In a 357-22 vote on Tuesday, the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to pass the NATO Support Act, which expressed Congressional support for the alliance and forbids any funding for any move by the US to withdraw from NATO.
One of the first bills pushed through the new Democratic-majority House, the vote saw every single voting Democrat, 208 of them, voting in favor. Only 22 Republicans voted against the bill. 54 representatives didn’t vote at all.
That reflects the scramble to get this vote quickly into the books and passed. Indeed, the bill went so fast from introduction to passage that the text of the bill was not even available on the Congressional website yet.
The bill is intended as a companion to a bipartisan Senate version which would forbid any effort by the president to withdraw from NATO without Senate approval. It does not appear the House version provides a mechanism for approval, however, instead just making staying in NATO an absolute requirement.
Decades after the end of the Cold War, the need for NATO is increasingly questioned in some circles, though among political leadership in both parties, there is little appetite to question such a long-standing alliance.
Reports from last week that President Trump had, before last year’s July NATO summit suggested withdrawing from NATO, seems to be driving these bills. Many lawmakers are eager to present any anti-NATO stance by Trump, however tentative it may be, as reflective of some Russia-driven agenda, and that makes them all the more eager to codify the current status quo as an immutable part of US law.
While seen by many lawmakers as a great way to spite the president, the commitment to NATO could ultimately prevent some key debates on the future of the alliance, and more importantly on whether the US should commit itself to potentially calamitous wars on behalf of every tiny state the alliance has recently absorbed.
So the very first thing the Dumbocrats do is vote for more war spending. And they wonder why the left is leaving the party in droves.
They didn’t vote for more war spending. They voted to say that the House demands that the USA remain in NATO, which is merely a weak thumb in the eye of Trump, or something. Emphasis on Weak. While you can argue that a demand to remain in NATO necessarily means war spending, it’s not like the Pentagon’s budget hasn’t kept increasing no matter which party holds the purse strings.
Um, but does the Pentagon exist to support NATO or NATO to support the Pentagon?
Original missions of the two putative separate organizations notwithstanding.
They both exist to support the MIC, pure and simple. And any military activity that NATO participates in at the urging of the Neocons, Israel, Allies, or The Deep State is just a bonus revenue supplement to baseline spending.
I can’t think of one good thing NATO has done for the last 30 or 40 years . I can think of a lot of countries NATO has attacked without good reason . Either congress does not know what has been going on . Or the U.U. congress is opposed to Shrinking the empire and any long lasting possibility of peace .
When we began to see the hostile, armed aggressions of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization showing up in places like Afghanistan and Libya we knew.
marchonpentagon.com
The party that is funded by Wall Street can’t be expected to represent Main Street.
That goes for both of them.
War machine a complete bipartisan deal.
House Votes Overwhelmingly to Bar US Exit From NATO
I presume this vote includes Ocasio Cortez the media bright shiny new “rebel” and Tulsi Gabbard?…and we all know how committed Sanders is to peace….Frauds the lot of them
Sanders is a senator. He’s not a member of the House. The other two, however, are simply cashing in with a party line vote on a bill that is a meaningless waste of time.
Not meaningless if the Senate passes the same bill. Any guesses on how Sanders will vote on that? He will either duck the vote, orhe will vote for it.
The Democrat party is returning to it’s pro war and interventionist roots to lead the war party in DC. They want a larger share of the wealth looted from the American people.
It’s time the American people wake up, rise up and tell these slimy creatures, “Hell, no! Not today, not tomorrow, not ever!!” We won’t support such treachery on their part. They’re nothing more than cowards and traitors.
As Vic Pittman said, NATO stands for Nuclear Armed Terror Organization, and she’s 100% correct. It should’ve been dismantled simultaneously with the Warsaw Pact, but the late POTUS George H. W. Bush lied to and betrayed then Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev and began the eastward movement of this terrorist organization.
Of course. Actually the American people should have put a stop to this a long time ago. Thing is “our” government and “our” representatives aren’t. DC is run by gangs of special interests. Their control is aided and abetted by a educational system that is increasingly more indoctrination than education. Once people escape the school system, they are handed off to a media controlled by the same special interest gangs that run DC.
I hope you’re right Eileen. And I do appreciate those that have strong minds and are able to see through the deception.
You are right about Ocasio Cortez and Tlaib.
BUT you are wrong about Gabbard – she did not vote. Better to vote NO like the libertarians Amash (the first and only Palestinian American in Congress) and Massie. But it is far better than a YES vote – it reflects, I bet, a way between Party pressure and conscience.
Sanders has played this ‘no vote’ shell game for years! It’s a ploy. And it works every time. Those votes are purely symbolic/meaningless.
Ocasio Cortez and Tlaib are among those voting YES.
BUT Tulsi Gabbard did not vote – not as good as libertarians like Amash and Massie – but certainly a refusal to bend to Party pressure. She remains far and away the best of the Dem candidates.
God save us from any WW3 started as a result of such a stupid, dangerous and wasteful move. But if it does I want to see a missile reserved for everyone of these SOBs.
“The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout “Save us!” and I’ll whisper “No.”
– Rorschach’s Journal. October 12th, 1985
Just call it the “Preserving The Empire Act.”
Congress is filled with slime.
Because Hitler.
So what happens when the EU dumps Nato?
I wish the EU would dump NATO .. it’s nothing but the Nuclear Armed Terror Organization, of which the late POTUS George H. W. Bush had used to betray his Russian counterpart, Mikhail Gorbachev, and dissolve the USSR altogether.
If the EU were to do this, NATO would be finished, and Russia wouldn’t have to be so concerned with having to defend its borders.
Well, Trump’s demand that the rest of NATO spend the required 2% of GDP on defense has them bitching, moaning and bickering among themselves. If that process accelerates the alliance could ultimately collapse on its own. Imagine the wailing and teeth-gnashing from the Deep State if that happened!
Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia will never dump NATO . These NAZI countries want us to attack Russia for them .
It isn’t up to them. Jimmy Carter (all by himself) abrogated the Taiwan-US Mutual Defense Treaty in 1979, that Congress had enacted in 1954.
Even when Congress is involved in Treaties, it’s the Senate that must ratify NEW Treaties, not the House.
It’s knee-jerk and mostly pointless anti-Trump dogma, not surprising but also not the note I wanted the Dems to start on. The main problem is the gap between the theory of NATO:
“Article 1 states that: The Parties undertake, as set forth in the
Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in
which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that
international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to
refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force
in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.” And goes on to describe its role as purely defensive.
And the way NATO has been used in practice, including for aggression which had nothing to do with a NATO country being attacked.
Remember NATO involving itself in Clinton’s Wag-The-Dog War despite no member being attacked? One of NATO’s generals inadvertently told the truth when he said it was “an alliance in search of a mission.”
Why would they have to spend money to leave NATO? Leaving NATO will save money, not cost money.
NATO …Nuclear Armed Terror Organization
That’s a brilliant one, Vic, I like it, and would like to use it anytime there’s a comment on NATO. You spoke the truth .. Bravo!!!
Probably just insuring trump doesnt pull out of yet another treaty he doesn’t understand. Nothing stopping the US from slashing funding to NATO, or adjusting it’s missions and deployments.
Read Section 4; its fairly broad and S4.2 prohibits anything that could be interpreted as a ‘de facto’ withdrawal.
Basically, Congress just drafted America into NATO.
“SEC. 4. Statement of policy.
It is the policy of the United States—
(1) to remain a member in good standing of NATO;
(2) to reject any efforts to withdraw the United States from NATO, or to indirectly withdraw from NATO by condemning or reducing contributions to NATO structures, activities, or operations, in a manner that creates a de facto withdrawal;
(3) to continue to work with NATO members to meet their 2014 Wales Defense Investment Pledge commitments; and
(4) to support robust United States funding for the European Deterrence Initiative, which increases the ability of the United States and its allies to deter and defend against Russian aggression.
The United State and its allies want to defend against Russian aggression But just who is going to defend Russia against NATO aggression ?
Russians, mostly, the patriotic nationalists with the help of China, India, and Iran providing economic and diplomatic support. They have a shared enlightened self-interest against NATO.
The Soviets failed at Mackinder because without capitalist price discovery – politically as democracy and economically as free markets – there is no way to allocate resources efficiently. However, that the Soviet Union did survive, seems to validate Mackinder. Now that they do have passable facsimiles of both, Russia should be able to compete at a far higher level.
Russia can’t defeat the West as an aggressor, though Russia could easily defeat a conventional NATO invasion. More germane to the point, Russia has so far shrugged off the economic and cultural war.
Whoa… Congress just drafted America into NATO… or tried to anyway.
Wonder how this would affect the Syria pullout… the motion has to pass the Senate and the President, but still…
https://www.congress. gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/676
But reneging on the Iran nuke deal is just fine by these stalwarts.
A complete revision of National Security Policy is urgently needed. Dump the Wolfowitz doctrine, which is basically a Pax Americana by the Imperium which calls for the American jackboot poised above or smashing down on any who refuse American domination.
If as some experts in strategic affairs hold axiomatic, the basis of military power is economic power, then China will in short order become the dominant military power on the planet, notwithstanding the fond delusion of eternal US dominance. If the axiom holds, and the US does not choose the alternative solution of neutralizing the rise of China by nuclear annihilation, then a solution to the problem could be found in a global program of demilitarization. Humanity — and the US — could find long term security if such an effort were to be proposed and implemented before China has achieved the economic means to military superiority. Solve the curse of militarism and the threat of nuclear annihilation in one stroke.
Ever the optimist.
I wholeheartedly agree, yomama. A total revision of National Security Policy’s urgently needed. Dump the evil Wolfowitz doctrine, which, as you rightly said, basically a Pax Americana by the Imperium which calls for the US jackboot poised above or smashing down on any who refuse US domination.
Indeed, if as some experts in strategic affairs hold axiomatic, the basis of military power is economic power, then China will in short order become the dominant military power on the planet, notwithstanding the fond delusion of eternal dominance. If the axiom holds, and the US doesn’t choose the alternative solution of neutralizing the rise of China by nuclear annihilation, then a solution to the problem could be found in a global program of demilitarization. Humanity .. and the US .. could find long term security if such an effort were to be proposed and implemented before China has achieved the economic means to military superiority. Solve the curse of militarism and the threat of nuclear annihilation in one stroke.
“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” ~ Georges Santayana, Spanish writer and historian
Its not even to the end of January and Rashida Tlaib(already starting to sound like Hillary) has already sold out to one of the chief enablers of the oppression of the Palestinians and AOC sells out in favor of one of the biggest fossil fuel users and greenhouse gas producers on the planet. The other members are paid off to do it. These two(among others) did it for free! Maybe the MIC and the zionists will give them a pat on the head.
“Decades after the end of the Cold War, the need for NATO is increasingly questioned in some circles” — there is something ditzy about that statement.
To many countries NATO looks to be trying to take over like the NAZI tried to do .
or the Japanese. Instead of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere it is the Worldwide Co-Prosperity Sphere.
Amazing. This House like others before it, is garbage.
Democrats come out for the permanent war state and against any peace dividend from the end of the Cold War. Why?
First, many are warmongers. See Hillary.
Second, anything Trump does they oppose. End any wars? Oppose. Prevent a nuclear war? Oppose. If Trump blunders into doing the right thing, they oppose.
100% correct about Hillary (who badgered Bill into getting involved in the Yugoslavia civil war). She was Dick Cheney in drag.
I thought the Executive Branch was responsible for making and breaking alliances?
LOL. Of course Trump is not going to try such a move, just because he mentioned it-after all, he pretends and convinces weak minds that he wants good relations with Russia, yet look at the results.
Without the USA, NATO would collapse, and a good thing too. NO way will this happen.
Pelosi Galore & Co. are the latest proof that Eisenhower should have stuck to his guns and said “military-industrial-Congressional complex” in his farewell address.
It’s not going to be these w h o r e s in Congress sons who will be fighting these Wars. That will fall to the working class as usual.