the facists.
“[there] weren’t enough Democrats”
So the fact that, for instance, Senators Lee and Paul are Republicans meant their yes votes don’t count? Honestly, your belief somehow that being a Democrat automatically makes one more peace loving than being a Republican is as painful to me as the opposite perspective from JR. We don’t need more Democrats, what we need are more advocates of peace, regardless of party. Focus on what a person stands for, not what party they belong to.
Look at the current crop of Democratic presidential candidates. Exactly how many of them would you consider to be advocates of a peaceful foreign policy? I can think of only two who qualify by my definition (Gabbard and Gravel). A Democrat can sell you down the river just as fast as a Republican can, and statistics mean squat as far as the actual qualities a specific legislator possesses. Focus on party interferes with the ability to actually discern where someone stands on the issue of war and peace. Can’t you see that partisanship is the very reason most Republicans voted “no”? And you think that Democratic partisanship is the solution?
It’s not complicated, I just look at how many vote yes and no on war. Its arithmetic. If you can show me the votes going the other way, I will promote the Republican party.
I seem to recall 225 House Republicans voted against authorising the attack on Libya. Only 70 Democrats went along with that resolution.
Should we infer that the GOP is anti war based on that vote? Nope. Democrats and Republicans : “wings of the same bird of prey”.
The only way to stop the carnage is to deny DC the resources to engage in these interventions.
“I seem to recall 225 House Republicans voted against [authorizing] the attack on Libya. Only 70 Democrats went along with that resolution.”
Exactly. And don’t forget the war in Kosovo. What Dave doesn’t realize or doesn’t have the honesty to acknowledge, is that the disparity in votes is largely a partisan phenomenon, with Democrats supporting a Democratic President’s wars, and Republicans supporting a Republican President’s wars.
And he completely glossed over my point, that even if statistically it is more likely for a Democrat to support peace than a Republican, it tells you ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about how a particular legislator will vote. Democratic partisanship is no better than Republican partisanship. Partisanship is the PROBLEM, not the solution.
I am consistent on this issue. While I technically am a member of the Libertarian Party, and many times prefer their candidates, I will not vote for one just because he or she has an “L” after their name. You have to look at a candidate’s actual positions before supporting or opposing them.
I will check the Libya vote. The Kosovo vote was not on party lines. The bulk of GOP opposition was based on Clinton’s military commitment was not massive enough, so they voted against. Same happened in Korea. Of course you will find dem failures, never said you wouldn’t.
On Libya….the arab spring was a ME wide protest and revolt that led to civil wars across the region. The Obama administration decision to intervene was a terrible decision. The GOP, prior to that intervention, heavily criticized Obama for doing nothing, led by GOP mouthpiece Gingrich. Senate resolution 102 of 3/16/11 called for a Libya no fly zone, and recognition of the Libyan transitional government (regime change). It was introduced by GOP senators Lieberman, Graham, Blunt, and Rubio. No dems. Obama’s air strikes began weeks later under NATO. 4 days after Obama committed to what the GOP wanted, Gingrich made his speech condemning Obama for “starting another war”, which continues to this day, on this page. The GOP mendacity is revolting.
“It was introduced by GOP senators Lieberman, Graham, Blunt, and Rubio.”
In this universe, Lieberman was never a GOP Senator.
And none of them are “conservative”
“Lieberman was never a GOP Senator.”
I am not certain, but wasn’t he a Democrat who switched to Independent when he lost the primary?
He was a Democrat until he lost a primary, after which he formed his very own “third party” (“Connecticut for Lieberman”) to win the general election over the guy who beat him in the primary. After which he went back to being a Democrat in all but name.
I listed Lieberman as GOP because that is what the Congressional Record has him listed on that resolution in 2011. Tho, If I have remembered incorrectly, not hard to confuse Lieberman as a card carrying GOP man.
“The GOP mendacity is revolting.”
I wholeheartedly agree with you. Gingrich is the worst of the worst. He is a big government conservative who has the gall to call his lobbying efforts, for which he gets paid a tidy sum, “free enterprise.”
I restate, the dems are no “peace party” they are bipolar war supporters where the GOP is straight up psychotic. There are better ways of condemning dem war responsibility than thru authorizations, or, “the dems want to attack Russia”…worthless arguments. Antagonism of Russia is born of the need to audaciously spend our way into sustainability oblivion through the neverending arms race. In this, the parties are certainly the same. Comes to this, ignoring 3rd party improbability, which major party is more likely to establish a viable antiwar faction ?
Are you responding to the correct comment? I thought I was agreeing with you. I was not, in any fashion being sarcastic. Gingrich is definitely the worst of the worst.
Not sure, responses got jumbled, I think we are agreeing on Gingrich. Tho I don’t consider him “conservative” in a classical sense. “Conservative” is another modern vocabulary casualty like “gay”, and “Christian”
‘Tho I don’t consider him “conservative”‘
I use “conservative” here in a totally pejorative fashion. I define it as someone who hypocritically preaches about fiscal restraint in the federal government, yet works overtime to increase spending through the roof, particularly for the MIC and big business. In addition, there is the xenophobic element, although you are correct that Gingrich is not quite as bad on this as conservatives such as Donald Trump.
“If you can show me the votes going the other way, I will promote the Republican party.”
You miss the whole point. I don’t want you to promote the Republican party. I want you to carefully examine the positions of each candidate, and make your decision whether or not to support them based on that examination, REGARDLESS OF PARTY.
Your slavish devotion to the Democratic party, applied to the entire electorate, is exactly the problem here. The actual leadership of the Democratic Party is just as warmongering and plutocratic at that of the Republican party. It is the individual candidate’s positions we should focus on. That is the ONLY thing that matters.
It is strange that you were outraged at JR’s partisanship toward Republicans, while yours toward Democrats is just the mirror image. It’s just like Pompeo’s or Pence’s belief in killing innocent people being justified because they think that their God has ordered it, being no different in principle from that of Islamic terrorists thinking the same thing. The only difference is in what name they give to their God. Think about it.
“outraged at JRs partisanship toward Republicans ” yes, because this is an antiwar page. Congress makes wars, not the president. The GOP has been the perveyor of war by Congressional authorization. I have done the research, and posted it here, several times. The disparity is large, and obvious. Do the research yourself. Would you agree followers of this page are partisan towards antiwar ? Of course we are. Partisanship is part of the mathematics of political science, especially in a democracy. The fact that a couple GOP congressman voted against war is great, but they are a tiny part of the party. Many here delude that these votes don’t matter. They don’t matter because they lose, they lose because the GOP votes to make them lose. Simple as that. No deep state, no well, your guy is president, no they voted against war because they knew it would lose. Judgement and arithmetic.
It’s not so much that the voters are idiots, it’s that they are lied to and tricked by the greatest minds of our generation. While gerrymandering is less of a factor for the senate, huge campaign finance loopholes mean the richest get to shout lies the loudest, anonymously. Wealthy districts have short lines at the polls, poor minority districts have huge lines. Etc etc. And the more everyone knows how rigged the game is, the less anyone bothers to vote or donate to a candidate that really stands for what they want.
Democrats ARE the warmongers in Congress today. Their aim is Russia — nothing new.
Thank you Bianca for illustrating my point.
“Democrats ARE the warmongers in Congress today.”
And Republicans. Members of both parties are guilty.
Once again, ,,,,, the power of AIPAC bribes and rich Democratic Senators receiving nice, fat, stock price increases from Lockheed, Raytheon, etc.
The official breakdown:
https://www.congress.gov/116/crec/2019/06/28/CREC-2019-06-28-pt1-PgS4669.pdf
Another “Enabling Act”/.
Trump war on Iran is Trump war on himself and his ultimate defeat for his re-election!
Of course! They threatened to take his power away when it looked like he was backing off. Now, that he is back being his threatening self, no problem. Watch it -/ the moment he goes soft, Congress will be back to take his powers away!
Whatever titanic and demonic forces are pushing this country into wars — are at it AGAIN. This time, they intend to WIN. There is a tiny problem there. Caspian is the heart of Eurasian integration and energy flows. It is where Russian fleet is.
And Russian frigate off US coast in Cuba, loaded with both cruise missiles, and anti-missile defense.
We just cannot stop ourselves — come what may.