Home | About | Donate

House Panel Takes Step to Cancel 'Blank Check for Endless War'


#1

House Panel Takes Step to Cancel 'Blank Check for Endless War'

Andrea Germanos, staff writer

A House committee on Thursday took a surprising—yet welcome—step towards canceling the "blank check for endless war."

That's because the Republican-controlled House Appropriations Committee passed a repeal of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which has been used justify ongoing military actions in regions around the world spanning the George W. Bush, Obama, and now Trump administrations.


#2

Trump decided to create his own version of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force by transferring the commander in chief's oversight function to his generals allowing them a free hand in setting troop levels and the way they conduct the wars.


#3

Death control without birth control is a recipe for disaster.


#4

Even republicans, not noted for their capacity to be rational, are scared of the escalating military confrontation with Russia. They are rightfully scared that Trump will get us into a nuclear war. Not much money to be made in a smoking pile of radioactive ash.


#5

I think they've seen Trump up close and realize, whatever their policy agreements, he's not someone you can trust to act rationally in difficult circumstances. As much as I don't like McConnell, he basically hinted as much the other day in that "leak" about his meeting with Trump on healthcare wherein he told Trump to back off and shut up basically. No doubt that came from someone on McConnell's staff otherwise the story's an embarrassment for Trump.

Republicans want to help their wealthy donor class. A mentally unstable self-involved old man with a nuclear arsenal doesn't do a lot for them.


#6

But if Congress follows through on this in a meaningful way – by reducing military sufficiently – the generals won't have the means to carry on.  Not that it matters much – the past fifteen years have generated enough enemies for us in the Middle East (and elsewhere) to keep the Office of Homeland Security busy for several generations.

More likely a nuclear war with North Korea than Russia.  Putin and Trump are bosom buddies, after all, while Kim Jong-un is apparently even more insane than Tweetle-Dumb himself.


#7

Trust Congress as far as you can throw the Capitol building.

We need to be a powerful, disruptive mass-movement, demanding peace now.


#8

I'm not so sure that Putin and Trump are buddies. I think that Putin helped Trump become president to give the US a big middle finger and because he thought he could play Trump like a Stradivarius. Putin got way less than he bargained for. Trump is stupid and unaware of consequences. He could use nukes just because he likes to see big explosions. He is, however, confronting Putin in Syria, and Putin said that if the US crossed the line, Russia would shoot down US warplanes. That is not the talk of a buddy, but someone threatening war with the US. I'm not sure that Trump is smart enough to keep his arm out of the mouth of a biting dog.


#9

"Peaceful Disruption" may sound like an oxymoron, but IIRC such happenings did help get us out of Vietnam. OTOH, there was a military draft in effect back then, so far more families were directly affected by the war than are being impacted today.  And not just the Fat Cats who own Boeing, General Dynamics and Winchester are profiting from these endless wars – unfortunately, there are a great many middle- and working-class people in the U.S. whose jobs depend directly or indirectly on military spending.


#10

No question in my mind that Putin is utterly contemptuous of Trump, but I think Trump still admires Putin and thinks of him as a "Fellow World Leader".  Tweetle-Dumb might even believe that he's tough enough to bluff Putin into backing down in Syria, which is dangerous to be sure.


#11

What did Putin do? Give Killary his electoral college vote?


#12

A move to end the AUMF is a welcome sight for these sore eyes. I hope to see this amendment become law and an end to the constant war.

I also hope to see a day where the Koch brothers and co-conspirators will be arrested and brought to trial as traitors to the Republic for what they have done and are attempting to do to democracy.


#13

Personally, I think his operatives hacked the vote in a few states, so yes, he did give Trump electoral college votes that would otherwise gone to Clinton in three key northern states.


#14

A new AUMF will likely be worse than the existing one.

I don't question Barbara Lee's good intentions, but it seems a bit oxymoronic to attach this to a defense spending bill that includes a big increase to the MIC.

If indeed a new "debate" occurs leading to a new AUMF, there isn't a chance that the new AUMF will include language to limit war making powers, but rather to codify expanded war making powers.

That of course is why Republicans are for this. Any projection on them of any other motive is pure fantasy.

"Progressive" Democrats need to start playing chess, yesterday.


#15

Stopping Trump & Co. from turning Seoul into a sacrifice zone is reason enough to pass a new AUMF.
As to Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan & MENA issues, forcing the U.S. to admit publicly they're pursuing regime change, for purely economic reasons is long overdue. It's the necessary first step to make it clear U.S. Foreign Policy, and its heavy military budget priority and invasive emphasis, is akin to funding modern day mercenaries and rogue sea pirates. Then, we'll have see if American voters can handle some other inconvenient truths. More times than not, " We have met the enemy and it is us ".


#16

Best news in months... Barbra Lee for President!


#17

Is congress planning to do their job in accordance of the constitution? Mind numbing.


#18

My sentiments exactly. This is a way to expand the executive branch's unilateral war-making power. Any illusion that it is anything else is delusional.


#19

For a while now I have had this fantasy, that a bill like the following would be brought up by some Barbara Lee or Dennis Kucinich type lawmaker:

The family of any child under the age of 3 who is killed, whether intentional or unintentional, during combat operations of the United States, shall get a face-to-face formal apology from a representative of the United States Armed forces responsible for such act, as well as receiving $1,000,000 in compensation.

I want to see that debated on the floor of the House. I want to see lawmakers vote "no" that the children murdered in these wars of ours do not deserve apology and compensation. I want to see some lawmaker saying things like "Gee, don't you think that maybe we could make it 4 years old?" or "Is a non-American child's life really worth THAT much?".

The men in uniform would be sweating bullets if the area of responsibility started escalating...


#20

It's easy to be cynical, I know I am, but I do think some Republicans are growing wary of President Trump. As I note above, it was reported that McConnell basically told him to shut up and back off on healthcare. Not that I agree with McConnell on anything political in the least, but those comments obviously came from McConnell's camp, not Trump's, and they were clearly meant to show the president is an "F" up. I don't think the Republicans would have gone along with this if some weren't a little worried about our president. I hope at least.