America desperately needs a conversation about a more sober foreign policy

Rare | 9/13/2017 | Cliff Maloney Jr.
DebraS (Posted by) Level 3
Click For Photo: https://coxrare.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/screen-shot-2017-08-17-at-91151-am.jpg?w=1200&h=627&crop=1

Sen. Rand Paul’s bipartisan amendment to the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act was tabled — killed — with a 36-61 vote Wednesday. The amendment would have repealed the 2001 and 2002 resolutions authorizing the use of military force and providing the legal support used by previous administrations for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The amendment also would have forced Congress to have a much needed debate about America’s role in the Middle East.

Time - Years - Role - Declaration - War

“For the first time in 15 years, we are debating the congressional role in the declaration of war,” Paul said today on the Senate floor before the vote.

RARE POV: Rand Paul holds up defense bill: “I sit silently to protest the thousands of American soldiers who have died”

US - Constitution - Initiation - War - Intervention

The U.S. Constitution states the initiation of war and military intervention is a power held by the legislative branch and not solely an executive branch decision. Paul’s amendment would have forced the outdated war resolutions to expire in order to facilitate an open and honest debate by Congress on if we should be at war. If approved, the amendment would have rightfully returned the power to declare war to the legislative branch.

While the amendment drew support from both sides of the aisle, it elicited strong opposition from the typical “neoconservatives and neoliberals,” to use Paul’s phrase, who promote war at every turn. What do they have to say about the thousands of lost lives and the trillions of dollars spent? Nothing other than the standard talking points about not sending mixed signals to...
(Excerpt) Read more at: Rare
29 other people are viewing this story
Wake Up To Breaking News!
Sign In or Register to comment.