House to vote Thursday on war powers resolution after Iran attacks

  
Via:  Nerm_L  •  2 months ago  •  42 comments

By:   Cristina Marcos

House to vote Thursday on war powers resolution after Iran attacks
Today, to honor our duty to keep the American people safe, the House will move forward with a War Powers Resolution to limit the President’s military actions regarding Iran

Sponsored by group News Viners

News Viners

Democrats have been rocked back on their heels.  The war that never was ended far too soon.  President Trump's 'lack of strategy' has been entirely successful.

Democrats' apparent concern for the security and safety of Iran should not be allowed to go unnoticed.  No weapons were ever fired into Iran.  Gen. Qassem Soleimani was killed not far from the Green Zone in Iraq while the US embassy was being attacked by Iranian proxies.  President Trump ordered the drone strike under existing authority provided by Congress.

Democrats are not demanding a withdrawal from the Middle East.  Apparently Democrats only want to control who the United States kills for partisan political advantage.  If a Democrat had killed Soleimani the political narrative would have been quite different.  But that opportunity was not seized by a Democratic President; they had their chance and chose to let it pass.  That Democratic President did not bend the trajectory of a status quo that was accomplishing nothing.

Democrats are chasing smoke and accomplishing nothing.  President Trump never threatened war or invasion.  Democrats have only twisted conventional wisdom to see what they wanted to see.  Democrats have blinded themselves by their own self serving strategy.


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


The House will vote Thursday on a resolution to limit President Trump's ability to take future military action against Iran without congressional authorization, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced Wednesday afternoon.


Pelosi's statement came after a classified lawmaker briefing from top administration officials following attacks by Iran the night before on two bases in Iraq that house U.S. troops. 


The resolution directs the president to end the use of U.S. armed forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran unless Congress has formally authorized it or if there is an "imminent armed attack upon the United States." It was introduced on Wednesday by freshman Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), a former CIA analyst who served three tours in Iraq and represents a competitive district.


“Members of Congress have serious, urgent concerns about the Administration’s decision to engage in hostilities against Iran and about its lack of strategy moving forward. Our concerns were not addressed by the President’s insufficient War Powers Act notification and by the Administration’s briefing today," Pelosi said.


“Today, to honor our duty to keep the American people safe, the House will move forward with a War Powers Resolution to limit the President’s military actions regarding Iran," Pelosi added.


Lawmakers said Wednesday that they are still trying to work something out that ensures the resolution will have a "privileged" status in the Senate and therefore will require action by the upper chamber.


Progressives have also been pushing Democratic leaders to also hold votes on two additional bills. One from Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) would prohibit funding for offensive military force in or against Iran without prior authorization from Congress while the other, from Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), would repeal the 2002 authorization of military force for the Iraq war.


Moments before Pelosi's announcement, members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus held a press conference calling for votes as soon as this week on the resolution as well as the two bills from Khanna and Lee.


Pelosi said that the House "may" vote on those measures but didn't commit to a timeframe.


“The House may also soon consider additional legislation on the Floor to keep America safe," Pelosi said.

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Nerm_L
1  seeder  Nerm_L    2 months ago

Democrats are protecting the United States from a war that never was.  Are Democrats trying to protect us from their own imagination?

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.1  Split Personality  replied to  Nerm_L @1    2 months ago

GOP Senator Lee just came out of the "worst military briefing" in the 9 years he's been in the Senate.

He was spitting mad. Apparently the WH told Congress they don't need to know everything and could not specify a provable reason to

kill Soleimani or any plots by Iran against the US.

Rand Paul concurred but reserved his comments til later.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.1  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Split Personality @1.1    2 months ago
GOP Senator Lee just came out of the "worst military briefing" in the 9 years he's been in the Senate.

That wasn't the assessment made by Rep. Mark Meadows.  As reported by Karoun Demirjian and Mike DeBonis of The Washington Post:

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), a Trump confidante who also sits on both committees, emerged from the same briefing calling it “the strongest and most decisive briefing that has ever been conducted in that classified setting,” praising Haspel especially for sharing “compelling” and “exhaustive” evidence about the need for the strike. 

“It leaves little doubt in my mind and certainly should leave little doubt in any member’s mind that not only did the president make the right call, but that this was a clear and present danger for American interests and American individuals,” Meadows said. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.1.2  Split Personality  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.1    2 months ago

Well, it's Meadows and the Post , lol.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.1.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.2    2 months ago

Shoot that messenger....................

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.4  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.2    2 months ago
Well, it's Meadows and the Post , lol.

Yes it is.  And it's also Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic caucus wanting us to believe otherwise for their own political advantage.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.1.5  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.1    2 months ago

Wow, A GOP Cronie sees it like Trump lays it down.

Who could have guessed ? Unless you think the GOP doesn't just tow the line for Trump, but, thinking you're smart enough to see that is practically all they do, and it is overdue, that the mental midget, that is able to dwarf all other mental midgets to ever hold the office, needs to be reigned in.  Especially since all responsible adults in Trumps' Administration, all got tired of babysitting the cry baby in chief, who, Good or Bad Grief Charlie Brown, has far more than proven, is in so far over his glowing Orange head, it's amazing more Americans haven't wound up wounded,

or Dead! And yea, many times over, it's due to something the mental midget DID Tweet or has Said.

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.1.6  Ronin2  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1.5    2 months ago
it's amazing more Americans haven't wound up wounded, or Dead!

If only Trump was competent as Bush or Obama. We would have far more wounded and dead. I am sure that would make those anti Trumpers happy.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Nerm_L @1    2 months ago

The resolution is non-binding. It's campaign politics, just like most of what the House has produced this session. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.2.1  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2    2 months ago
The resolution is non-binding. It's campaign politics, just like most of what the House has produced this session.

I hadn't seen that bit of information.  So, this is much ado about nothing.  House Democrats have only expressed an opinion which is much like having an butt hole.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Nerm_L @1.2.1    one month ago
So, this is much ado about nothing. 

Yup. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
2  Jeremy Retired in NC    2 months ago

I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me WHAT IRAN ATTACKS.   The airstrike that killed the Iranian asshole was carried out in BAGDHAD, IRAQ.  Maybe if the Iranian asshole wasn't IN IRAQ supporting those we are fighting it wouldn't wouldn't have happened.

The claims that the senile speaker is making that there was no congressional approval, is complete bullshit.  Again, the strike took place in IRAQ.  An area of the world that received congressional approval for when Obama sent US Forces BACK INTO.  So what is this blithering idiot doing?

 
 
 
Tacos!
3  Tacos!    2 months ago
The resolution directs the president to end the use of U.S. armed forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran

Umm. We aren't. I'm kinda not seeing the point of this. jrSmiley_26_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
3.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tacos! @3    2 months ago

Fake outrage of the Democrats over made up situations.  Nothing out of the ordinary.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
3.2  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Tacos! @3    2 months ago

They are trying to ensure Trump doesn't destroy Iran's Nuclear Missile Program...

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.2.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @3.2    2 months ago
They are trying to ensure Trump doesn't destroy Iran's Nuclear Missile Program...

You can stop with the ridiculous bullshit, no one is buying it. Neither Democrats nor Republicans want Iran armed with nuclear weapons. Any other unfounded narrative is unadulterated bovine butt brownie and anyone repeating such lies knows what feces they're actually chewing on but apparently don't care.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
3.2.2  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.2.1    2 months ago

Methinks thou dost protest too much...

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.2.3  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @3.2.2    2 months ago

Methinks thou dost protest too much...

What is he protesting again...?

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
3.2.4  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.2.3    2 months ago

Something about cows...

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.2.5  Ronin2  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.2.1    2 months ago

Then why are the Democrats so damn steadfast in their desire to protect Iran? Do they now like terrorists? Or do they hate Trump so much they are going to try and restrict the power of the presidency like never before?

Maybe it is both. 

Too bad they didn't show this type of stones with Obama over Libya, Syria, sending troops back into Iraq, or Yemen. Maybe the ME wouldn't be so damn fucked up right now. Obama was definitely Bush on steroids. Bush fucked things up, and Obama came in and made everything much worse.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.2.6  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Ronin2 @3.2.5    2 months ago

Too bad they didn't show this type of stones with Obama over Libya, Syria, sending troops back into Iraq, or Yemen. Maybe the ME wouldn't be so damn fucked up right now. Obama was definitely Bush on steroids. Bush fucked things up, and Obama came in and made everything much worse.

[[Deleted]]

Dick Cheney to be short

and two the point. You know, the guy picked to vette and find Jr. a vice

, and a VP .

Cause we would be in an entirely different world if not for those two fck ups,

True Story

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
3.2.7  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.2.1    2 months ago

personally , I don't think its very smart of the Iranians to even be messing with anything nuclear, the entire country is criss crossed with several earthquake fault lines , that reaches about 90% of the country , and in just the last 5 years alone they have had 18 earthquakes ( as of last night ) that were greater than a 5.0, and according to wiki , iran is one of the most if not the most seismically active countries in the world. but hey I could be wrong in my thinking about messing with that stuff in earthquake zones.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.2.8  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Ronin2 @3.2.5    2 months ago
Then why are the Democrats so damn steadfast in their desire to protect Iran? Do they now like terrorists?

What the fart are you babbling about. There are no Democrats "protecting" the regime or any extremists in Iran. There are sensible, reasonable people, both Democrat and Republican, who think war breaking out between us would be a bad thing. So short of bombing 81 million humans out of existence, perhaps negotiating is the better option, even if it hasn't been completely successful over the last forty years. I think it's worth it to keep trying. Some say that's long enough and we should just put our foot down, like Trump did killing their top General. Others say that was a very risky move that could bring us closer to war where likely tens of thousands would die, perhaps even millions. This point of view is not in any way to be confused with "protecting Iran", because it's not.

Most who hold this view see the regime in Iran as the terrorist organization they are who have the blood of thousands on their hands. Their leaders are bad guys, their General was a bad guy. This is not in dispute. But those who understand that fact recognize that every action, even that of taking out murderous scum, has consequences. I would love to celebrate the news of the murderous piece of shit Putin being taken out by a US drone strike while he visited his buddy Bashar in Syria, two worthless birds with one stone, but I would immediately understand that this was a reckless action that would almost certainly lead to the deaths of American soldiers by poking a bear and thus would instead be terribly saddened by a totally justified act.

Americans who are upset with this Presidents unhinged and poorly thought out actions are not supporting Iran or their terror regime in any way. They just believe there was a better, more responsible, thoughtful pathway to peace. One that would, perhaps, not be lined with the corpses of millions of civilians and possibly thousands of our own soldiers.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.2.8    2 months ago

Democrats are so fucking melodramatic.

There is no war with Iran.

Full stop.

Everything else is just Democratic imaginations run amok.

At what point do Democrats admit that doing nothing sucks?

Or do they honestly feel that attacks on Americans and our embassy should simply be ignored? Maybe issue a stern warning-- a red line, perhaps?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.2.10  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.2.8    2 months ago
Most who hold this view see the regime in Iran as the terrorist organization they are who have the blood of thousands on their hands.

So Democrats are claiming that it is necessary to negotiate with terrorists?  Democrats didn't express that attitude toward Muammar Gaddafi.  Why haven't Democrats demanded diplomatic negotiations with Bashar al Assad instead of unilaterally declaring that Assad has to go?

Unlike past threats made by Democrats, President Trump did not threaten Iran with regime change. 

Are Democrats trying to protect Iran because Iran spreads cash around Washington like Saudi Arabia does?  Are we stuck in the Middle Eastern quagmire because its a gravy train for Democratic politicians?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.2.11  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.2.8    2 months ago

Americans who are upset with this Presidents unhinged and poorly thought out actions are not supporting Iran or their terror regime in any way. They just believe there was a better, more responsible, thoughtful pathway to peace. One that would, perhaps, not be lined with the corpses of millions of civilians and possibly thousands of our own soldiers.

Realities to many Trump Supporters, are not going to be accepted, but your accurate depiction of them, even when falling upon ears stuffed with fingers playing monkey sculptures unable to absorb a vitamin to C, due to a decry, that floods and washes iiii's right out of OUR team,

cause teeming with ignorance

is all they haven't seen...

yet they still keep chomping

off their fingers for a bit

by cutting off all they don't knows, as their ignorance continues to blind as it grows

asz they prefer to believe Bull shit, asz they can't figure or feel, that a tat   is not the same as 

a tit      bit, like their finger in the middle,

leaving them dental Floss,     but at such a disproportionate

cost

not calculating the cumulative    loss   

shared by All of US

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.2.12  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.2.11    2 months ago
Realities to many Trump Supporters, are not going to be accepted, but your accurate depiction of them, even when falling upon ears stuffed with fingers playing monkey sculptures unable to absorb a vitamin to C, due to a decry, that floods and washes iiii's right out of OUR team,

D, the vitamin, is provided by light.  Darkness weakens all.  When the light shines we become stronger.  But too much light blinds; we crave darkness.  

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.2.13  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2.12    2 months ago
we crave darkness

Well, Mission Accomplished for far too many.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.2.14  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.2.13    2 months ago
Well, Mission Accomplished for far too many.

Yes.  The forces of darkness are, as we speak, attempting to dim the light.

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.2.15  Ronin2  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.2.6    2 months ago

Did I ever claim that Bush didn't suck?

Here are some things Bush is not responsible for.

1) Obama putting troops back into Iraq to save a government that is loyal to Iran. 

2) Obama inserting troops to train and supply "moderate" Sunni and Kurd rebels to fight ISIS/ISIL; and starting a bombing campaign under the guise of the War on Terror. Of course those rebels were fighting Assad's government as well. We all know Obama and Hillary wanted Assad gone. Thanks to Obama Russia has a new port, air base, and military bases in Syria. Trump has never done Putin favor equal to that.

3) The Libyan War to remove Qaddafi for the sake of British and French development oil contracts.

4) The entire Yemen debacle. 

I love the way the left acts like the 8 years between Bush and Trump never existed.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.2.16  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Ronin2 @3.2.15    2 months ago
Here are some things Bush is not responsible for.

How the Hell would Obama be responsible for adding troops,

If Cheney/Bush hadn't of invaded the WRONG DAMN COUNTRY 

Think on that one...

 
 
 
WallyW
3.2.17  WallyW  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2.10    2 months ago

  Are we stuck in the Middle Eastern quagmire because its a gravy train for Democratic politicians?

Not to mention all those "donations" to Dem coffers.

afb010820dAPC20200108034507.jpg
 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.2.18  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2.14    2 months ago

Yes.  The forces of darkness are, as we speak, attempting to dim the light.

and the witt

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.2.19  Ronin2  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.2.16    one month ago

Were the US troops withdrawn from Iraq? Here is a little refresher for you. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from_Iraq

The withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq began in December 2007 with the end of the Iraq War troop surge of 2007 and was completed by December 2011, bringing an end to the Iraq War . The number of U.S. military forces in Iraq peaked at 170,300 in November 2007. The withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq was a contentious issue in the United States for much of the 2000s. As the war progressed from its initial invasion phase in 2003 to a nearly decade-long occupation, American public opinion shifted towards favoring a troop withdrawal; in May 2007, 55% of Americans believed that the Iraq War was a mistake, and 51% of registered voters favored troop withdrawal. [7] In late April 2007 Congress passed a supplementary spending bill for Iraq that set a deadline for troop withdrawal but President Bush vetoed this bill, citing his concerns about setting a withdrawal deadline. [8] [9] [10] The Bush Administration later sought an agreement with the Iraqi government, and in 2008 George W. Bush signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement . It included a deadline of 31 December 2011, before which "all the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory". [11] [12] [13] The last U.S. troops left Iraq on 18 December 2011, in accordance with this agreement. [1] [11] [12]

How is Bush responsible for Obama sending US troops back into Iraq to save a government that is loyal to Iran?  Or Obama inserting the US into the Syria Civil War? He didn't hold a gun to Obama's head. He damn well didn't have any powers to make Obama do anything.

Bush fucked up by removing Saddam instead of continuing the containment and embargo set up by his father and Clinton. But that in no way forgives Obama for his fuck up of inserting troops back into Iraq, and involving the US in Syria's civil war,  instead of letting the factions do what they do best and kill each other.

We wouldn't be in this damn mess right now if it weren't for Obama.

Thank you for proving my point that the left seems for have completely forgotten Obama was in charge for 8 years. The presidency didn't go from 8 years of  Bush Jr fucking up things in the middle east, straight to Trump fucking things up in the middle east. There is 8 years of Obama fucking things up in the middle east in between.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
4  Just Jim NC TttH    2 months ago

How soon they forget..................circa 2011

President Obama did not require Congress's approval to launch attacks in Libya, nor does he need congressional authorization to keep U.S. forces there, the top House Democrat said Thursday.
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the White House violated neither the Constitution nor the War Powers Resolution when it launched military operations in the war-torn African nation in March without Congress's endorsement. "The limited nature of this engagement allows the president to go forward," Pelosi told reporters at the Capitol. "I'm satisfied that the president has the authority he needs to go ahead.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/166843-pelosi-backs-obama-on-libya

 
 
 
Ronin2
4.1  Ronin2  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4    one month ago

That was different. That was Obama, not Trump.

If you can't tell the difference the left won't be able to point it out to you either.

Here is your "But Trruuummmmppppp!!!!!!" in advance.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
5  Greg Jones    2 months ago

So....they passed their latest resolution of indignant outrage, and....

no one noticed or gave a damn.

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump fan 1
5.1  Donald J. Trump fan 1  replied to  Greg Jones @5    one month ago

We sure don’t!

 
 
 
MrFrost
6  MrFrost    one month ago

Was nice to see that Matt Gaetz (R) sobered up enough to vote....with the dems. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
7  The Magic Eight Ball    one month ago
the House will move forward with a War Powers Resolution to limit the President’s military actions regarding Iran

they said, as if a "resolution from the house can change anything.

some people's kids are not too bright.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.1  XDm9mm  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @7    one month ago
and it means nothing... LOL

As does most of what the Democrats are doing in Congress during the Trump term.   If it was not designed to thwart Trump and deny him success, the Democrats want nothing to do with it and do all in their power to stop it.   

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
8  Jeremy Retired in NC    one month ago
The House will vote Thursday on a resolution to limit   President Trump 's ability to take future military action against Iran without congressional authorization, Speaker   Nancy Pelosi   (D-Calif.) announced Wednesday afternoon

This would be great if the area of combat operations were going to shift into the borders of Iran.  Since it's not, this was yet another colossal  waste of time by the democrats based on fake outrage.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Ronin2


24 visitors