Results 1 to 28 of 28

Thread: Rand Paul Forces Last-Minute Debate On War Authorization

  1. #1

    Default Rand Paul Forces Last-Minute Debate On War Authorization

    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/2014/1...n_6276048.html
    Last edited by jct74; 12-05-2014 at 05:02 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    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/congr...-vote-20141204

  4. #3

    Default

    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.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  5. #4

    Default

    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 heíd get a debate ó and a vote on a stand-alone amendment ó next week.

    ďIím going to reserve my amendment ítil next week if Iím guaranteed a vote on an AUMF,Ē Paul told reporters. He ultimately pulled his amendment from legislation aimed at increasing safe drinking water across the globe.

    Paulís 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 Paulís 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: ďA hearing and a vote ó thatís what Iíve always wanted.Ē

    ...
    read more:
    http://www.politico.com/story/2014/1...te-113321.html

  6. #5

    Default

    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/politi...-paul-on-isis/

  7. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    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.
    Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder. ~GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter, Aug. 17, 1779

    Quit yer b*tching and whining and GET INVOLVED!!

  8. #7

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YesI'mALiberal View Post
    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.
    Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder. ~GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter, Aug. 17, 1779

    Quit yer b*tching and whining and GET INVOLVED!!

  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mosquitobite View Post
    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
    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

    "for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.

  11. #10

    Default

    moar, subject starts at about 3:40..

    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

    "for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mosquitobite View Post
    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

  13. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HVACTech View Post
    moar, subject starts at about 3:40..

    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.

  14. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YesI'mALiberal View Post
    If I'm reading that right, it sounds like his DOW is already DOA.
    You say that like it's a bad thing.

  15. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesiv1 View Post
    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.

  16. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twomp View Post
    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
    Last edited by YesI'mALiberal; 12-06-2014 at 10:23 AM.

  17. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YesI'mALiberal View Post
    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.
    Last edited by acptulsa; 12-06-2014 at 11:45 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Falsehood is Patriotism in an Empire of Lies.

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YesI'mALiberal View Post
    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.

  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mosquitobite View Post
    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

  20. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard101 View Post
    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.
    Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder. ~GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter, Aug. 17, 1779

    Quit yer b*tching and whining and GET INVOLVED!!

  21. #20

    Default

    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.

  22. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YesI'mALiberal View Post
    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...



    Thanks Obama for "tamping down the war fires."

  23. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YesI'mALiberal View Post
    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.
    Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter

    Life, Liberty, Logic

  24. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mosquitobite View Post
    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'.
    Freedom index

    ~Resident Badgiraffe





  25. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twomp View Post
    Thanks Obama for "tamping down the war fires."










    YES. THANKS OBAMA!

  26. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YesI'mALiberal View Post










    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?

  27. #26

    Default

    Obama isn't bad because someone else was worse!

  28. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    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
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst

  29. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesiv1 View Post
    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
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst






Similar Threads

  1. [Not true] FOX includes Rand Paul in the main debate at the very last minute.
    By timosman in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-13-2016, 12:02 PM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-31-2015, 06:20 PM
  3. Rand Paul Bill to Repeal Iraq War Authorization
    By FrankRep in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-10-2014, 10:39 PM
  4. FLASHBACK: Rand Paul voted against FISA re-authorization
    By radiofriendly in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-06-2013, 09:48 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •