Rand Paul Forces Last-Minute Debate On War Authorization

[jct74]

Rand Paul Forces Last-Minute Debate On War Authorization

by Jennifer Bendery
12/05/2014 1:36 pm EST

WASHINGTON -- A surprise move by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is driving action on an issue that many in Congress, and the White House, were hoping to punt into the next year: war.

Paul tried to force a vote on legislation declaring war against Islamic State militants during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Thursday. He offered his measure as an amendment to an unrelated water bill about to get voted out of the committee.

After hearing loud resistance from fellow Republicans, who urged more time for debate on the matter, the Kentucky senator pulled his proposal. But he had achieved what he actually wanted: a promise from the chairman, Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), to schedule a broader debate on the issue next week, along with a vote on a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) on Wednesday.

"I'm more than willing to withdraw my amendment," Paul said during the hearing. "I want more time, not less time, on this. The reason for bringing this up on the water bill is to force the issue."

The committee's plan is to bring in a top administration official on Monday, ideally Secretary of State John Kerry, to testify on what the administration would like in a new AUMF crafted around the battle against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS and ISIL), which has already been underway for four months and has cost $1 billion. The hearing would be followed by a classified briefing, a markup on a proposed AUMF and a Wednesday committee vote.

...

read more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/05/rand-paul-war-authorization-isis_n_6276048.html

[jct74]

Rand Paul and John McCain Go to War Over ISIS Vote
How a "nice little water bill" sparked a battle between a 2016 White House hopeful and the GOP's top hawk.

BY ALEX BROWN
December 4, 2014

A high-profile clash of Republican senators erupted Thursday after Sen. Rand Paul made a surprise, last-minute effort to force a vote on a declaration of war against the Islamic State.

The battle pitted Paul, a likely presidential contender who is wary of foreign entanglements, against Sen. John McCain, a past Republican White House nominee who remains his party's highest-profile defense hawk. The dispute between the upstart and the Old Bull was as much about respect for Senate procedure and tradition as it was about the deep foreign policy differences that divide the two men.

Paul's plan was to tie his proposal to an obscure water bill during a procedural lame-duck meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Republicans on the committee were outraged, saying the move was a hasty and ill-conceived method to addressing a weighty issue.

"It was the most bizarre meeting of the Foreign Relations Committee that I have ever attended in my life or ever expected to attend," McCain said. "A water bill, a nice little water bill, uncontroversial. … It was ludicrous. It's a living, breathing argument against lame-duck sessions."

For Paul, the unusual move was one of necessity. He believes it's imperative for Congress to weigh in on the ISIS conflict before it leaves town—even if it takes a rushed vote on an unrelated bill to get it done. The Kentucky Republican has cultivated a reputation for absolute fealty to the Constitution, and he believes the White House currently lacks the authority to engage the terrorist state without congressional go-ahead. Failing to act, he said, is to be complicit in executive overreach if and when the administration puts American forces into the fight.

...

read more:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/rand-paul-and-john-mccain-go-to-war-over-isis-vote-20141204

[CaptUSA]

Color me conflicted on this one. On the one hand, I agree with Paul's motives, but on the other... Let's just say, I hate it when they pull stunts like this on bills that grow the government. Big issues should not be handled in such a haphazard manner.

[jct74]

Rand Paul gets his war debate

By Burgess Everett and Jen Judson
12/4/14 10:02 AM EST

Congress may get a chance to debate an authorization of military force against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant after all.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) attempted to force a vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday by offering his legislation declaring war on the Islamic State as a last-minute amendment to an unrelated clean water bill that was scheduled for a vote. But he eventually relented under the promise that he’d get a debate — and a vote on a stand-alone amendment — next week.

“I’m going to reserve my amendment ’til next week if I’m guaranteed a vote on an AUMF,” Paul told reporters. He ultimately pulled his amendment from legislation aimed at increasing safe drinking water across the globe.

Paul’s move comes not because he is agitating for more war but as an articulation of his frustration with the lack of congressional action authorizing the fight against ISIL. However, congressional leaders had hoped to take up the authorization of military force issue next year, so Paul’s latest stand threatened to complicate things for a Congress eyeing the exits after a grinding lame duck session.

Asked if he was satisfied by the turn of events, Paul replied: “A hearing and a vote — that’s what I’ve always wanted.”

...

read more:
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/rand-paul-isil-military-force-vote-113321.html

[jct74]

Rand Paul's surprise move on ISIS

By Ted Barrett, CNN
Fri December 5, 2014

Washington (CNN) -- Sen. Rand Paul surprised members of the Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday when he threatened to force a vote on a declaration of war against ISIS as an amendment to an unrelated bill dealing with clean drinking water around the world.

The Kentucky Republican, frustrated that Congress hasn't voted to formally okay the military operation already underway against the terrorist group, said he hoped his move would "shame" the Congress into action.

"I think the most important duty of a legislator is to vote yea or nay on whether or not we are sending our young men and women to war," Paul told CNN. "I think we've been derelict in our duty, Congress has abdicated that duty. The President, I think, in his arrogance, has assumed that he doesn't even need to ask."

The unexpected move by Paul, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, prompted Democrats to quickly counter with proposals of their own and launched a spirited debate inside a small, camera-less committee room in the Capitol about the role Congress should play in approving military strikes. There were no TV cameras because none of the television outlets that cover Congress had planned to cover action on the somewhat obscure water bill.

...

read more:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/05/politics/rand-paul-on-isis/

[mosquitobite]

Color me conflicted on this one. On the one hand, I agree with Paul's motives, but on the other... Let's just say, I hate it when they pull stunts like this on bills that grow the government. Big issues should not be handled in such a haphazard manner.

He knows that the debate, and FAILURE, is more likely to happen with a Democratic controlled Senate than in a Republican one. Plain and simple.

I believe he wants the debate and wants the bill to start a war on ISIS to fail. Therefore, if he waits until 2015, the whole purpose falls through. He's banking on the anti-war, lame duck democrats voting NO.

[YesI'mALiberal]

“I’m going to reserve my amendment ’til next week if I’m guaranteed a vote on an AUMF,” Paul told reporters. He ultimately pulled his amendment from legislation aimed at increasing safe drinking water across the globe.

read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/rand-paul-isil-military-force-vote-113321.html (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/rand-paul-isil-military-force-vote-113321.html)




If I'm reading that right, it sounds like his DOW is already DOA.

[mosquitobite]

If I'm reading that right, it sounds like his DOW is already DOA.

It has a better chance of being DOA with a Democrat Senate. And he knows this.

[HVACTech]

He knows that the debate, and FAILURE, is more likely to happen with a Democratic controlled Senate than in a Republican one. Plain and simple.

I believe he wants the debate and wants the bill to start a war on ISIS to fail. Therefore, if he waits until 2015, the whole purpose falls through. He's banking on the anti-war, lame duck democrats voting NO.

I think this is a brilliant move.
it forces people to think of and define War.
what it is, and who has the power to declare it..

I find that MOST people have a serious lacking of the basics.
how is killing people with drones, NOT an act of War?
economic sanctions = act of war.

http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1254

[HVACTech]

moar, subject starts at about 3:40..


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZiy_AWv4uA&feature=player_detailpage

[Jamesiv1]

I believe he wants the debate and wants the bill to start a war on ISIS to fail. Therefore, if he waits until 2015, the whole purpose falls through. He's banking on the anti-war, lame duck democrats voting NO.
^^this

[Jamesiv1]

moar, subject starts at about 3:40..


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZiy_AWv4uA&feature=player_detailpage
I've always liked Chris Matthews. More than just about any of the rest of the talking head/political commentators.

Chris really knows his history. And Our Man Rand hangs right there with him. You can tell that Matthews respects Rand for that.

[twomp]

If I'm reading that right, it sounds like his DOW is already DOA.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[specsaregood]

I've always liked Chris Matthews. More than just about any of the rest of the talking head/political commentators.

Chris really knows his history. And Our Man Rand hangs right there with him. You can tell that Matthews respects Rand for that.

Back in the '08 campaign Ron was asked about which MSM talking heads he liked or watched/paid attention to and Chris Matthews was the only one I recall him mentioning.

[YesI'mALiberal]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

You say that like you misunderstand. There WILL be an AUMF and a continued bombing campaign; count on it. I SMH over how some of you can so misread the pulse of America. We have not become a nation of doves - witness, it's not the hawks who are pandering, flip-flopping, or "playing the game." The only thing tamping down the war fires at this time is Obama; if Romney were president, we would be involved in three full-spectrum wars right now - ISIL, Syria, and Iran.

All this coming debate will do is lay out the parameters of the AUMF. But Rand Paul has conceded* that they don't need a "Declaration of War." That little legalism has lost its only champion. Given that an AUMF is all that is needed, the debate will only be about whether the current ones need to be revised.

* apparently, based on that quote

[acptulsa]

The only thing tamping down the war fires at this time is Obama; if Romney were president, we would be involved in three full-spectrum wars right now - ISIL, Syria, and Iran.

LOL That's quite a leap of faith. You act like we aren't bombing more countries now than we were before your 'sainted messiah' ostensibly took over from Cheney. And I see no evidence they can spread U.S. forces any thinner than they are right now. I don't think anyone could order more interventions without reinstituting the draft.

Keep saying it, if you want to be a useful idiot for the powers that be. Knock yourself out. Like counting dancing angels on the pinhead, there's no threat of proof one way or the other.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

The only thing tamping down the war fires at this time is Obama; if Romney were president, we would be involved in three full-spectrum wars right now - ISIL, Syria, and Iran.

Obama as a person seems to be less of a warmonger than people in his own administration -- Biden, Kerry, Hillary, Petraeus.

I don't know how you can be so sure Romney would be worse, though. Romney is such a fundamentaly dishonest chameleon. He may have convinced some neocons he was their best friend in 2012, but that doesn't really mean anything.

Now, if you had said McCain would have us in several full-spectrum wars right now, there couldn't really be any doubt about that.

[Vanguard101]

He knows that the debate, and FAILURE, is more likely to happen with a Democratic controlled Senate than in a Republican one. Plain and simple.

I believe he wants the debate and wants the bill to start a war on ISIS to fail. Therefore, if he waits until 2015, the whole purpose falls through. He's banking on the anti-war, lame duck democrats voting NO.

I thought the same thing

[mosquitobite]

I thought the same thing

This is why some people's anger at his "warmongering" drives me nuts. They can only see what's right in front of them, not strategy.

[satchelmcqueen]

funny, so we are fighting an illegal war, that war hawks want. yet rand is asking for approval to fight the war, NOT stop it, yet they dont want to pass it through. this is the perfect way to make them look like we all know they are.

[twomp]

You say that like you misunderstand. There WILL be an AUMF and a continued bombing campaign; count on it. I SMH over how some of you can so misread the pulse of America. We have not become a nation of doves - witness, it's not the hawks who are pandering, flip-flopping, or "playing the game." The only thing tamping down the war fires at this time is Obama; if Romney were president, we would be involved in three full-spectrum wars right now - ISIL, Syria, and Iran.

All this coming debate will do is lay out the parameters of the AUMF. But Rand Paul has conceded* that they don't need a "Declaration of War." That little legalism has lost its only champion. Given that an AUMF is all that is needed, the debate will only be about whether the current ones need to be revised.

* apparently, based on that quote

WOW! This person still believes Obama is a dove..... You seem to be stuck in 2009 when Obama won his Nobel Peace Prize...

http://i.imgur.com/dL3Uhfe.png

Thanks Obama for "tamping down the war fires."

[Crashland]

You say that like you misunderstand. There WILL be an AUMF and a continued bombing campaign; count on it. I SMH over how some of you can so misread the pulse of America. We have not become a nation of doves - witness, it's not the hawks who are pandering, flip-flopping, or "playing the game." The only thing tamping down the war fires at this time is Obama; if Romney were president, we would be involved in three full-spectrum wars right now - ISIL, Syria, and Iran.

All this coming debate will do is lay out the parameters of the AUMF. But Rand Paul has conceded* that they don't need a "Declaration of War." That little legalism has lost its only champion. Given that an AUMF is all that is needed, the debate will only be about whether the current ones need to be revised.

* apparently, based on that quote

The only significant foreign policy difference between Obama and someone like Bush or Romney, is rhetoric. If you look at what Obama has actually done, it isn't a whole lot different from what you would expect out of Bush.

[William Tell]

He knows that the debate, and FAILURE, is more likely to happen with a Democratic controlled Senate than in a Republican one. Plain and simple.

I believe he wants the debate and wants the bill to start a war on ISIS to fail. Therefore, if he waits until 2015, the whole purpose falls through. He's banking on the anti-war, lame duck democrats voting NO.

That's a really good point, and when there is a GOP Senate, and they have a worse ISIS bill. He can oppose it on a technicality and point out that he authored one so he is not an 'isolationist'.

[YesI'mALiberal]

Thanks Obama for "tamping down the war fires."

http://periodismoinvestigativo.com.co/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/IRAQ-WAR-FIGHTING.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/03_02/tankDM1603_468x331.jpg

http://aattp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/iraq-buildings-destroyed.jpg

http://newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/2012/2013-03-19-NBC-TDAY-Iraq.JPG



YES. THANKS OBAMA!

[twomp]

http://periodismoinvestigativo.com.co/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/IRAQ-WAR-FIGHTING.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/03_02/tankDM1603_468x331.jpg

http://aattp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/iraq-buildings-destroyed.jpg

http://newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/2012/2013-03-19-NBC-TDAY-Iraq.JPG



YES. THANKS OBAMA!
LOL! Is that really the best argument that you could come back with? Pathetic. Bush and Clinton killed more Iraqi civilians so that makes it okay for Obama to kill civilians? Defending the indefensible. Who is killing Iraqi civilians now? Who is killing civilians in Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria? Who killed cilvilians in Libya? How long are you gonna play that "It's Bush's fault" card for?

[Rudeman]

Obama isn't bad because someone else was worse!

[Matt Collins]

Color me conflicted on this one. On the one hand, I agree with Paul's motives, but on the other... Let's just say, I hate it when they pull stunts like this on bills that grow the government. Big issues should not be handled in such a haphazard manner.
There is zero chance it passes

[Matt Collins]

I've always liked Chris Matthews. More than just about any of the rest of the talking head/political commentators.

Chris really knows his history. And Our Man Rand hangs right there with him. You can tell that Matthews respects Rand for that.
Matthews used to be a Goldwater guy