A trillion dollars.
And yet children and babies are sleeping on concrete floors.
No mattresses. No beds. The men have to beg for water.
And the women have handfuls of tampons tossed at them by male guards.
Yes.
I suspect we are going to need two, or maybe even three TRILLION DOLLARS a year, every year as we become the most despised country in the world.
Democrats: THIS is how you lose credibility.
And, Republicans: You lost your credibility long ago.
3
It is very likely that the contested drone did violate Iranian air space despite the protests of this administration. You have so many liars ensconced in this administration that it is very difficult to believe anything they say. What is strange indeed is that when the cruel Shah reigned in Iran this country was willing and able to encourage the Iranians to develop nuclear weapons.
4
“When Congress politicizes the National Defense Authorization Act, we are not worthy of the men and women who are defending us on the front lines today.” Liz Cheney
Spoken like a true Cheney, chicken hawks every last one of them.
Any member of Congress who supports US involvement in wars abroad should be required to put on the uniform and go serve in that foreign war if they have never been in the military. That might make them a little leery of being so hung-ho with other peoples' children.
Tom Krebsbach
Vietnam veteran
11
The Bill is DOA. The U.S., Israel and Saudi Arabia march on inexorably to war. It is far easier for the U.S. to service its $ 6.4 trillion foreign debt and maintain the Petrodollar, for Israel to complete its grand larceny of Palestine, and for the Wahhabis to continue spreading their Islamic virus across the globe, without the countervailing presence of Iran.
Let me remind those suffering from amnesia:
1. Iran was the first nation to send formal condolences for 9/11, while many Arabs and Pakistanis were celebrating by shooting rifles in the air.
2. Iran was the only Middle Eastern nation to assist the U.S. in defeating the Taleban in October/November 2001.
3. Iran has over 200 churches and synagogues, with Christian and Jewish MPs.
4. Iran prevented U.S.-/Saudi-backed ISIS from overrunning Iraq and Syria. If they had succeeded they would also have captured Iran, and then ISIS would have turned on its backers (colonial U.S., Zionist Israel and the decadent Saudi royals).
It is a strange and sad world in which the only concern of the U.S. government is defending its currency at the cost of millions of lives (including American). That's why the Bill is DOA.
4
Representative Liz Cheney,mentioned in the article, is the ultimate chicken hawk. She has never served a day in the military;as a woman,she is immune from the draft;and she is descended from a multiple deferment (i.e.draft dodger)father,Dick Cheney.
6
This is literally the sound of one hand clapping.
Why are you reporting on something that has no chance of surviving conference as if it’s meaningful?
Please, humor us and do some real reporting every once-in-a-while.
2
Politics and warmongering aside: It is the called the "Persian Gulf" - not "Arabian Sea".
1
$733 BILLION!
Ask yourself the following questions:
1. How many roads & bridges could be repaired or built with this?
2. How many schools could be built?
3. How homeless people could have shelter?
4. How quickly could Flint's water issue be solved?
5. How many hospitals could be built?
6. How many poor people be helped?
7. How many children could we feed?
8. How many people would be able to get affordable healthcare?
9. How many lives could be saved?
9
Unfortunately, Congress is as dysfunctional as Trump. Everything is party or faction oriented. Nothing for America.
3
Perhaps the Democrats should pull a Republican move. You know: accuse Republicans of not supporting the military because they voted against the bill. Because if the situation were reversed - that’s exactly what the Republicans would be doing.
5
It is a mistake to cast these restrictions on a mentally unstable person like Donald Trump for starting a war as a liberal/conservative issue. It is a matter of national security and common sense.
6
The notion that Iran is either aggressive or a threat is ludicrous. Our foreign policy has been led by self serving special interests for too many decades. American energy should be spent on our own house keeping, not mass murdering foreigners under false assumptions.
15
And if Trump violates this, Pelosi will find another reason that “the time is not right” to impeach.
The House and White House play by totally different rules, and by the time the White House acts, the House will just be getting out of bed.
Trump is an unhinged threat the likes of which this nation has never seen. The House under Pelosi is incapable of responding to the 45-alarm fire on its doorstep.
When our nation is finally destroyed, Pelosi can tell herself that at least the House stayed polite and didn’t make anyone mad at them.
6
In all seriousness, the US has intervened militarily in fewer foreign nations under Trump than under any president in my lifetime. He is admittedly by temperament the president I most fear will bring us to the point of nuclear war, but he is far less of an interventionist or war monger than any president in the modern era. What congress is doing here is theater, and they would be better off just figuring out how to get Trump a replacement for John Bolton.
2
@Middleman MD
Trump's neocons are punishing countries all over the world. This could erupt in WW3 at any time, while the stock market will simultaneously crash as it's being propped up with massive borrowing. We are on the cusp of disaster, and I expect Bolton will push us over the edge. There is no getting rid of him as Trump is a blackmailed puppet of the neocon junta that actually runs our foreign policy.
5
Before the Senate agrees to the House version, Mitch McConnell and his fellow Republicans will check with Trump to see if there's any money in the deal for Trump,McConnell and the Republican party. In other words, can they make money from the deal for themselves. Stop this charade and just follow the money for Trump.
6
In a rather naive autobiography, John Kerry expressed surprise that he wasn't welcomed with open arms when he returned to the US, in uniform, after his tour in Vietnam.
Earth to John Kerry! By the time you returned from Vietnam, the vast majority of Americans were strongly opposed to that War -- not only the sign-carrying college kids, but their conservative parents too. You were utterly naive to have expected a hero's welcome, much less to have worn your uniform on the plane.
I've noticed a revival lately of "respect" (glorification, really) for soldiers who "served" in the Vietnam War. I confess to acquiring respect for their service, but not to the point of the recently voguish worship that others are giving them. I'm especially amazed to see Vietnam-War soldiers glorified by the "liberal" children of Americans who, 50 years ago, strongly opposed the Vietnam War.
I understand the rationale -- "any enemy of Trump is a friend of mine" -- but are there no limits? Does that rationale really lead you to glorify (and that's what I'm seeing) the same soldiers that your parents once vilified? I agree that the time has come for those soldiers to stop being shamed. But that doesn't mean that John Kerry gets to wear his uniform on the plane ride home and be cheered for his service when he lands. In other words, it's time for those Vietnam-War soldiers to climb out from under the rocks which we once demanded they crawl under, but not OK for those soldiers to pound their chests.
2
Anyone who does not vote against Trump from starting another war, should be considered guilty if any lives are lost. The Evangelicals have lost their religion when it comes to Trump. Very sad. Trump will do anything to change the subject. Anything to try and make himself a hero or appear strong. He is a sociopath and a cruel man.
8
I agree entirely with this reader:
"I frankly am not impressed by a provision that the president asks Congress [before going to war]... I thought that was in the Constitution."
It is, and Congress long ago passed (and the President signed) a law repeating that Constitutional mandate. As that law allows, the President may act on his or her own in the short term, but must thereafter get Congress' permission to continue hostilities
As best I can tell, nobody's ever sought to enforce that law, much less the Constitutional mandate that only Congress may declare war. To his credit, Obama asked twice for Congress to OK hostilities -- once in Libya in 2011, and a second time in Syria in 2013. Congress declined both times (though it did grant limited authorization in 2011).
Presidents know that Senators and Representatives will be reluctant to approve any military action that might become unpopular in retrospect, and so Presidents largely keep on doing what they've done for decades: wage war when and where they please, without getting Congress' permission or even asking for it.
The new law wouldn't change that long-standing practice. Transparently, the House hopes to humiliate Trump when he and the Senate fail to support it. "Private Bone Spur" is doomed to become "Private War Monger" for a while, even though it was Trump who declined recently to attack Iran. Clinton would have -- maybe she'd have sent some of the troops she'd have previously ordered into Syria.
The issue of going to war in the Constitution was written in the day of breech loading, single fire muskets and troops that marched to battles. We now have drones and cruise misses that can strike anywhere in a matter of minutes without putting troops in harm’s way. More than that, the threat of nuclear conflicts have made any action by a deliberative body moot in that case.
But, what was understood clearly by our founders is that the use of our military in war is something that needs to have the support of the citizens’ representatives through their sole Constitutional authority to declare war. Otherwise, the military could be used as the president’s private army.
When members of Congress have to vote on whether we put our troops in harm’s way, it follows them. Notice the Iraq War vote and its role in the primaries since then. When Congress delegates it’s duty to the Executive branch, it bypasses the accountability for holding a vote, which is cheating the American people of a key element of our representative democracy.
I grew up during Vietnam, an undeclared war we got into under false pretenses. So, I was anti military because we were in a bloody war on the other side of the world that our Congress didn’t declare. It was hard to see how killing a million people there had anything to do with our security. I joined the military after convincing myself that I was swearing an oath to the Constitution, not an administration.
I wish I could be that sanguine now.
3
@Scott Keller
In that case since everything has radically changed, lets tear up the constitution. The authors of the constitution could not possibly have conceived of the world we live in today. The saving grace of the constitution is that it serves as an enduring guideline as to what government is all about.
A bit off message, but I feel obliged to ask. How is it we have money for things like this, which are no doubt very important, but not for programs to help the poor, or shore up Social Security and Medicare? Inquiring minds want to know.
5
"[T]he majority of his [Republican] conference ... castigated the notion of limiting the president’s military options against an antagonistic nation." That is exactly why they must be limited. The President must not be allowed to initiate an attack. Even FDR had to get Congressional approval _after_ an attack. That's not "good" enough for war-crazy Republicans.
2
'...the main objection of Republicans to the defense bill was that it does not allocate enough money to the Defense Department.'
The bill allocated around a trillion dollars (Australian) to defence, and it's not enough??
3
Clauwitz: War is politics by other means. Once Trump left the Iran Nuclear Deal, nothing substituted for it. There is no American strategy at the moment and the end game is war. It is a total failure.
5
If Congress thinks they can do a better job, why would they approve the invasion of Iraq with a vote of 296 to 133 including 81 Democrats? This single act not only depletes trillions of our treasury, displaces tens of millions of people, decimated millions of lives including thousands of our soldiers but also cause the rise of Iran and destabilize the balance of power in the region to the detriment of the interest of the US. Worst of all, it also accelerates the decline of this great Empire.
3
Another sane legislative act without the support of a single Republican. What is the future for a nation whose legislators vote strictly along party lines on virtually every issue? The mind reels.
4
The man has no grownup sense. Boxing him in is the only way to prevent a stupid move on his part.
4
The $733 billion National Defense Authorization Act was passed along strict party lines? Well GOOD! Catatonic Republicans are just laying out the talking points for every House member's biennial justification of their voting records and paychecks (particularly challenging for 2020), and it'll likely help some long-incommunicado Senate Republican's who haven't shown a sign of life for three years -- except to occasionally bleat or bray, "noooooooo".
Question: if the House keeps sending back that bill, and the Senate keeps stripping it, who would the public blame in case the military stops being funded?
Might be tricky, but democrats could have a shot.
1
“It’s shameful. They’re failing fundamentally to uphold our constitutional duty, and they’re failing in the most important thing we do, which is be worthy of the sacrifice of those men and women who put on the uniform and go to protect all of us,”
As one who was involved in a previous war (Vietnam) where Congress gave away its power to declare war and thereby gave an administration a blank check to fight that war, I support what the House is trying to do. Also, with both Concerned Veterans for America and VoteVets in support of the measure, it is hard to see how the bill is so fundamentally flawed as Ms. Cheney says. Perhaps if Ms. Cheney (or any of her immediate family) had ever served in the military, she might understand a bit more about the reality of war and sacrifices made by our military. I have had enough friends and colleagues make the ultimate sacrifice in war to know directly the cost.
I find it interesting that of the three presidents this century, the one to actually authorize the mission that brought down the mastermind of the greatest attack against America was the least bellicose.
2
Well if Liz Cheney is against this legislation, it tells you how good it is.
She -- like her father who shamefully bragged about dogging the Vietnam War but as Vice President lied to get us into the 2nd Iraq War on outright lies and deceit is nothing a loud chicken hawk.
When she enlists to go fight on the front lines I will listen to her. But until then, she is just pushing others to fight and die in needless wars.
The Democrats are absolutely right -- we have had too many meaningless and wasteful wars in recent years. None were fought in self defense.
Time to put a stop to the Republican madness of perpetual bullying and stupid wars.
3
Just as I thought, the headline to the story was a lie. This wasn't really a bipartisan bill. Essentially it was, Democrats for, Republicans against.
The bill will face an uphill battle in the GOP-led Senate. We might see Tom Cotton fighting tooth and nail to defend Trump’s power to wage war on Iran.
Hawkish Republicans have argued that the bill would send a message to Tehran that the US is divided, which could complicate Trump’s ability to respond to belligerence.
On June 28 the Senate failed to muster enough votes to approve a measure that would have required Trump to come to Congress before engaging militarily with Iran, except in self-defense.
In the Democratic-led House, the Iran issue was one of several that were vital to securing support from members of the party’s left, who had warned they might vote against the defence bill.
It remains to be seen whether the divisions among Democrats would persist.
Nevertheless eight Democrats opposed the bill, including the four members of “The Squad” who have sparred most openly with Pelosi: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib.
The House also voted against measures from Sylvia Garcia and AOC to prevent defence money and facilities from being used to house migrant children and undocumented immigrants.
It’s interesting to see how AOC handles this snub. If she can’t take it, then we would see more fissures within the party.
2
King Trump says he doesn't need congressional approval to start a war he promised would never happen. Great.
2
Can Congress stop Trump from ranting foreign policies and threats on Twitter? It weakens the USA and insults the frontline of intelligence and armed forces.
3
The Constitution already says the President must get authorization from Congress. Every President since Reagan has ignored the Constitution. The problem is that Republicans and conservative Democrats don’t believe in the US Constitution.
The House legislative move to assert its oversight powers and get back its long ceded authority over matters of war and peace is welcome and timely yet given a sharp polarisation at the Capitol Hill and divided nature of the Congress it is feared how this move will come to be executed?
1
Trump retains the powers to attack against a hostile act of Iran. He can interpret a statement say, an insult by the Shias, a news item about enrichment ... as hostile acts. Not to forget, he has discovered the pleasures of executive orders to override Congress and courts.
2
You can't give the Pentagon $733 billion and expect them not to start a war. They can only order so many $10,000 hammers and build so many $6 billion drones. Eventually a massively expensive war will be needed to burn all that money, and the neocon junta that rules this country with NSA blackmail will get the wars they wished for in their 2000 manifesto.
3
And it'll be ignored just like everything else...our country's being "ruled" not governed.
3
This should have been done decades ago. I guess it took the terrifying reality of a “stable genius” in the White House to remind Congress that no one person should have the power to drag the US into war.
1
Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution says:
The Congress shall have Power...
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;...
The authority to declare war and/or authorize non-retaliatory military action rest solely with the US Congress.
PERIOD! FULL STOP!
Period! Full Stop!
1
How many storms can we endure at once and for how long?
1
It's another example of The Trump Bonus! He's so despised that for the first time in ages congress moves to rein in an imperial president - after Congress willingly gave up their Constitutional responsibility as the sole declarers of war.
Isn't it wonderful? Hope this trend keeps up after Trump leaves office. I won't hold my breath...
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
1
Poor ol Dems, if it wasn't for President Trump they have nothing to do.
Not that congress saved us from the Iraq War, but at least there the administration, i.e. Dick Cheney had to provide a convincing lie. The Trump Administration doesn't seem capable of providing a convincing lie, so in this case congress might save us.
Speaking of Dick, see Liz Cheney's absurd remarks. Her family has done more harm to our men and women in the armed forces. Give me a break. The North Remembers!
1
The Blue dogs showed they were weak spined and Pelosi went along on the immigration bill. This kind of weakness must end.
I have one question Madam Speaker. If called to combat to protection the Constitution of the United States, freedom, democracy, justice and truth, would you step into harms way?
I believe you might. There comes a time when you have to state things in moral terms and what is happening on our boarders, what is happening with these efforts to stoke a war, they are not moral, they are not ethical and they are not what American is really about despite the current effort at global fascism by Putin and aligned oligarchs at home and abroad.
What do you intend to do to stand up to the criminals and enemies that are attempting to hijack and overthrow our commonwealth, our democracy and our free republic?
I don't care what you say nearly as much as what you plan to do. Please show me you are as heroic as some have suggested and stand as long as necessary to deliver justice, truth, and protection of all Americans.
Do that, and you will stand well with the source of all compassion and the Love that is God's will an America that can do better for all citizens. Robots don't need or want dish soap but they want to take over a lot of jobs. What's your position on that?
1
Liberal stamp. That's joke right? We'd be at war now in Syria and on the brink with Russia if HC had been elected. I can't see how anyone thinks that the Democrat party is anti-war. The Neo Cons rule the roost. Look a bit deeper into the background and positions of anti-Trump star Adam Schiff.
Not a single one of these spineless deplorable repulicans are worthy of holding office, for their lack of responsibility to the people that elected them to do their bidding not carry water for the dotard . They should all be replaced .
1
Bring back the draft.
What a waste of time.
O.K. so we have 3% inflation in pay for the troops and how much inflation in costs of development of WMD? How much more was this defense bill than the last one passed? (Come on == children, facts.)
I frankly am not impressed by a provision that the president asks Congress before... excuse, I thought that was in the Constitution.
Well, if we have a 3%,10 % whatever increase in the defense bill we need an equivalent raise in taxes to pay for it. So Congress goofs again... or now I am to be told it's illegal to raise income taxes or some such nonsense.
The people of the USA do not deserve what is in government... there are very few who's there.
5
As long as Trump is in the driver's seat and the Republicans will not take responsibility for his lawless, rampaging behavior, there is little hope of Congress taking control of anything. The Republican/Democrat division is far too fixed and exacerbated by Trump to repair it now. And the Democrats wining the presidency in 2020 will not be enough as long as McConnell is in control of the Senate. This is what happens when you cede power to one person but this lesson will be a painful one before Trump is out of office.
13
@Paul Raffeld The problem is with the Senate; it is Mitch McConnell
1
$733 Billion for one year 12 months ?
What’s really inside that package?
10
@Independent voter It does not make sens anymore, does it? Those figures are beyond the mind of a man....750,000,000,000,000.
Nothing surprises me anymore when it comes to the Congressional libs. If it was up to them we would have no American flags flying over their building. Their goal is to destroy President Trump and in doing so they are gradually denigrating the USA. I am hopeful that the Senate Republicans will resolve this issue. If not then the President must use his veto power.
3
following which, he will reclaim the Sudatenland and invade Poland. the bombing starts in 5 minutes. wait... is this thing on?
Denigrating the USA. Trump (with the help of the GOP) has done more to denigrate, embarrass, humiliate, and alienate our nation than anyone or any group in my 51 years.
1
So much for that Republican “Originalism.” Sounds like this bill would put us closer to the Constitution in foreign policy terms than we have been since 1947.
8
One might naively think that Democratic liberals protect us from war-mongering Republicans:
"Negotiations with the Senate will almost certainly result in a compromise ... that jettisons ... most ... amendments secured by House liberals."
Ah, if only Hillary Clinton were President! Surely then, we wouldn't be at war with Iran.
Are we? No, we're not -- remember? Trump chose NOT to attack Iran even though war-monger HRC would have.
The irony here is that this House measure was unnecessary for Trump, since he decided entirely on his own to do (i.e., not do) precisely what this bill calls for, whereas HRC -- for whom this bill would have been a necessary restraint -- would never have had to contend with it since the bill would never have been passed if she were President. After all, Hillary Clinton is "peaceful," even though she voted to support George W. Bush in his invasion of Iraq and, ever since then, has never met a Middle East war she didn't like.
Clinton has long been considered to be more "peaceful" than Trump -- based, it appears, on her opposition to the Vietnam War 50 years ago. Trump, in contrast, is always cast as the war monger -- even though he dodged the draft during the Vietnam War and elected (to the dismay of many Americans, including many members of his "base") NOT to attack Iran recently, despite the strong encouragement of his generals and many others.
If HRC were President, thousands of US troops would be in Syria, and we would have attacked Iran.
3
@Commenter
Everything you say is correct, and that's why most neocons defected to Hillary in 2016. But now they are back in force, and one of the authors of the 2000 neocon manifesto calling for an attack on Iran and other countries and wishing for a 9/11 to get it going is now running Trump as a puppet.
Trump supporters seem to fall back on invoking Hillary Clinton’s name every time Trump comes under fire, whether it’s relevant or not. If HRC was President, we would not have pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, and that action clearly escalated tension. Second, it’s pretty doubtful she would have brought in Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, the latter an unapologetic architect of the Iraq war that you invoke. Lastly, HRC would not have isolated the US from its allies the way Trump has done. Dredging up her vote for the Iraq war is pretty worthless proof of “warmongering”, since that vote was based on the false proof that the Bush administration presented.
2
Id. E. Ought.
"We'd be at war in Iran and Syria"
Yes. Right. Because the Democratic White House negotiated with Iran.
And came to an agreement.
That Trump tore up.
Right.
1
What about the hundreds of billions of dollars funding these wars? And the powerful men behind the scene running the military industrial complex? They are the real ones responsible for our ceaseless wars. Trump and any POTUS is merely a figurehead for a deeply flawed system of immense power.
11
@Eugene. I don’t know that that’s true. Look at all the additional military funding Trump has given the military that they haven’t said they need. They’re struggling to come up with logical ways to use it.
Or trying to build useless tanks we don’t need, in order to goose certain midwestern economies in swing states.
3
@Eugene Ray
Thank god most of the money is wasted, or else the entire world would now be in flames. The Pentagon is a machine for the massive transfer of wealth from the public to a small group of war profiteers, getting us about ten cents on the dollar in firepower.
1
With a divided legislative branch, Trump can ignore all of this. Besides, when we wanted a war, we've always found a way to justify it; our history is full of widely-known examples. Gulf of Tonkin has become a cliche, and so has the WMD's of Iraq. We can fabricate equally effective lies anytime we want.
Unfortunately, another multi-trillion dollar adventure in the Middle East might make Israel safer, but it will certainly send us to the poor house, if we're not there already.
10
@JB
The war is being set up now with the British pirating an Iranian ship, thus forcing Iran to respond, and thus justifying our attack on Iran to support a vassal state that we pretend is an ally.
The draft dodging president and his phony patriot collaborators are hankering for a war to save their skins in the next election. Why else the provocative withdrawal from the Iran pact and the massive sanctions, themselves economic warfare? We should require each person in Congress who votes for this legislation to serve in the military for a week on the front lines.
7
For those who think Trump cannot be trusted to make a military decision with the leadership in the pentagon, imagine the show Ocasio-Cortez and her squad would put on in an emergency?
4
@Jay, I’ll happily take that bet, because I guarantee she wouldn’t be a loose cannon that ignores all her seasoned advisors, like Trump does.
14
So Trump will have to persuade dual Israeli citizens and AIPAC serfs in Congress of the need to attack Iran? Peace in our time.
8
It’s about time , we can’t trust the emperor trump
4
I prefer “Saint Trump.” It gives a certain emphasis exposing the hypocrisy of a certain flavor of his supporters.
1
Liz Cheney getting all uppity about disrespecting our military? She whose father grumbled that he had other priorities than to serve his country in Viet Nam? Who is happy to send American troops to fight and die for no clear reason just so she can sound as manly as her chicken-hawk father? Spare me.
20
Trump's a coward to the core. Every adversary, including Iran, knows that. He doesn't have the courage to order the military into a war that will result in deaths of civilians and armed forces.
5
He doesn't even have the courage to fire people in person (his staged reality show aside).
1
he has less of an appetite for being convicted of numerous crimes, so the tactical decision is to become a wartime president as a get out of jail free card. how close to military age is Barron Golfcourse by now?
Anything FOX doesn’t like is good.
9
If Trump wants to send Troops into conflict let his sons lead the way. Hope they don’t have heelspurs.
15
meanwhile the homeless problem in the USA is getting bigger by the day we can see the priority of the USA government but what is 733 billions between friends
7
We haven't won a war since Reagan sent the marines into Grenada, thereby preserving the free worlds foremost source uf nutmeg.
19
Except for defeating Communism. We won that war. And it was a war.
@ commander Cody - Although Republicans have led the country up into many wars they haven’t won one since Teddy Roosevelt went to Cuba. But their buddies in the military-industrial complex have been raking in billions manufacturing weapons that can’t win their wars.
2
Actuality we haven't won a war since WW 2.
1
One of the most important things the new administration must do in 2021 is work with congress to FIRMLY re-assert the constitutional authority of the Senate to declare war. Article 1, Section 8, Clause is an easy read even for the current White House occupant.
No more "police actions" or open ended "limited engagements"!
8
Hardly: "For now, though, the House bill bears the stamp of the resurgent left."
Given the reticence to impeach for fear of losing so many districts that barely flipped, this "resurgent left" (Pelosi might call "annoying") could easily disappear in 2020, particularly if the economy stays strong.
But for the most part, just more deep swamp theater until the Senate falls in step with Cortez's "resurgent left"--the face of Cuba 1959, a Green New World even Huxley would question. That's not happening anytime soon.
1
Obama was able to attack Libya without the support of Congress or any provocation justifying his actions. Given that, Trump can absolutely respond to Iranian aggression without Congress getting a say. Only if war rather than strikes are required does Congress get a vote.
2
@John Smythe...President Obama had the UN behind him. Trump has a bunch of hawks behind him. Besides, we pulled out of the Iran deal for what again? I trust Iran more than this bumbling, stumbling clown car. All we ask is that you own it.
8
@John Smythe
Obama (strike through) Clinton was able to attack Libya without the support of Congress...
Libya was a NATO action and Congress already signed off on us joining NATO. Though I do think it was a strategic blunder in North Africa.
1
I applaud restricting the POTUS from waging war IAW Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Congress MUST be allowed to have a say. However, Article 2, Section 2 gives the POTUS the ability to defend the nation or take military action. Tough nut to crack. Regarding the inclusion of lgbtq whatever back into the military, I have mixed feelings on this. Not from a competent point of view or equality point of view but from a moral point of view based upon the Bible. As for our southern border, it must be secured. Our public service facilities from hospitals to schools to charitable (non-government) organizations are strained to the breaking point. Detention shelters, built during the Obama years and blamed on Trump are over crowded and do bear the appearance of cages. Eliminate free, nearly unrestricted illegal access to the USA would eliminate Obama era "cages". It would also ease the strain on many of our facilities. It would provide breathing room to allow serious debate, not childish arguments, about revamping our immigration policies. Maybe trade citizenship for the DACA folks in exchange for a wall. Then we can work on what to do with and for all the non-DACA people in an orderly and humane manner. Maybe even get government funding to care for all illegal non-citizens if the census contained the citizenship question.
2
Obama was able to attack Libya without the support of Congress or any provocation justifying his actions. Given that, Trump can absolutely respond to Iranian aggression without Congress getting a say. Only if war rather than strikes are required does Congress get a vote.
1
Who needs a declaration of war escalate things? Congress never declared war on Korea or Vietnam.
No carte blanche to any president Democrat or Republican period .I did not like when both bush and Obama abused it
14
Call it what it is: an Attack Bill.
2
Some sanity from dissident GOP representatives and conscientious Dems. It’s about time.
Our wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan have made matters much worse for everyone, except our military-industrial war profiteers, and the Israelis.
Constitutionally, Congress retains the power to make war, not the Executive branch. The madness and hysteria after the 9/11 attacks led to a Congressional surrender to King George (W. Bush). Our national debt reflects the trillions Bush squandered in Iraq and Afghanistan, and more importantly, the needless loss of life.
Trump has betrayed his America First campaign promises. Hopefully the exposé of the pederast Epstein will bring him and Epstein’s other partner, Bill Clinton, down for the final count. (Yes, the rot is bipartisan. Deal with it).
8
Yeah but McConnell won't even let it come up for a vote in the Senate.
6
Who's going to enforce that?
Who enforces anything anymore?
This executive branch acts like it's above the law, because the judicial and the legislative branches keep letting it get away with it.
Who seriously believes that anything will be done to reign in Trump?
81
@Stef This is a good place to start. Don’t give in so easily.
16
@Stef It is a good thing that Obama got rid of that pesky and hated AUMF, passed by overwhelming partisan support in Oct 2001 and including HRC's vote, otherwise he would have used it to invade Libya, right?
'“It’s shameful. They’re failing fundamentally to uphold our constitutional duty, and they’re failing in the most important thing we do, which is be worthy of the sacrifice of those men and women who put on the uniform and go to protect all of us,” said Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the hawkish No. 3 House Republican. “When Congress politicizes the National Defense Authorization Act, we are not worthy of the men and women who are defending us on the front lines today.”'
Congress is doing its job. On the other hand, having Donald Trump as Commander in Chief is a travesty, a slap in the face to every person who has sacrificed for the nation (not withstanding how many of those he has duped). DJT has never done anything in his life in service. His sole motivation is self-benefit. Personally, I like a Commander-in-Chief who doesn't insult POWS for being POWS - after his father's dodges repeatedly kept him from serving.
11
I don't see how a $733 Billion Defense Budget checks anybody's war powers. It does, however, check our powers to feed, house, and educate our children, not to mention heal our sick and rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. Our society is deeply sick and this grotesque bill is the most obvious symptom -- even worse than the current malignancy that occupies the oval office.
10
Not if you believe in Keynesian economics, it doesn’t.
Well let’s see how many foaming at the mouth senators we have, and you can check on yours because the vote will not be by voice. Of course senator Linsey grim will be voting against it, as will some other republicans, question is how many of those running for re-election will do so.
1
So trump is dangerous?
No rushed thinking there .
2
"House Passes" means nothing to the Trump administration. Pelosi capitulated at impeachment and the rest is history... and a bad history it will be.
3
@Aaron
Agree... as they say, the devil is in the details (and the piece of legislation that makes it to the president’s desk for signature).
1
It's about time for Congress to retake what used to be it's right, and obligation, to authorize, or not, a war a president wants to undertake, especially when under false pretenses (remember the 'W-Cheney' fiasco?).
4
So Congress is writing a law to stop the president from doing something he promised he wouldn’t do? I distinctly remember him criticizing previous US military involvement in the Middle East during his campaign. Why is a war that neither he, Congress or the Iranians want imminent? Please explain. Exactly who is the driving force behind this? The public deserves to know.
42
@Michael
Trump’s buddy MBS most likely.
No love lost between the Iranians and the Saudis, no question whose side the US is on and apparently no regard for campaign promises or sending people to die in the Middle East for Saudi interests.
5
@Michael
Referring to pulling troops out of Afghanistan, Gen. Mark Milley assured the Senate Armed Services Committee that he will give his candid advice to the president and won’t be intimidated into making “stupid decisions.”.. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/pulling-troops-out-of-afghanistan-early-would-be-a-mistake-general-says
Does that mean that the General would not obey orders if the President insisted that all troops leave Afghanistan?
That is what it sounds like to me.
So, there you have the driving force, The Generals, backed by the Military Industrial Complex and the Foreign Policy Establishment, the NYT and other Establishment media
1
Three reasons you should be concerned: A) Trump’s word and promises mean nothing because he has zero integrity, B) Trump is mentally ill and C) Trump is being advised by war mongers.
5
Finally the House is reacting in a bipartisanship manner to curb the Yo-Yo President. The future is starting to get brighter.
6
Not quite. It still has to pass McConnell and the slavishly pro-trump senate. But judging from the disparate groups who normally do not play well together who supported this amendment, maybe you are right. I certainly hope so.
4
For $733 BILLION I think we should have a little opposition. We deserve some debate for that kind of tax money they drain out of us. Remember that the DEMOCRATS voted to spend this enormous amount on weapons and war against stead of on education. The VOTERS and PUBLIC, I call them Americans, would probably like to see $50 billion of that spent on universal pre-school to help ALL the tax payers and single parents so they can work and earn taxes. I imagined the remaining $683 billion would be enough to wage a few dozen wars at once and still more than Russia, China, Germany, North Korean, Iran, and France spend combined. I’m not even asking to give peace a chance, just give the babies, children and mothers a chance to work.
8
733 billion isn’t actually that big in terms of the American economy. I would even take 850 billion or a full trillion were all the other measures to be included in such a compromise. Also, these dollars aren’t lost against other issues in a zero sum gain. We can have a deficit which in turn can be a bit of a stimulus. Keynesian economics still apply even if you don’t like every recipient.
1
@James Allen. Keynsian Schmezynian. All economic theory starts with the impossible premise “if these things were all fixed and nothing else impacts society”.
2
The Powers Clause of the US Constitution - Article 1 - has war-making as the responsibility of Congress - not the POTUS. Our Congressional representatives have long abrogated those powers under fictions and lies. It was easy to have someone else - Mr. Johnson's war - to be responsible. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was a fraud that cost the death of tens of thousands of our military. In 1967-68, I was a USMC officer in Vietnam and I saw men die for a lie. We have to hold our Congress responsible to do its Constitutional mandated duty.
13
Given the hyper-polarized political environment and the incompetence of the current administration in foreign operations of any kind, the House initiative to pull as much power from the executive branch as possible makes sense. Let the next POTUS recover whatever he or she can or needs to based on what one can only hope will be inevitably superior ability and temperament. The question remains whether the self proclaimed “Grim Reaper” will be able to again sabotage what little moral courage remains in the Senate when his own personal political stakes are all in for Trump. He will fight this with all the power he can muster.
43
@Aging Vet I'm opposed, in principle, to "tailoring" powers of office to suit the current incumbent. However, the current POTUS is so grossly unsuited, in every way, to make national decisions that I'd be very much in favor of legislation limiting his power, specifically, rather than that of the office. However, such a precedent could be very misused (and almost certainly would - definitely would by Republicans) in the current polarized environment.
7
What successes have they actually achieved?
Realizing that Trump restraint is a winning policy, Congress wants to take credit.
1
If this is a start to reclaiming the war powers so long ago taken over by the executive branch, it is better late than never. Start bringing troops home.
75
@Kirk Cornwell The troops your crooked congress put there? We don't need advice from failed politicians.
1
@Fantasy Dude hello again fantasy dude. Who do you imagine you are talking to? We are all Americans here. Dial it down a notch. It sounds like you could use sometime away from the computer screen for
Your mental health. At the very least, try reading a few history books to know where your unquestioning allegiances regularly lead.
11
Obama took same position in Libya. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/world/africa/22powers.html
I wonder if Netanyahu, the real "decider" of American foreign policy in the Mideast, has his best habarists already working on a document that Trump could present to Congress in order to get by a Congressional block on sending American forces into Iraq.
4
"Representative Michael McCaul of Texas, the top Republican on the Foreign Affairs Committee, called the measure “a propaganda win for the Iranian regime and the Houthi allies.' "
Unless there is video of McCaul delivering this melodramatic hyperbole with the requisite tears, he can forget stealing his Congress Oscar from Tim Meadows who, of course, stole it from Chip Roy.
4
What a novel idea; Congress doing its job.
Hopefully, we're coming out of the fog of 9/11 where no one dares question a Commander-in-Chief with visions-of-bombs-dancing-in-their-heads.
7
Senate or Trump will kill it. Trump is now a Dictator; unlimited power.
9
Congress abandoned its responsibility to declare war way back with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. They've been basically AWOL on war ever since, and now, fifty years on, they seem surprised an erratic and ignorant president wants to do what they are too cowardly and lazy to do. I don't want war with Iran, but you can't spend fifty years ignoring your responsibilities and then complain someone else grabs the wheel.
2
@Mac. "Peace-industrial-complex". Count me.
4
It's high time. The Constitution does not give the President the power to make war. Even if we are attacked, the President is obligated to go to the Congress and ask for them to approve a declaration of war. Nothing has changed since the founding of the country except Congress being afraid to exercise it's authority.
8
Much too little, much too late.
Congresses of both parties abrogated their most sacred Constitutional obligation decades ago by not declaring wars they funded, including Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The ultimate responsibility, of course, rests with the American people, who continue to elect gutless, immoral, irresponsible, shameless representatives.
Would any Member of Congress care to explain face-to-face to the loved ones of the almost 100,000 Americans killed that their sons and daughters did not, in fact, die in war?
Contrary to what many people think, and pundits and media portray, the President does not have legal war-making power.
From Article I (Congress), Section 8 of the Constitution:
"To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"
6
@Steve Fankuchen
You do realize that what you describe is a fantasy even if it is in the Constitution.
2
Every one of our presidents has found some excuse to use the military against someone while he was in office for the past several decades.
2
That has to change.
4
Trump does have the legal authority to use military force when he sees fit, congress declares war, nothing has change
4
@Jimd Please replace the comma between fit and congress and replace it with the word AND.
1
Since POTUS is Commander-in-Chief of the military: It would seem that, legally, they must obey his orders, independent of Congressional action or directives.
Our military has acted against other nations and organizations as directed by the President, starting with JFK's commands that created the Vietnam conflict, many times without an explicit declaration of war, so there is ample precedent for their doing so, now -- whatever bills Congress may enact.
To do otherwise is mutiny; indeed, it might be termed a coup, and subject those who participated to trial for treason.
2
I think it is permissible for the military to disobey an unlawful order.
9
@Austin Liberal, yes, Jim, their oaths are to support and defend our Constitution, not the president. And they are to do so against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. Each member of the military swears it.
6
Jim, JB: Not quite:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
What "defending the Constitution" means is rather vague. But "obeying the orders of the President of the United States" is quite specific. I suggest that, in a court of law, unless the order is in explicit conflict with the Constitution, the latter rules.
And disobeying such an order is treasonous.
1
Michael McCaul of Texas:
“The administration’s measured response to Iran shoot-down of our U.S. military asset in international airspace shows the president is not looking for a war with Iran,”
Is there any one in Congress that actually thinks they can ever predict what Trump will do? Never, never, never believe anything that con man says.
9
In the long run, it would be more functional for the people of the U.S. to be a Force for Peace, not War. We do not deliberately need to make any country on Earth an enemy with the potential for military action and reaction.
History shows that when the participants in a War look back at the horrors of a War after it has ended, all participants have agreed to invest in Peace. At the end of WWI, the participants formed the League of Nations, at the end of WWII, the United Nations. E.g., the power of the U.S. is in its ability to be a force for Good in the World is recognized by the institutions created at the end of WWII: The U.N., the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and a trade organization in the hopes of making life better for all the Peoples of the World.
Peace is fragile as evidenced by the Korean Conflict, Vietnam, and what seems to be eternal conflicts in the Middle East but the fragility of Peace should not be an excuse for forming a new basis for conflict but it should, as it did in previous conflicts of massive destruction and loss of human lives. be the basis for a renewed effort to focus international resources on resolving conflicts through peaceful means and to use the collective economic power of the United Nations to address in an intelligent manner the food, water, health, environmental, energy, and economic aspirations of all peoples. We lucked out in evolving our species to its present state and it is non-nonsensical to blow it, now.
5
Don’t be surprised if the Maddox and/or Turner Joy show up on the Gulf of Oman...
What a waste of time. McConnell, who is the real USA king, will never allow this to come up for a vote.
8
The message to Iran from the House: "I know the President doesn't want you to build nukes that your buddies will set off in Times Square, but no worries, we have your back -- build away!"
4
No, the message is that we do not a war started on the whim of a madman.
7
@Tom Mariner
I think the message to Iran is: “Yes, we know our President is impulsive and shows poor judgment but we are reminding him there are limits to his power”.
6
@Tom Mariner, Iran has never attacked us in Times Square or anyplace in our land or territory. Wish we could say that for the Saudis, the spreaders of Wahhabi Islam, the home of the terrorists who committed 9/11. Where's your call out of them or their murdering ways? Not enough for their past and present American presidential friends to blame and kill Iraqis to throw us off--now they want us to do the Saudis' dirty work in Iran. No. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice? Well, as some fellow once said, you aren't gonna fool us twice.
4
I hope Congress defines what an "attack" is. Otherwise, the obvious will occur.
4
@Marco Caviglia:
Ironic that the Trump administration lacks the conscience to define the "new war", i.e.: cyber, as what it is, as long as its perceived platform is Russian-based.
When cyber warfare is identified as coming from Trump's perceived enemies, he may act.
The incongruities and hypocrisy abound. . .
3
Given the disregard by Trump for pretty much anything else the House or Congress does, why would he bother if he wants to attack Iran or any other country.
Given that he would be in violation of the Constitution, it would be interesting to see what the military would do in the event of being ordered by Trump to attack. Would they obey an unlawful order?
4
This is the most encouraging news for those who fight dictatorship in the US.
2
Great to see something, anything, that House Representatives on both sides of the aisle can agree to move forward in a bipartisan manner.
Problem is.. the Senate will not take up the legislation in their chamber... so this is going nowhere. No way McConnell is going to let his caucus get wrapped around the axle on this issue in the lead up to the 2020 election cycle. I detest McConnell.. but I can't fault him for knowing how to play senate political cards in the most favorable manner to his caucus.
3
The Administration is staging economic war against Iran now. the Administration, for no good reason, withdrew form the Iran Agreement signed by the 6 major economies or military countries in the world, and Iran was in compliance with the agreement.
The Shia government has been attacked repeatedly in the last 70 years by Sunni led Countries. Nothing is a vital interest in the ME, not even Israel. Strategically, ME oil is not as important as it used to be. In fact, as sanctions against Iran limit Iran's oil production, the sanctions acts as a prop for US, KSA, and Russia's oil prices. It help's Republican donors here andTrump's dictator buddies Russia and KSA and UAE. It hurts US and the world's consumers. Who is attacking who?
4
The bigger problem is the bloated defense budget. Spending such large amounts of money for the purpose of war encourages engagement to justify the cost. The military-industrial complex is the king of welfare queens, and she's itching for a fight.
The irony in bloated military spending is that it will be the primary factor in leading to the decline of the United States as it sucks resources from the rest of the economy, and all other parts of the economy become second rate to the rest of the world.
6
@Casey:
Throw in a $2 Trillion tax cut for the wealthy.
4
This Congressional action is going to infuriate Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, who have been working feverishly to start a war with Iran. Trump will just hold a press conference, and announce that getting this Congressional action was his intention, all along.
6
This is a very welcome departure for the Democratic Party. I am glad that they did this.
I remember when Democrats gave G.W. Bush the votes he needed to start the Iraq War. Democrats like Schumer, Feinstein, Biden, Kerry, Edwards, Clinton. All 'serious' Senators.
The Democratic Party is responsible for the Iraq War as they had the power in the Senate to have stopped it. 58% of Democratic Senators, however, supported it.
Had those 29 Democratic Senators voted 'No' the entire thing would have failed 51-49.
And since then? The Democratic Party calls it 'Bush's war' or a 'Republican War.'
Good to see some Democrats remember their last mistake.
6
The only way for me to interpret this, is to say that 170 representatives must think that the Iraq War was such a huge victory for this country that they would like to do it all over again in Iran. I wonder how many of these same 170 people would be willing to elect Jeffery Epstein as their next President as long as he supported deregulation and lower taxes?
BTW: The seven Democrats who didn't support this need to be shown the door in 2020.
7
@Chicago Guy The 8 Democrats who voted against that military funding bill certainly had others motives than simply restraining the buffoon in the WH re:Iran or Yemen... Do you think that an utterly bloated 733 $bn funding is justified? I don't and putting in balance that against a handful of short lived amendments i could agree with seems short-sighted.
BTW, here are the 8 Democrats (source: govtrack):
'Lee, Barbara
Pressley, Ayanna
Tlaib, Rashida
Omar, Ilhan
Espaillat, Adriano
Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandria
Blumenauer, Earl
Pocan, Mark'
2
Let's hope this congressional action has a real effect.
I don’t believe that war with Iran is off the table for Trump; he may need it for re election. Politically, the recent dust up over a drone was too soon, and by the presidential election we would have an endless mess.
If he attacks Iran, it will be a few months before the election, so he can manipulate all the ‘Love America’ emotion while the foolishness of the act is not yet apparent.
Between now and then there will be an orchestrated series of minor and not so minor speeches, accusations, and offers that they can’t refuse.
This war will happen when it becomes apparent that Trump needs it to be re elected. As his administration commits error after error and his explanations become more absurd and embarrassing, even to the republicans.
Remember; no incumbent president has failed re election during a war. And re election is necessary for Trump to avoid the various fed, state, and local charges which will bury him when he is a private citizen.
That should happen in January 2021.
3
The House vote to make Congress Somewhat Great Again (MCSGA) will be dead on arrival in Mitch McConnell’s office. It will never even be heard in committee much less voted upon by the Senate.
6
I guess we'll have to wait and see if Mr. Brownnose in the Senate will decide to put the military stability of this nation ahead of his desire to kiss the ground Donald Trump walks on.
6
Nevertheless, it shouldn't be too hard to get the House to vote for war--get Bibi to make a presentation with charts or get a hack military man to show them some yellow powder, or fake an attack on a US ship, and the whole country will be up in arms.
1
Thank you, Congress, for beginning to do your job.
5
Unless my ability to perform simple math has abandoned me, the amount of support shown in this vote would not override a Trump veto. The NYT's should always publish a record of the politicians vote. I always like to know who to contact.
2
I am not a partisan and therefore am open to supporting candidates from either party. In the 2016 election, Trump opposition portrayed him as an authoritarian. I agreed that Trump has authoritarian character in abundance, but I viewed that highly objectionable quality as at least having a silver lining.
I have long lamented the ever growing unilateral power of the presidency. Such unilateral presidential power has been relentlessly increasing for the past 70 years. Congress bears much of the responsibility because in many cases Congress gave unilateral authority to the president. And, when the many cases occurred that a president just usurped power, Congress failed to act to reverse his actions. The only active restraint upon unilateral presidential authority has been from the courts, and that restraint has been woefully too little.
But I foresaw Trump's intense desire for authoritarian action as being so great that it would finally cause Congress to act. In the past with less authoritarian presidents, partisanship prevented Congressional action to restrain the president as Congressmen of the president's party would refuse to vote to restrain him. If Trump's excess would stimulate Congress, the benefit to the nation would be much greater than just to restrain Trump....it would extend to future presidents.
My hoped for Congressional action has not substantially materialized. Perhaps it is now finally beginning.
1
A lot of noise over nothing. All Trump need do is conjure up some bogus threat or attack. Perhaps even goad Iran into doing something stupid.
Even that is putting the cart in front of the horse. This bill is DOA in the Senate. The House can crow and pontificate about how they tried to reign in Trump. Knowing full well McConnell will not even bring it to the floor in the Senate. What a joke.
4
This is, as usual, just the House, not Congress in toto. It is also, as usual, a worthless piece of time wasting by the party who claims to control the House but cannot keep its own in order. They may has well have voted to "check Trump's authority to invade Mars" for all the good this pathetic group supports.
2
How much of the Obama-cash did Iran pay the DNC for this vote?
1
Much too little, much too late.
Congresses of both parties abrogated their most sacred Constitutional obligation decades ago by not declaring wars they funded, including Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The ultimate responsibility, of course, rests with the American people, who continue to elect gutless, immoral, irresponsible, shameless representatives.
Would any Member of Congress care to explain face-to-face to the loved ones of the almost 100,000 Americans killed that their sons and daughters did not, in fact, die in war?
Contrary to what many people think, and pundits and media portray, the President does not have legal war-making power.
From Article I (Congress), Section 8 of the Constitution:
"To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"
6
Numerous comments about declaring war--we have troops in combat in several countries (and have had under Presidents from both parties) without a war being declared. So all of the replies about reading the constitution fail to realize that none of the prior actions by presidents from both parties have been declared unconstitutional. This was the Democrats grandstanding--it will have no consequence.
2
Purely symbolic. Unless the President signs it or they override his veto the War Powers Act will determine the legal authority of the President to act against Iran.
1
Thanks to everyone who voted for this.
It was a vote for sanity.
3
Talk about a meaningless gesture.
1. Cyberwarfare is never declared.
2. Proxy Wars are never declared.
3. State Sponsorship of Terrorism and Revolution is never declared.
4. Defending Freedom of Navigation is not war.
5. Defending forward deployed military assets from attack is not War.
6. Iran has been waging war against the USA since 1979
7.The resolution is an invitation to the Taliban and the Russian and Syrians and the Iranians to ramp up their provocations in hopes that the USA will cut an run and leave the region - its about surrender, not about advise and consent because no one is advocating an invasion and occupation of Iran.
3. Wars don't start with one side declaring war. They start with small scale aggression and miscalculations which escalate into wars of attrition or combat.
3
War! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!
3
Yes the president as the C & C should have the power to authorize a defense strike if needed, however if there is to be an action taken that's not for defense and could bring us to war, then it should fall on the congress to authorize that and it should not matter who the president is.
2
Good. It was wrong when President Obama went around Congress to use military force abroad, and it would be wrong if President Trump does it.
The Constitution doesn't grant the power to declare war to the executive for a reason. We should abide by that, and not try to find loopholes where we engage in war in all but name.
5
However, this current congress has had absolute failure trying to reign in the president.
When is the last time this congress won a fight with the WH?
They left this loophole open: "the amendment, attached to the annual defense policy bill, would not restrict the president’s ability to respond to an attack."
Thus any Gulf of Tonkin type of incident means war.
So this is just a show for the constituents, with no teeth.
2
$733 billion military budget. No draining the swamp here either.
5
Whether 'the president is not looking for a war with Iran' or indeed is, is immaterial. That is axiomatic under our constitution.
The power to declare war ('look for a war') belongs to Congress. Why any Representative or Senator would wish to cede this enormous power to any president, and particularly to the current president and his demonstrably inept administration, is mind boggling. What in heaven's name is wrong with them?
5
They don't want to be on record for supporting the failure that will result.
3
Just a waste of breath - is the US ‘at war’ in Iraq and Afghanistan and Yemen? In all cases it can be claimed that US action was a ‘reaction’ to an attack against the US [incl its foreign assets] or an ally. Once a reaction occurs the re-reaction escalates to ‘war’. By that time congress is bound to approve war!! No?
The only good thing about Donald Trump is that he is sticking to his word (thus far) to stay out of foreign entanglements. His grade-school taunts and slanders are of no help, but they do beat 500lb bombs.
6
That's a bit more like the America I know and love.
The author asserts: "The vote reflects lawmakers’ growing desire to take back authority over matters of war and peace from the executive branch."
This came from the House. Which means it will "take back authority" only until the next elected Democrat occupies the White House.
The prior administration had cart blanche in Middle East asymmetric warfare with thousands of unreported casualties (see Columbia University report: https://archives.cjr.org/feature/covering_obamas_secret_war.php
How about having some of the war hawks volunteer their kids to go fight another middle east war? Do you think Don Jr would ever volunteer? How about Ivanka or Jared? The last thing this nation needs is another war no matter where it is. Can anyone imagine a war led by Donald Trump?
5
I hope it becomes law. The when Iran attacks a US ship or plane Trump can sit and wait a week or two for Congress to act. I wonder who the Democrats will blame.
1
War was declared one day after Pearl Harbor. It is the Constitutional thing to do.
4
That is WAR and Roosevelt was a Democrat. This amendment prohibits military actions or reactions. All out war is a lot different from sinking a ship that is attacking a US ship. Trump can just react saying that unfortunately he must follow the law and wait for Congress to agree. That could take months. Of course we would need a Congressional investigation where members of Congress get to ask questions for two hours each.
2
Thank you House. Happy Friday.
Sorry to say I’m a Wisconsinite and Trump is here today on our soil. Will be watching the news to hear him go on and on and on about “the Democrats” - we will remind him 20+ Republicans joined “the Democrats” on this one.
It’s about time his Executive Authority, used on many inappropriate issues, has caught up with him and led to this.
Who in their right mind would want war with Iran? (I said right mind)
4
Trump is not qualified to have authority any more than a 5 yr old around the house.
And that by no means is meant to insult 5 yr olds.
4
As soon as another Democrat gets in the White House people will want to reverse it. About par for the course.
Slim and none are the chances of this having any consequence---but makes for a good headline for the liberals.
2
Yes, thank you, it has been obvious for several years now that today's "conservatives" are authoritarians who care nothing about the Constitution or the rule of law.
9
I'm shocked that Gaetz wd do this as he is deeply conservative and a Christian fundamentalist....but I'm very grateful he took this stand!
5
Matt Gaetz, the Trump sycophant pitbull, is a dove?! Is it Opposite Day?
7
Interesting article citing bipartisan support for a bill a decade late in coming but it falls short. A more useful article would include a full list of how everyone in the House voted including the seven anti-votes from Democrats (what's wrong with them?) and the same for the Senate votes, especially the abstaining votes. There are provisions for absent members to cast their votes even if they are campaigning. There should never be a shortage of ten votes on matters as important as making war. Note that, although there are senators on the road campaigning for president, there are not ten doing so. If McConnell did not reach out to them to cast their votes, shame on him - just another failure of his leadership. If he did reach out shame on them. If they were present and did not vote, I cannot express enough disdain for them. All this information is public and I will dig it up to determine who I will back through my somewhat large network. I hope others will do the same. It simply would have been easier if the NYT had included it in this writeup.
6
It is way past time for congress to assume their constitutional authority. Unfortunately, it will not be easy to overcome many decades of congress just passing the "Use of Force" resolutions and allowing the Executive to run riot without congressional approval or congress withdrawing funding for these presidential determined wars.
We still haven't had congress simply say no to the POTUS and precedent being what it is, I have a feeling that the displeasure of the House won't pass in the Senate and we're back to the imperial executive acting alone with a lap-dog congress feeling that they must "support the troops" even when the deployment was not authorized.
4
Trump and Bolton need to be restrained but it looks like Congress will not step forward to reclaim their prerogative. There are not enough votes. The military budget of $733 or $750 billion begs to be used. It is so bloated and removed from realistic goals and needs, the military industrial complex is always looking for ways to justify all that money and a 'little' war - most importantly somewhere far away always does the trick.
4
We're simply trying to abide by our Constitution - that declaration of war is an authority of the Congress.
Good job House.
Senate is ignoring our Constitution.
6
Our Constitution has been a mess in the area of Presidential authority to commit military forces ever since Thomas Jefferson first sent the Marines against the Barbary Pirates in 1801, without so much as even waiting for Congress to convene.
The War Powers Act was an attempt to fix the problem - but it did nothing of the sort.
This is one of those areas that we really need to rethink over the next decade or two.
While the idea currently scares liberals, we're nonetheless going to need a new constitutional convention one of these days - especially after the precedents that Trump is setting.
On the matter at hand, I'm glad the House was able to muster bipartisan support against yet another Middle East adventure.
If only we could send the bills for our last Middle East adventure to the chickenhawks who so pushed for that war.
5
Never forget that 99.9% of Republicans have supported and enriched Trump's destruction of the middle class and has divided
Americans to a breaking point.
Trump's fan club is most certainly odd as surely it is not the 1000's of small contractors he never paid or the Trump university people that only got a small portion of their money back after they were defrauded. It can't be the minorities that were not allowed to live in his various real estate debacles because they were not white.
5
This is a symbolic blow to Trump...unfortunately he has gotten away with all the dirty tricks so far in his arsenal and he recently deposed a decent Ambassador just doing his job. One who analyzed Trump spot on.
5
Congress should have its constitutionality to declare war not the President. Congress should then make their case to the American people.
4
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; "
--US Constitution, Article II, Section 2
Note the use of the word "shall".
Have we not established that, in this Administration, the word "shall" really means "comply only if there's a good reason"?
Interesting that the Administration treats this (and other grants of executive power in Article II) as absolutist, when they argue for interpretation of the word "shall" in other contexts.
2
A good first step to control the Administrations power to declare war. The US has lost every war since the end of the II World War, including Korea, Vietnam, Iraq.. Assisting allies to fight their war against a common enemy, selectively, is the most the US should engage in.
With Iran, it is Netanyahu and Ben Salman that are goading Trump to declare war against Iran... in order to do their dirty own job.
6
50 U.S.C. 1541–1548 provides all the constraints necessary to allow Congress to reign in military action initiated by the President.
This recent House vote is just another in a long string of cheap stunts by the Democrats.
1
@Objectivist
The War Powers Resolution you are referring to is a law to limit a president on declaring war.
The problem is Trump hasn't seen a law yet that thinks applies to him, just look at how many have been broken. The House was right to restrain President Bone Spurs.
8
This bill makes an attack by the semi-official Iranian paramilitary group known as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps more likely. Those thugs would like to divide our country even more by attacking a tanker or, better yet, a cruise ship -- a soft target for maximum casualties. Their mission is to stir up trouble and justify their own ascension into power in Iran.
@cjg
Hardly to be believed. Why would a group bent on attacking the US care about this bill.
4
Could the lawmakers kindly grow spines and take away Trump's authority to destroy diplomacy via Twitter? Because loose lips sink ships.
4
The American people need assurance that the military is not in the pocket of Trump. While the issue of congressional approval is an old one, the larger context is that the White House has been creeping toward a dictatorship. He’s a big spoiled baby and dangerous. I sure hope that the elder generals are schooling their rank and file on the real values of America. No matter how much the individual serviceman embraces the trump era, which they do, this con man is not their commander in chief in the event that he issues an illegal order which he will be willing to do.
4
In case you’ve been wondering, trump isn’t
finished with chaos for America.
5
And McConnell hides in his shell. This goes nowhere (not to mention it would get vetoed). But, I guess the democrats can say "we told you so" when the middle east (and wider) explodes after a "surgical strike" on Iran.
4
It is about time that these GOP representatives stood up for something. The President is not a king, he shouldn't be doing executive orders because he cant get his way nor should he be itching for a fight all the time.
The only people getting rich with a potential war are the Trumps and his minions. The industrial complex better start fixing the infrastructure in this country, addressing climate change, stop putting kids in cages ,develop a cure for cancer, address racial issues, there is a great deal we could do to help people and stop this wild wild west insanity.
Wars are fought by young men and women not these old fools who get rich off of the deaths of our children.
About time the GOP wake up because they can only write so many books if no one wants to read anything about the spineless cowards of the dead Republican party.
5
We all lost control over our government decades ago. We no longer have a "Government of the people", but a government of the government people, intimidated by the military into submission.
4
Well done, Congress! It is time to reclaim the right to declare war from not only this war lover of a President, but from future Presidents who might be to quick to declare war.
6
27 Republicans out of 236. That's 11% of the GOP, 6% of the entire House. The figures will be even worse in the Senate if McConnell takes about the vote at all. He probable won't. Forgive me for feeling underwhelmed. I'm willing to withhold my gratitude for the moment.
7
@Andy
You do realize that citing facts in this forum is forbidden.
3
@Andy
That's because the Senate GOP has become loathed body incapable of expressing the will of the people and who has given up on their legislative duties.
But the rest of us don't have to.
5
This is so important.
From Viet Nam onward, fighting abuse of this. Image the number who have died, the numbers we have killed in more than 50 years of executive action "conflicts."
10
trump will just issue an executive order or declare a national security emergency or say that they can't stop him because he has the power. he is above the law, Constitution, and God.
3
If you ask me, this is barely enough. Congress is supposed to control when and where the country goes to war, not the office of President. For far too long we've let presidents get away with military strikes without input from the people. Congress needs to exercise some control already!
7
If past is prologue, Nancy and co will cave on this.
And on the debt ceiling and the budget. God forbid, the House Democrats should take a stand on issues dear to our heart and soul. Much more important that they should win the House again - and help Trump win re-election.
Nancy is Trump's trump card.
1
I wonder if this will be the legacy of Donald Trump's presidency? Congress finally taking back it's constitutional duty to declare war.
5
"The amendment, attached to the annual defense policy bill, would not restrict the president’s ability to respond to an attack."
Even if the Grim Reaper allowed this to get through the Senate, which is highly unlikely, the above mentioned provision renders it toothless.
If Trump secretly wanted to strike Iran unprovoked, which I don't believe he does, he could simply have Pompeo and Bolton manufacture evidence that Iran struck first.
3
"But Mr. Gaetz’s entreaty failed to persuade the majority of his conference, who castigated the notion of limiting the president’s military options against an antagonistic nation."
Iran was not an antagonistic nation until trump quit the peace agreement. The only antagonist in this duo is trump.
trump's approach toward a "better agreement" is to starve Iran economically, goad Iran into a conflict and then claim it's Iran's fault, and the only way out is to attack Iran.
That's being a warmongering bully, not a champion for peace.
4
May 23, 2016
"Re-examining the proper legal relationship over congressional vs. executive authority is long overdue. Since 9/11, America has been in a perpetual war mode and largely without precedent in our history. The costs, in lives and dollars, of the last 15 years of our foreign policy have been staggering and the benefits are somewhere between questionable and negligible.
As James Madison wrote, “No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” Which is one reason why, again, the Constitution clearly puts war-making powers overwhelming in the hands of the legislature."
https://time.com/4345172/rand-paul-congress-war-amendment/
Glad to see the Democrat-led House agreeing with Senator Paul.
This is, at its core, an anti Israel vote, as Israels politics has consistently been to get the US to eliminate the Iran nuclear capabilities.
If the House is serious about preventing the bombing of Iran, it should vote next to cancel all aid to Israel for a decade, should now Israel bomb the nuclear installations in Iran
It previously bombed the nuclear facilities of Iraq and Syria , to keep it status as the only nuclear armed Nation in the Mid-East .
When Germany progressed in the Second World War ,many countries stuck their heads in the sand and watched it unfold , I see the exact thing occurring again , with the identical minority’s as their prime target ! So sorry it’s not clearly evident but the path that Iran is taking is very very serious ,guess we should stick our heads in the sand ! Divided we fall .
1
Germany was among, in not the first, most powerful industrialized countries at the time of WW2 with dreams of empire and conquest. Iran is nowhere near the top if the heap globally and has never invaded anyone else. Iran is substantially more liberal, democratic, and tolerant than Saudi Arabia
2
Too little; too late. Trump is now a Dictator. Nothing will stop him.
5
It sounds great ,but sharing super sensitive information with the general public is not workable,, it would be telling the whole world what you know and what your going to do ,super good way to get yourself killed in these type of operations .
was i the only one who noticed that trump was the one who called off the strike on iran while the rest of the world was all but demanding it?
in fact, so far, this president is the first one since carter not to invite troops into some other country to help spread american democracy......
1
@flaart bllooger - What? Other than Trump's hawkish cabinet I didn't hear of anyone else calling for a strike on Iran?
2
Only Iran?
What about aiding and abetting Saudi Arabia in Yemen?
3
I would love to believe it but I can't. The President is also the Commander-In-Chief and could always make the argument that he acted in an emergency, even if none existed.
At the same time, I am worried about a false flag operation, mainly by the Israelis who have even killed U.S. sailors and gotten away with it without so much an a congressional inquiry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
Then there are the Saudis, who destroyed the Twin Towers and bombed the Pentagon, without so much as a mild reprimand. A planeload was actually escorted out of the U.S. on the night after 9/11.
No, the chips are stacked against Iran, and as much as I dislike the mullahs I feel it's just a matter of time before the U.S. and its lackeys vent their wrath on a nation simply trying to defend itself against imperial, petrodollar hegemony.
Never have so many wars been conducted to protect a currency. Frighteningly pathetic and tragic.
5
Not much to debate here. Trump will of course veto the bill, should it even reach his desk.
1
I would rather the Iranians have a propaganda win than we lose an American soldier.
3
''Mr. Trump said last month he believes he does not need congressional approval to strike Iran.''
Is there someone in the JCS command structure that can and will tell him no?
2
Let's recall the list of "Presidential Executive Orders" by each President, including Trump at 115 so far... and then
Obama stands at 277 orders during his two year term...
This is what allows America to quickly respond to threats
Try and imagine now, if Congress was the sole responder?
https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/number-of-executive-orders-per-president/
1
@CoachJames
According to your logic, there is no Wars Power Resolution and the US President is now a king.
1
Now watch how quickly it dies in the Senate. We have a great system of checks and balances.
6
Spartan,
Grim Reaper McConnell has hijacked the legislative process, and thus the representation of everyone who voted to turn the House blue in 2018.
McConnell is a tyrant and I hope the people of Kentucky remove him in 2020. They, and the country, deserve better.
8
@Spartan
It will die in the Senate because the Senate has stopped representing the will of the American majority.
2020 can't come soon enough.
4
Much too little, much too late.
Congresses of both parties abrogated their most sacred Constitutional responsibility decades ago, not having declared wars they funded, including Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The ultimate responsibility, of course, rests with the American people, who continue to elect such craven, irresponsible, shameless individuals.
Would any Member of Congress care to explain face-to-face to the loved ones of the almost 100,000 Americans killed that their sons and daughters did not, in fact, die in war?
Contrary to what many people think, and pundits and media portray, the President does not have legal war-making power.
From Article I (Congress), Section 8 of the Constitution:
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress
11
@Steve Fankuchen
I agree.
1
Trump is getting rid of Dan Coates DNI who has been a thorn in Trump's side by highlighting Putin's interfering in the 2016 election and now with the 2020. The acting DNI would be chief of staff for Bolton. Much like Cheney's using the CIA to get back up for Iraq war Bolton will be able to get"Intel" to start the war with Iran he yearns for and Trump is narcissistic he can be convinced of anything if you tell him he's the prettiest leader in the world. Trump needs sycophants and enablers to rule America as a dictator and thus avoid criminal prosecution in New York if he loses costing him a fortune in bad branding his reason to live.
5
I would like to see congress authorize and the President organize a peace summit between Shia ( Iran ) and the Shiite ( SA) branches of Islam to close the rift that has existed between these two groups once the 7 th century, This rift is second only to extreme weather as the greatest threat to global well bring.
6
Correction: I see your point but Iran is Shia or Shiite and Saudi Arabia is Sunni.
1
@Told you so
No offense but your greatly hyperbolic depiction of the sectarian rift between Shias and Sunnis just doesn't exist... You seem to confuse the US ally dictatorship of Saudi Arabia supporting, funding and arming genocidal and sectarian terrorists like ISIS/ISIL/Daesh as some two way street: it isn't. IRL Shias and Sunnis have been fighting side by side against the Takfiri Salafists mentionned above.
1
Failed the Senate 50 to 40. Who are the 10 cowards who didn’t vote? I hope none of them are running for President and too busy to do their jobs in D.C.
5
And what good is it if the Senate doesn't vote on it?
6
Your Constitution clearly states that while the Executive has the power to handle foreign relations it is only the Congress that has the power to make war. It’s about time the Congress roused itself to undertake its’ Constitutional responsibilities.
30
@Lewis Sternberg
the Constitution also gives the Senate the power to "advise and consent" regarding treaties.
Without Senate approval, the treaty does not become effective.
POTUS does not have carte blanche on those matters either.
4
@Joe From What 'treaty' are your alluding about? The JCPOA isn't any treaty but an international agreement then turned into international law by an UN Security Council resolution.
Several comments refer to Congress--this was just the House and so it will go nowhere--as it should. We have one commander in chief.
3
@Jonathan
You sound like a right wing extremist. Good to know you approve of silencing the most representative part of our government.
16
You should give the Constitution a read to see who can declare war. Spoiler: It's not the president.
9
@Chris
Who said anything about declaring war--you need to read the article. The article is about use of military force which the U.S. has been doing for years. We have troops in combat in several countries where no war has been declared.
1
“The administration’s measured response to Iran shoot-down of our U.S. military asset in international airspace shows the president is not looking for a war with Iran,” Mr. McCaul said, referring to the downing of an American drone.
Didn’t it turn out this drone was violating Iranian airspace? The Iranians showed debris they picked up in their national waters. The US navy tried to locate wreckage in international waters where they claimed the drone was downed. I did not hear they were successful so I’m assuming this drone was indeed in Iranian airspace.
14
A very large portion of the military budget is "make work" (or possibly better termed "corporate welfare) for military hardware manufacturers.
People get upset about $3 to $4 Billion in military aid to Israel. Few understand that the military aid is provided as a credit to an account at the Federal Reserve that Israel can only spend in the US buying military hardware from US manufacturers.
The manufacturers sprinkle their facilities (and the corresponding jobs) over as many Congressional Districts as possible, so that any member of Congress who votes against such a bill is voting against jobs in their own district.
See how the "corporate welfare" system works?
As is often misattributed to the late Sen. Everett Dirksen (R-Illinois): "A few billion here and a few billion there, and soon enough you are talking real money."
12
Let's not forget that in many countries much of the "aid" we give them gets funneled back into the pockets of the weapons industry. Apparently Egypt has more tanks than they can ever use because of the understanding they'll use a hefty portion of the the US aid they receive on "defense" gear from US companies.
3
Begin devoting more funds to actual means of Defense, not Offense, and eventually we will make all wars unwinnable so there are none.
5
Now if someone can only convey this on to the military.
5
Yes but Benjamin Netanyahu and Mohammed bin Salman want American blood and treasure wasted in a war with Iran on behalf of Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Since 9/11/01 a mere 0.75% of
of Americans have volunteered to wear the military uniform of any American armed force.
And they have been ground to emotional, mental and physical dust by multiple deployments in ethnic sectarian foreign civil wars that have no military solution.
While the rest of us pretend to be brave honorable patriots by rising to sing the national anthem and saluting the flag at sporting events.
Let the Israelis and the Saudis and their allies and friends waste their own blood and treasure in a war with Iran.
32
Blackmamba, please shout it out from the highest mountain! War after war after war. After it’s all over or still going on, a few good people ask “WHY”. Let’s ask “WHY” before we declare war.
3
I share the expectation of several commenters here that this sensible bill will die in the Senate. For that matter if trump wrote executive orders to declare himself president-for-life, or to imprison all Democratic members of the House, the GOP in the Senate would likely block any House bill passed in objection.
18
Does anyone actually think that this law would stop Trump from attacking Iran? Congress is going to have to do more to stop Trump than this meek legislation.
8
I'm convinced the 2016 election was rigged by the military and their cyber forces.
2
Trump won't wag the dog until summer 2020 just so he can win.
2
Once Trump has control he will never let it go. Congress can create all sorts of bills governing war efforts and approval. But Trump and Bar have shown that they have no regard for our constitution or our laws. But we keep on trying and they keep on ignoring us. They even disregard court decisions. If the courts have no sway, subpoenas are useless and the Justice Department is under the rule of a criminal every bit as bad as Trump only smarter, there is little hope of regaining control of anything.
3
Yes. Let's strike Iran, because our other military actions in the Middle East have gone so well .
6
Good move for the House, and the 71 Repubs deserve recognition, but there is no reason to expect the Repub controlled Senate to join. See June 28 NYT article.
3
Just remember that the use of the military act from 2001 was used multiple times by Obama to justify strikes without Congressional approval as did Bush. This is not unique to Trump as an issue. Personally I believe that in most cases Congress should approve since rarely is a response to some type of attack required at such a speed that if we do not respond that it could mean a massive defeat of our country.
82
@DC The AUMF is not good in the long run, whether or not Obama or Bush used it. It is long past time that Congress took back its constitutionally given power to declare war.
146
@DC It was wrong then and wrong now. The US has been known for using pre-emptive strikes and waging pre-emptive wars. No foreign nation is seriously aiming weaponry at the USA. The rest of the world has more to fear from us than we from them. Let better heads than the president alone prevail.
41
@DC Obama and Bush may have used it, but they were not megalomaniac madmen who would take it as authorization for all-out war. (At the time, I had my reservations about Bush, but in light of Trump's lack of control, Bush looks like an elder statesman.)
21
So amendments requiring congressional approval for unilateral military action Iran and ending support for radical Saudi Arabia’s humanitarian catastrophe of a war in Yemen and now considered ‘liberal-leaning provisions’? What is wrong with this country?! ‘Thou shall not kill’ is an ancient Biblical commandment at the foundation of civilization, not some new wave liberal ideology!
26
@Andy
Yep.
1
Who were the 7 Democrats who voted "NO"!
18
sure is worth watching Wag The Dog again this weekend
7
Ho hum. Won’t go anywhere in the Senate.
6
@William
In that case the military appropriation will go to the exact same "nowhere."
Wait and see.
3
Those 27 Republicans will soon be called “the worst people ever” by the leader of the GOP. That’s a badge I would wear with honor.
30
750 billion for Defense?
Make it 500 billion and use the 250 billion saved to lower medicare eligibility age to 55.
37
@mu. Wouldn’t that be wonderful? Problem is, doing so wouldn’t increase the personal fortunes of Trump and his cronies. Not to mention, Trump desperately believes that the only way to get your way with other countries is to try to bully them. Appearance of increased power means everything to him, whether it makes sense or not.
He’s trying to run the country the way he ran his failed businesses.
"If my war-hungry colleagues, some of whom have already suggested we invade Venezuela and North Korea and probably a few other countries before lunchtime tomorrow... (then) Let them make the case to Congress and the American people.”
Congress should revisit the War Powers Act of 1973 and strengthen it.
They should also revise the National Emergencies Act of 1976. Both laws were passed under the assumption POTUS is capable of strategic planning and has a modicum of self restraint. With Mr. Trump that's clearly not the case.
Ironic, but perhaps the majority needs to be protected against the minority.
14
Yes! Those acts were passed in the context of responding to nuclear attack by the Soviet Union, not so the US military could stomp around wrecking countries around the world at the direction of an unaccountable POTUS playing empire!
5
Round of applause from the peanut gallery. Our elected officials for once actually voted in favor of their constituents and against war machine profiteers. Thank you, for doing what you were elected to do.
22
It’s time for the US government to revisit the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). If the US government adhered to the NPT the world just might be in a better place. The US must stop terrorizing other countries and supporting dictatorships. Stop the madness before it’s too late.
9
Can't help noticing, among my own acquaintance, that the people who are so sure of the president's right to act unilaterally are the ones who were too cool to pay attention to this stuff in history class & never did their homework.
30
Wow! The Congress exercising its Constitutional Power to keep the president from unilaterally going to war! Who’d a thunk it?!
14
We may yet survive in peace with more restraints on the military. Stop the Empire building.
2
Now if Congress could please work on that little issue of the deep power (and deeper pockets) of the military industrial complex.
176
@Eugene Ray:
how i, too, wish they would.
how i [think i] know that they won't.
4
@Eugene Ray
And the power of the public service employees unions.
@Eugene Ray-Staring with completing the audits. Not the DoD leadership or bean counters can vouch for where all the money goes.
Could it be that, in the end, we all have to thank President Trump for getting Congress to reclaim its authority in matters of making war?
2
Another move aimed to limit Trump’s authority, but might backfire. Did Obama, Clinton or Bush, or even Kennedy and Johnson, were limited in their functions as Commander in Chief whenever they took the country to war?
1
@Son of A. Bierce. They should have been.
6
Bush did for both Afghanistan and Iraq! And Obama would not invade or direct attack Syria without congressional authorization. Obama only directed time-limited military action against Libya under the auspices of NATO (same with Clinton in Serbia/Kosovo) and authorized under the war powers act.
4
Limit his authority? The Constitution does not give the POTUS the authority to declare war.
Editor’s note: This comment has been anonymized in accordance with applicable law(s).
1
Another move aimed to limit Trump’s authority, but might backfire. Did Obama, Clinton or Bush, or even Kennedy and Johnson, were limited in their functions as Commander in Chief whenever they took the country to war?
1
What are the thoughts of the squad on war with Iran, or do they even have time for that apart from the one on Nancy they’re already waging full on?
1
@John Doe
AOC was elected in a district that has been hard Democratic for decades.
When she beat Democratic Caucus Chair Joe Crowley, a 10-term incumbent, in the primary, it was a fait accompli that she would be elected to Congress.
What she, and Ayanna Pressley (who won under the same situation here in MA, beating Mike Capuano, former mayor of Somerville, MA and a 10 term incumbent), Rashida Tlaib (who ran unopposed in the general election) and Ilhan Omar (who ran for Keith Ellison's seat when he announced he would not run) seem not to understand is that many Democrats are running in districts that are much less hard D than their districts.
They all had a fairly straightforward way to win once nominated, and they think everybody has the same fortunate situation, when that is not true.
Maybe they should think twice before making a problem for others. They are not winning any popularity contests in Congress. Unless their nominal 10 million on line supporters get a lot more members who think as they do elected to Congress, all their noise is just that - noise.
I would be happy if they can get a lot more liberal Democrats elected to Congress. Works for me. But they need to "put up or shut up."
2
@John Doe
Keep treating them like they are the president and you will make it a reality sooner than you realize.
Yeah, and in that heavily D district, AOC beat out a rather powerful incumbent in the primary. No small feat.
Editor’s note: This comment has been anonymized in accordance with applicable law(s).
Trump's foreign policy amounts to international version of "Stand your ground", where he can go pick a fight (as in: withdraw from a treaty that Iran was complying with, escalate sanctions and try to drive Iran into economic starvation), then, when Iran fights back at what puny level it can, Trump gets to declare all-out war, and only he gets to decide (at the advise of Fox News, apparently).
The Congressional role in declaring war is not an ancient, "dumb" formality. It matters, because without it, such action does NOT have the backing of the people of the United States, which our armed services deserve and need to carry out an extended engagement. It avoids the capricious and arbitrary actions of an incompetent CINC.
In this situation no sane person thinks that Trump can be trusted to act with any level of fidelity towards anyone other than his friends the Saudis, Bibi, Vladimir and associated thugs. Committing the US to Congressional approval for more than self-protective rules of military engagement is smart and constitutional.
3
Obviously, all of you in Congress waited for a convincing event to justify this because you were afraid of the dangerous military until now. We know who runs the nation.
1
I wish I could be optimistic about the Senate going along with this. Trump and Republicans are all about undoing whatever Democrats have done. Set aside your egos and think about what's right for the country, for once.
9
Meanwhile we have no confirmed secretary of defense
2
Long overdue. Next, repeal the post 911 AUMF and the war powers act.
3
It is about time. But the bill needs the same level of support in the Senate. In fact, it needs veto proof majorities in both houses of Congress. The case against Iran is being carried by the same people who stand with Saudi Arabia while it destroys Yemen putting millions on the brink of starvation and with Israel as it strangles captive Palestinian populations who inconveniently will not recognize Israeli sovereignty over the lands of their ancestors.
The anti-Iran bloc seems perfectly willing to violate international law to punish Iran. They are also eager to manufacture falsehoods about Iranian behavior in the Middle East and elsewhere to support a cruel and counter productive foreign policy that is both arrogant and ineffectual.
5
It is not clear how the Iran thing got going in the first place.
Prime Minister of Japan visits Iran, 2 vessels are tampered with, Iran claims they rescued 44 sailors and the White House decides at the last second not to drop bombs.
The Doomsday Clock is ticking down below 2 seconds and the guy at the switch is a madman.
5
Finally, one move in the correct direction.
1
This is long overdue. Congress never should have granted the sweeping powers that the executive branch now enjoys; it's deeply harmed our so-called democracy.
326
Agreed. Congress likes the arrangement, though, because they don’t have to be on record for supporting a military action that leads to a bad outcome—or, more rarely, against one that succeeds.
14
@Eugene Ray, They never passed it, it is just accepted that the President can declare war, from Viet Nam onward.
3
@Eugene Ray Our President is the Commander and Chief of the USA Armed Forces; as was properly conceived by our founding fathers to prevent long delays in dealing with external threats, unless you prefer USA to be helpless in the future?
It is really incredible how much the US spends on its military that could be much more better used in healthcare, education, infrastructural building, immigration facilities - investments that may very well make the US more safe and secure than any elaborate and intimidating security apparatus, expensive equipment, that have no multiplier effect on the quality of growth on people.
8
@Aloysius No, US taxpayers money is better spent waging illegal and fabricated wars for the Israeli warmongers and the Saudi tyrants, beside defense contractors and special interests. Think of the children! /s
The last time the US declared war was June '42, against Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania.
76
@David - Makes sense seeing it's the last war we had any business in getting involved in. The last several wars were illegal acts.
21
@David: Actually they declared war against the USA first. They were all under Germany's Nazi control at the time.
4
@David According to Obama in a 2013 we are war with multiple entities - "Under domestic law, and international law, the United States is at war with al-Qaida, the Taliban, and their associated forces," said President Obama, in a 2013 speech at National Defense University that sought to explain the legal reasoning. "We are at war with an organization that right now would kill as many Americans as they could if we did not stop them first. So this is a just war — a war waged proportionally, in last resort, and in self-defense."
Even though those entities are not recognized country states it was used to enter and attack positions in multiple countries with whom we are not technically at war. So if Iran has made threats against us and we know that they have supported multiple terrorist groups without a change to that 2001 act any President is likely to be found to be within their legal rights to attack without approval. Our world has gotten much more murky from the days when the only real attacks a country would face was from an actual country.
1
It is long overdue for Congress to reclaim its power to declare war. This is a step in the right direction.
12
Great move. It’s easy to flex our military power into these countries, but once in, it’s almost impossible to get out. These are never ending military commitments.
9
Great news. It's about time.
Question?
If both houses pass it does Trumpy have to sign it?
If he does not sign is there enough for a veto override?
6
He can't veto just this one amendment. He'd have to veto the whole bill.
@kndtate - Thanks for that.
Do elections really matter?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/11/opinion/politicians-voters.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_190712?campaign_id=2&instance_id=10858&segment_id=15150&user_id=51354ab15825049d2b2fadfcbcf4324b®i_id=674911190712
1
It's about time Congress got its act together and voted to take back this authority. If we've learned nothing over the past decades it should be that sheer fire-power isn't everything. It's easy to think that "overwhelming force" will rule the day. It's the easy part. The bigger problems are casualties; caring for and rehabilitating the wounded; innocent civilians caught in harm's way; and rebuilding countries that are destroyed, to name a few. Wars are too easy to start and the consequences too massive to have any one individual empowered to make the unilateral decision to start an armed conflict, regardless of who occupies the Oval Office.
10
Amen! Finally Congress comes together! As a homeschooler even my middle schooler knows Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution states: The Congress shall have the Power To...declare War, grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerningCaptures on Land and Water...To raise and support armies...to provide and maintain a Navy...(as well as) to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces... perhaps the so-called Potus ought to read the US Constitution daily, like my 13-year-old does. Just a thought.
4
House is just putting the president on notice that no hasty strikes that could escalate the tensions will be tolerated. So far Trump has shown extreme restraint and unlikely to start a regime change war in Iran. That said, Trump needs to ease some humanitarian sanction as a gesture of goodwill to start a new deal talks.
8
Their hearts may be in the right place, but this is unconstitutional. The President is the Commander in Chief. His authority to attack a country who threatens us is sacrosanct and cannot get bogged down in Congress.
@XLER
Constitutionally, only Congress has the power to declare war. The president is Commander in Chief of the armed forces. There's an important difference.
8
@XLER
Nope. Check the Constitution. War powers belong to Congress exclusively.
4
The Constitution gives Congress war powers. Trump does NOT have the authority to attack Iran under the old Iraq war authorization, under which Congress delegated it to Bush for a specific purpose. If he did so, it would be an impeachable offense.
I am concerned that the House's action conveys that congressional action is necessary to stop him, and we know McConnell will shut it down on the Senate side.
13
This president doesn't know what powers each branch of the government controls. He thinks he is the Supreme Leader!
29
This has nothing specifically to do with Iran. It has to do with ALL countries.
Only Congress has the power to “declare War”. This re-statement of the Constitution should be included in all legislation going forward.
38
Hopefully, the Senate will concur. They all know that Trump has no grasp of foreign affairs, diplomacy, and strategy.
21
Thank you Speaker Pelosi for your leadership. A ray of sunshine in the darkness of Washington.
33
Yes. Although I wish some of the House's newbies would appreciate what a treasure Speaker Pelosi is. I just beam with pride when it relates to our Nancy.
1
All of this is assuming that Trump will follow the law, an assumption with no evidence to back it up.
8
Good move for the House, and the 71 Repubs deserve recognition, but there is no reason to expect the Repub controlled Senate to join. See June 28 NYT article.
7
About time, but I'm still not satisfied. Reinstating the draft with a option for alternative federal service (within reason) and without deferments should temper our enthusiasm for foreign wars-especially when legislators (their children) have some skin in their games.
5
@William White
An absolutely solid idea. It's too easy to send someone else's kid off to war or send someone else in your place because you have more important things to do.
2
@William White
And it would be only fair to include girls and women in that draft.
2
That's my congressman, doing tangible work. From the Internet Bill of Rights to foreign policy, Ro Khanna knows what the American people care about and, more importantly, acts on it. Keep doing what your doing, Ro!
3
This is stunning...Matt goes again Trump.
Has anyone check Vegas odds on Trump being impeached...odds must be shifting more likely Matt has insider knowledge and wants to save his skin.
5
Maybe this signals a return to responsibility by a hapless Congress. Time will tell.
Trump has been marching to an Iranian War for years now. This act might slow the sacrifice of another drone to start it.
C'mon Congress, keep going! You were proud Americans once. Reclaim your tattered honor.
7
FINALLY a bipartisan effort to rein in the President!
I doubt that the Senate will join the House but this is a good start.
15
Make it a true bipartisan Bill that slaps Trump superiority complex down several notches and pass it with no attachments.
5
Remember, lefties: Pelosi never does anything.
1
@Robert
Speaker Pelosi runs the House of Representatives much better than Paul Ryan or John Boehner ever did. Remember them?
Sounds like a little projection (based on trump's "winning") to me.
trump promises, and never delivers -
no wall paid for by Mexico;
no "beautiful" health care plan, cheaper and better, for everyone;
no citizenship question;
all those "very best people" he has hired;
so many trade war victories;
so many coal and steel jobs brought back from overseas;
so many new factories going up all over;
so much facing down China;
so much getting rid of North Korea's nukes and missiles;
so much preventing Iran from getting nukes;
so many people stopped at the border (and those not stopped treated so well);
should I go on??
So much "winning" my head is spinning.
1
If Congress passed this bill to apply to this president and all future presidents, I would support it. In its present form, it is a just a feel good, waste of time.
37
@RandyJ
Are you forgetting that such a bill probably wouldn't pass? One step at a time.
6
@RandyJ Why do you assert it wouldn't apply to future presidents? Does it mention Trump by name? Does it only apply to the funds being appropriated?
And even if it only restricted Trump right now why is it a waste of time? Do you believe what he says? Why would you do that?
There is no reason for the USA to go to war with Iran except to enable the industrial military complex to make profit and for Trump and his family to find personal favor with Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Things are different now than when the USA invaded Iraq. People worldwide communicate more, countries and peoples are more interdependent. Any action will be unilateral, bar sycophantic deployment by the likes of the UK, and the reputation damage huge.
243
@Darren McConnell
Things are not all that different. We also have another incompetent leader at the helm. And don't forget to add that there will be thousands of American lives lost as well as profit for the Industrial military complex and for Trump and his family (aka the Beverly, Washington Hillbillies), but, of course, this is always considered collateral damage.
14
@Wally Wolf Like World War Two , we can stand by and simply watch the entire Middle East be over run by the Iranians and their proxies which they are well on their way to doing ,or confront them now ,,, may be we could wait for a better day ??? Maybe after they increase to nuclear weapons? And turn our heads again to the atrocities that were committed in history
@Robert
When it comes to atrocities being committed, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has Iran beat, hands-down.
11
I wish we had a "peace-industrial complex." I'd gladly accept some overpriced diplomacy.
365
@Mac Presidential Candidate Marianne Williamson has called for a "Department of Peace" to address these kinds of things....nothing woo-woo about that!
11
@Mac
And Presidential Candidate Kucinich also argued for a Department of Peace in the 2004 race. He was serious about using the principles of conflict resolution.
I'm sure if we provided a few hundred billion dollars to experts in conflict resolution we might be able to save lives and a trillion dollars for the effort.
But that is waaaaay to feminine for the jocks we have in Congress presently.
28
Let’s make the Peace Corp the size of the military and the military the size of the Peace Corp.
35
At least 27 Republicans still have scrupulous and good sense. I applaud their willingness to buck the tide in the interest of saving what could be millions of lives, all the way across the board.
23
It's about time. Thank you, Reps. Khanna and Gaetz, and thanks especially, Rep. Gaetz, for trying to bring your party into this effort for Congress to do its job.
We've had countless undeclared wars since WWII ended and what seems to be a common thread is that it's awfully hard to end them, even if it's easy to start them.
Having Congress resume its responsibility to declare wars would be helpful.
"Representative Michael McCaul of Texas, the top Republican on the Foreign Affairs Committee, called the measure “a propaganda win for the Iranian regime and the Houthi allies.”"
Rep. McCaul, please re-read the US Constitution and consider whether you are working for Americans or just rubber-stamping things for the Saudi royal family.
102
You can be sure that Netanyahu has been whispering for Trump to do his dirty deed for 2.5 years.
58
Let's not forget - we had a deal with Iran to curb all this. Iran is not coming out of left field on their comments and actions. There was a deal the US was part of, that was working, the Trump administration backed out of the deal, and Iran is responding. In several ways. Any mention of military action with Iran in the media should reflect this - it was completely avoidable.
205
@Ben Trump's method of operation:
1.start a crisis
2.get involved to settle it
3.whatever happen claim victory
Rinse and Repeat
1
I thought the Constitution gave the power to declare war to Congress. We should have learned from Viet Nam that these military actions that amount to undeclared war are a disaster for our country. Can we please return to the division of powers outlined in the Constitution.
86
I’m all in favor of this but too bad Congress has to pass bills to enforce the Constitution.
25
Well this would be a great thing, if it had any impact. Says right here in the article, this has to get past the Senate first, and it won't. The Republican majority in the Senate will vote in lockstep to let Trump have the ability to declare war whenever he wants. So long as the Senate remains committed to supporting Trump no matter how fascist and idiotic he gets, Congress cannot really stop the degradation of Democracy in America.
So get ready for a worthless, destructive, expensive, murderous, unjustifiable war with Iran. That's what Bolton and Pompeo want, Trump will go along with it to try to improve his ratings, and we'll be involved in another pointless war soon enough.
43
Let Trump strike Iran. Give him enough rope to hang himself, politically speaking. Then in 2020 let the Republicans in Congress defend their position on his actions.
7
@Oliver
What? Have some Iranians and Americans killed or wounded, not to mention a possible escalation to even worse conflicts, just to score political points? No thanks.
If the radical hardliners in Iran provoke a war (as the American ones seem to be doing), then yes, they should be held in check by measured, proportionate response(s). Otherwise, humanitarians don't want civilian casualties. (I know a number of Iranian immigrants here in Canada and they are wonderful people, as are many Americans.)
4
@Oliver Your complete disregard to the well-being of those who would be attacked is touching... That's typically the kind of reflexion demonstrating why the US are rightly considered the "greatest threat to peace in the world" (win/gallup international): their citizens just don't care about who their government is murdering abroad...
1
A turning point back to 3 equal independent (semi) branches of government would be so welcomed. Scariest thought ever to have the man that is currently President making life and death decisions for the country and possibly the world.
27
@karen m
He already made a life and death decision affecting the U.S. and the world when he pulled us out of the climate agreement.
The imbecilic depravity of this man knows no bounds.
4
WOW!! Congress is finally doing its job of accountability. Like totally WOW!!!
15
Does #45 want to try and be POTUSA for Life?
Are y'all going to vote on November 03, 2020,?
4
Given a congress that does not care, in sufficient numbers, to protect our borders, our privacy, our money, our heritage and our Bill of Rights, I am not impressed that this is much of an improvement. Further, given the numbers who support starting wars for their own financial gain, I have faint confidence that this is in our best interests.
2
@Mat
Legislation to limit presidential war powers is not a way to limit wars? Explain that reasoning.
4
A rare sensible act by congress. The constitution is set up in a manner in which every president should need the approval to engage in warfare.
Although rare, I'm glad to see the government functioning as it was constructed to.
58
Has there been an outbreak of common sense and responsibility in Washington all of a sudden?
83
@eheck
No, just in the Democrat-majority House of Representatives.
27
@eheck
Call it what you will, I'm just glad to be able to sigh a little bit of relief at this point. It's one thing for lawmakers to be at odds with various domestic issues, but when it comes to Iran and nuclear scenarios, how can there be but only one mindset and agreement - the need for Congressional approval? Not sure if anyone can keep that guy totally in check, but at least there are positive and strong indications that not every Republican is blindly behind their leader when it comes to this issue. Hopefully this is the first step of many in which members of the GOP are waking up and smelling something rotten in the air which needs to be addressed.
9
See? Elections do have consequences.
1
Perhaps President Trump will issue an Executive Order if he wants to strike Iran militarily. Or declare a national emergency. Let's not let a little thing like democracy and co-equal branches of government stand in the way of anything Mr. Trump wants to do.
I applaud Congress for taking this step, and especially the 27 Republicans who joined Democrats in voting for it. If only more Republicans can find their backbones to stand up to our authoritarian President on other matters as well.
628
@jrinsc
Rather, "I applaud the House for taking this step..."
65
@jrinsc. Yesterday, Barr applauded Trump for not disregarding the finding of the Supreme Court, i.e., applauded Trump for obeying the law. Today we applaud the House for putting forward a bill that says, in effect, the President shall obey the Constitution in matters of military actions. That’s how low we’ve gotten. Hooray!
98
@jrinsc the republicans are too busy trying to defend our country from treasonous dems who insist on prioritizing the illegal alien over the American citizen.
3
This is both sensible and constitutionally sound. The president is commander in chief of the armed forces. He is not commander in chief of going to war. The Constitution gave that power to the Congress, not the president. Finally, decades and thousands of bodies later, Congress is taking that role seriously and not shirking it for political convenience. Let's hope the Senate follows suit.
419
@Bill
This is well intentioned and overdue but doomed. It will not even get a hearing in the Senate. Mitch McConnell still lives.
18
@Bill Good luck with changing our Constitution, which can only be accomplished by the liberal minorities, and not by well meaning conservatives like yourself?
1
@CoachJames What Bill described is already in the Constitution, we have no need to change it.
7
"The House voted Friday to curb President Trump’s ability to strike Iran militarily on Friday, adopting a bipartisan provision that would require the president to get Congress’s approval before authorizing military force against Tehran."
I would have thought this notion of a "bipartisan provision which would require the president to get Congress's approval" would have been a no-brainer.
We'll see how strong these GOP spines are and for how long. In the meantime, I think I see a crack of light in that dark abyss of the Trump administration.
50
Yes, but will the Russian-Republican Senate join the House in reeling in this country's unstable genius ?
It's doubtful that the Senate will demonstrate any courage, leadership or spine.
Don't forget to register and vote in 2020.
Elections matter.
327
@Socrates
I think many Americans learned that lesson the hard way.
6
@Socrates, no, the Senate won't be of service, much less override a veto. Nor will they allow a conviction in case of impeachment. You're absolutely right that we can and must remove Trump and his republican enablers in 2020. Let us unite--and we can begin to repair our nation and its standing in the world. Those who sow discord and division are not our friends.
18
@Socrates The Grim Reaper will have his way with this.
2
It’s insane that a person who is president needs to be told what he can and can’t do. This should be mandatory knowledge for anyone running for office!
64
@Robert M. Berry Remember LBJ? Nixon? Reagan? W? Not to be too partisan, we could go back to Wilson as well.
There seems to be something inherent in the office, or perhaps in those who seek it, that needs reining in. The Congress should not limit their proposed restriction to this president or this situation but should fully restore their constitutional responsibilities with regard to war.
8