McConnell ready to give Obama unlimited war powers

[Matt Collins]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mitch-mcconnell-war-authorization-isis_us_56a115eae4b0404eb8f083d0

[TheNewYorker]

4753

[farreri]

Yeah because following the constitution by getting a congressional approved declaration of war is just so inconvenient these days. Our Presidents just don't have time for that.

[charrob]

If this new AUMF is introduced, wouldn't it allow amendments to constrain the president?

If the new AUMF is introduced without any amendments, wouldn't it be exactly what we have now (which is basically unlimited presidential war powers)?

One amendment that should be introduced is that the president can no longer use the old AUMF from 2001 to go after ISIS because they are considered an offshoot of al Qaeda (otherwise what's the point of the new AUMF?). Or better yet, how about an amendment to repeal the 2001 AUMF? And, also, of course Tulsi Gabbard's amendment to dis-allow any U.S. efforts in the overthrow of Bashar Assad.

[Matt Collins]

If this new AUMF is introduced, wouldn't it allow amendments to constrain the president?

If the new AUMF is introduced without any amendments, wouldn't it be exactly what we have now (which is basically unlimited presidential war powers)?

One amendment that should be introduced is that the president can no longer use the old AUMF from 2001 to go after ISIS because they are considered an offshoot of al Qaeda (otherwise what's the point of the new AUMF?). Or better yet, how about an amendment to repeal the 2001 AUMF? And, also, of course Tulsi Gabbard's amendment to dis-allow any U.S. efforts in the overthrow of Bashar Assad.


Mitch is trying to play a game here.... Obama keeps bitching that Congress won't give him a AUMF to fight ISIS, so he just continues to use the open-ended AUMF for AlQueda. In secret, he doesn't want Congress to pass another AUMF because it could involve restrictions on his activities. Under the current one there is a lot he could get away with.

Mitch doesn't actually want to give Obama more power, but he wants to force a vote on the issue and call Obama's bluff. But this is a very difficult vote because Republicans will have have to decide whether or not they want to give Obama more power and get more war in the middle east, and Democrats don't want to vote for it because they will have to choose between getting more war, and possibly giving the next President the same exact war powers (Trump or Cruz perhaps?).

Either way this is kind of nastiness but Mitch is trying to call Obama's bluff.

[mrsat_98]

Didn't TPTB just allow a bunch of these folks stateside, watch the military is going to get turned loose here.

[A Son of Liberty]

Mitch McConnell? The Senator guy from Kentucky... that Mitch McConnell? Oh, that's good. I was afraid for a second it was the Mitch McConnell from Kentucky who Rand endorsed and supported during the last election cycle. Sheeeew... good thing playing politics didn't get in the way of unlimited executive powers!

FTS. You can have it.

[Lucille]

Mitch is trying to play a game here.... Obama keeps bitching that Congress won't give him a AUMF to fight ISIS, so he just continues to use the open-ended AUMF for AlQueda. In secret, he doesn't want Congress to pass another AUMF because it could involve restrictions on his activities. Under the current one there is a lot he could get away with.

Mitch doesn't actually want to give Obama more power, but he wants to force a vote on the issue and call Obama's bluff. But this is a very difficult vote because Republicans will have have to decide whether or not they want to give Obama more power and get more war in the middle east, and Democrats don't want to vote for it because they will have to choose between getting more war, and possibly giving the next President the same exact war powers (Trump or Cruz perhaps?).

Either way this is kind of nastiness but Mitch is trying to call Obama's bluff.

By giving the president unlimited power to wage war anywhere, anytime? Boy, that Mitch sure is a crafty one.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-22/mitch-mcconnell-moves-grant-president-unlimited-war-powers-no-expiration-date


This morning, I came across an extremely important story with tremendous long-term negative implications for freedom in these United States. It relates to the fact that the always shady Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is moving to fast track an Authorization of Military Force (AUMF) for the President that would allow for unrestricted warfare against ISIS. There would be no time or geographic restrictions on this authorization. Rather than being a favor to President Obama, this is primarily a means to ensure that whoever takes control in 2017 receives a blank check for unrestrained militarism with no expiration date. This is terrifying.
[...]

The AUMF put forward by McConnell would not restrict the president’s use of ground troops, nor have any limits related to time or geography.
[...] Obama is still carrying out his illegal war on ISIS with barely a peep from our incredibly corrupt and useless Congress. Indeed, the only thing Congress is scheming to do is to ensure the next President receives a blank check for perpetual war.
[...]
Exactly. It’s not the one the President asked for, it’s far more aggressive and dangerous.
[...]
Sorry, but wasn’t the entire idea of a legislative branch to precisely restrict what the President can do. Congress is purely ceremonial at this point. What an utter embarrassment.

[Lucille]

The Unbelievably Evil Mitch McConnell
https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/unbelievably-evil-mitch-mcconnell/


And his promotion of military dictatorship (http://www.infowars.com/breaking-military-martial-law-bill-sneaked-through-by-senate/).


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is attempting to fast track a “war powers” bill that will allow President Obama nearly unlimited power to deploy the military anywhere in the world for any length of time – including on U.S. soil.
[...]
“The Authorization for Use of Military Force put forward by McConnell would not restrict the president’s use of ground troops, nor have any limits related to time or geography,” Defense One reported.

In other words, the authorization allows the president to deploy the military anywhere at his discretion – both foreign and domestic – for as long as he wants.
[...]
It’s also interesting to note McConnell is trying to push through the bill on a Friday as an unprecedented blizzard slams the northeast U.S., including Washington, D.C.

[Suzanimal]

What could possibly go wrong?

[Brian4Liberty]

So what's the hidden agenda here?

- The most obvious beneficiary is the MIC.

- How will this effect the Presidential race? We know that Rand, Cruz, Rubio and Bernie may have to vote on it. How will it effect other candidates? What will be the ramifications if a candidate supports or opposes this AUMF?

- Other effects?

[otherone]

ugh.
Marginally more evil than the comments about it at Huffpo.

[r3volution 3.0]

As Collins said, the 2001 AUMF is still in effect, and already grants to the POTUS the power to wage war anywhere against anyone plausibly associated with AQ (i.e. anyone). Only Rand and a handful of others object to this (claiming that the 2001 AUMF is now void, with the original AQ long gone). So, Mitch must be playing some other game here, perhaps along the lines of what Collins is suggesting, I couldn't say. To be perfectly clear, I'm not denying that Mitch wants unlimited presidential war-making powers, he does, along with most every other GOPer and Dem, I'm just saying that this bill wouldn't grant them, because they already exist.

[rg17]

Yay! :rolleyes:

[rg17]

So what's the hidden agenda here?

- The most obvious beneficiary is the MIC.

- How will this effect the Presidential race? We know that Rand, Cruz, Rubio and Bernie may have to vote on it. How will it effect other candidates? What will be the ramifications if a candidate supports or opposes this AUMF?

- Other effects?

Rubio will miss it.

[twomp]

Mitch is trying to play a game here.... Obama keeps bitching that Congress won't give him a AUMF to fight ISIS, so he just continues to use the open-ended AUMF for AlQueda. In secret, he doesn't want Congress to pass another AUMF because it could involve restrictions on his activities. Under the current one there is a lot he could get away with.

Mitch doesn't actually want to give Obama more power, but he wants to force a vote on the issue and call Obama's bluff. But this is a very difficult vote because Republicans will have have to decide whether or not they want to give Obama more power and get more war in the middle east, and Democrats don't want to vote for it because they will have to choose between getting more war, and possibly giving the next President the same exact war powers (Trump or Cruz perhaps?).

Either way this is kind of nastiness but Mitch is trying to call Obama's bluff.

HAHAHAH!!! Leave it to good ole Matt Collins to come in again with his "in depth" analysis. Proving once again that he doesn't know shit.


The AUMF put forward by McConnell would not restrict the president’s use of ground troops, nor have any limits related to time or geography. Nor would it touch on the issue of what to do with the 2001 AUMF, which the Obama administration has used to attack ISIS despite that authorization’s instructions to use force against those who planned the 9/11 terrorist attacks. By contrast, the legal authority put forward by the administration last February wouldn’t authorize “enduring offensive ground combat operations” and would have ended three years after enactment, unless reauthorized.

Let me quote it again for the dumbs dumbs to understand "Nor would it touch on the issue of what to do with the 2001 AUMF, which the Obama administration has used to attack ISIS despite that authorization’s instructions to use force against those who planned the 9/11 terrorist attacks."

http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/566633/mcconnells-surprise-move-war-authority

http://downtrend.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Obama-Laughing.gif

[fr33]

Wew, good thing we didn't coalesce and primary this shithead. :rolleyes:

[Brian4Liberty]

Wew, good thing we didn't coalesce and primary this shithead. :rolleyes:

Depends upon which "we" you mean. A lot of people supported Bevin in that Primary. Rand endorsed Mitch before there were any challengers. IIRC, Rand never said anything bad about Bevin after he got in the race. It was more like "may the better man win". It would have been crazy for a Tea Party or liberty voter to vote for McConnell. Bevin got plenty of press. McConnell won by being a major cog in the crony corporatist establishment, and the inertia of being an incumbent.

[fr33]

Depends upon which "we" you mean. A lot of people supported Bevin in that Primary. Rand endorsed Mitch before there were any challengers. IIRC, Rand never said anything bad about Bevin after he got in the race. It was more like "may the better man win". It would have been crazy for a Tea Party or liberty voter to vote for McConnell. Bevin got plenty of press. McConnell won by being a major cog in the crony corporatist establishment, and the inertia of being an incumbent.It was argued about in multiple topics on this forum at the time. Some on this site supported McConnell and some supported Bevin. Now that Bevin is governor, I certainly wouldn't say for sure that Rand could not have helped in making Bevin's Senate run successful.

[Dianne]

We need to implore Kentucky to recall McConnell. What is a good method to do this? They don't even know he is an accomplice to passing the Omni"bust" bill in the middle of the night, giving Obama's ass everything he ever wanted, plus some. McConnell and Ryan need to go..................... fast !!!! Sooner than later.

[Peace&Freedom]

Party leaders answer first to the MIC or other special interests, then to "partisan" considerations as cover. McConnell knows the prior AUMF has been treated like it gives Obama unending power to wage and expand war. But he and the MIC know it will wear increasingly thin with the public as a pretext for continued intervention going into a third Presidential administration, or third decade (the next President will be there into 2020).

Just like they needed to supposedly knock off Bin Laden in 2011, because after ten years, his usefulness as a meta-bogeyman had ended, and his non-capture had become an embarrassment. In like manner, a new authorization is needed to fit the parameters of the Threat 2.0 narrative, which now demands the President have explicit authorization to wage war anywhere in space (including against "extremists" within the US) and TIME (no timetables, no exits). The new authorization is to be issued, because TPTB don't want there to be any further legal basis for backtalk in limiting the Warfare state.

[pcosmar]

4753

http://www.equalparenting-bc.ca/images-2/button_fabian-turtle-w440.jpg


Mitch is trying to play a game here....

I have heard that **** too often.

[Matt Collins]

HAHAHAH!!! Leave it to good ole Matt Collins to come in again with his "in depth" analysis. Proving once again that he doesn't know shit.



If you want to believe the media, feel free to do so.

[twomp]

If you want to believe the media, feel free to do so.

HAHA you link an article from "the media", make up some bullshit theory with no facts to back it up then make dumbass comments like the one above. If you want to continue looking like you know nothing, feel free to do so.

[Lucille]

Congress is Writing the President a Blank Check for War
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2016/january/24/congress-is-writing-the-president-a-blank-check-for-war/


While the Washington snowstorm dominated news coverage this week, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was operating behind the scenes to rush through the Senate what may be the most massive transfer of power from the Legislative to the Executive branch in our history. The senior Senator from Kentucky is scheming, along with Sen. Lindsey Graham, to bypass normal Senate procedure to fast-track legislation to grant the president the authority to wage unlimited war for as long as he or his successors may wish.

The legislation makes the unconstitutional Iraq War authorization of 2002 look like a walk in the park. It will allow this president and future presidents to wage war against ISIS without restrictions on time, geographic scope, or the use of ground troops. It is a completely open-ended authorization for the president to use the military as he wishes for as long as he (or she) wishes. Even President Obama has expressed concern over how willing Congress is to hand him unlimited power to wage war.

President Obama has already far surpassed even his predecessor, George W. Bush, in taking the country to war without even the fig leaf of an authorization. [...]

It is becoming more clear that Washington plans to expand its war in the Middle East. [...]

The purpose of the Legislative branch of our government is to restrict the Executive branch’s power. The Founders understood that an all-powerful king who could wage war at will was the greatest threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is why they created a people’s branch, the Congress, to prevent the emergence of an all-powerful autocrat to drag the country to endless war. Sadly, Congress is surrendering its power to declare war.

Let’s be clear: If Senate Majority Leader McConnell succeeds in passing this open-ended war authorization, the US Constitution will be all but a dead letter.

[vita3]

Mitch needs to go.

[TNforPaul45]

McConnel, Graham, and Corker. Those three have a seething, frothing hatred for the Constitution and anyone who doesn't support government expansion of power. Might as well throw McCain in there too since I'm sure he is getting all "hot and bothered" by this bill.
"Sir does your proposed bill attack the constitution?"
"Why yes, yes it does!"
"Well then, to the Senate floor it goes! No committee for it!"
"How will we win support from the American people?"
"Well, we will say it will help us 'defeat the terrorists' and kick the butt of anyone else who makes America look bad!"
"Brilliant!"

Bills like this will get republican support since its attacking those "other different people" overseas, and support from democrats because, well, it makes Obama powerful.

[ZENemy]

Delegating rights they don't have? yup, that's gov.