Last updated on September 25th, 2023 at 08:43 pm
It’s country last over at the Republican Party headquarters these days.
It’s looking more and more iffy that this Congress, run by Republicans who can’t even manage to fund the Department of Homeland Security as Je Suis Charlie swept the world, will authorize the President to handle the threat of ISIL. This statement should not be confused with “giving the President unlimited power.” No one is suggesting that, especially not the President.
Committee review on the President’s request for authorization for the use of military force will begin tomorrow. As it stands, Democrats want it limited even more than the President limited it (an important change from the 2002 AUMF under former President George W Bush) while Republicans want fewer restrictions but are also making noises about not passing it at all because they reportedly “don’t trust” Obama, leaving the U.S. with no way to fight ISIL.
To get more stories like this, subscribe to our newsletter The Daily.
Democrats see this as an opportunity to do what Congress is supposed to do — have vigorous, bipartisan debate over the issue. And this is as it should be. That is not the same thing as refusing to do their job and refusing to allow the President the authority to protect the country.
Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement on the President’s proposal for a new Authorization for Use of Military Force, “Today, the President has submitted a serious and thoughtful draft for a new AUMF, one which ends the outdated 2002 AUMF that authorized the Iraq war, restricts the use of ground troops, and includes other important limiting provisions going forward. Congress should act judiciously and promptly to craft and pass an AUMF narrowly-tailored to the war against ISIS. I look forward to constructive bipartisan debate on this matter immediately.”
Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and U.S. Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), the Committee’s Ranking Member, went bipartisan in the face of such a grave matter, saying in a joint statement, “We are committed to working with the Administration and our colleagues, as Congress bears a grave responsibility in this matter: ensuring that the Commander-in-Chief has the authority needed to decisively defeat this enemy.”
As we all learned from the Iraq war, talk of danger is not sufficient to warrant blank ticket authorizations. But what must be kept in mind is that the Bush Cheney administration, with help from Netanyahu, deliberately and purposefully misled Congress and the American people about the intel they had on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. This has been made very clear over the years through various investigations but is yet to be fully known by the public. It’s a BFD. But just because Bush Cheney did it doesn’t mean we go in the opposite direction where we have no trust in government.
It comes down to some measure of transparency (admittedly a hard thing to come by in matters of national security), and an atmosphere in which leaders who are not seeking unlimited power encourage debate by publishing a proposal so that lawmakers and citizens can debate it prior to moving forward. This should be done without the “mushroom cloud coming to kill us all” fear-mongering that often accompanies agendas that are less than honest.
The difference is pretty obvious to all but the most obtusely destructive partisans:
Our @jaketapper on war authority request: Bush in '01 basically asked for a blank check, Obama asking max of 3 yrs http://t.co/BKm3NFaCm8
— The Lead CNN (@TheLeadCNN) February 11, 2015
It is ironic, but Republicans accused Democrats and liberals of being against America and for the terrorists if they even questioned the intel the Bush administration waved in front of them in the rush to invade Iraq. But here we are, with Republicans starting off before the debate with nothing but their feelings – letting bitter feelings inform their behavior instead of facts — falling on their sword of spiting Obama no matter what, saying he can’t be trusted. Unlike the Bush administration, there is no basis for not trusting the President to take care of this country or demonstrate reasonable judgment in the face of crises. Not liking the fact that Obama got elected again is not a legitimate reason to refuse to protect our country.
Even when it’s a matter of national security, Republicans just can’t get over their pettiness to do their jobs.
Listen to Sarah on the PoliticusUSA Pod on The Daily newsletter podcast here.
Sarah has been credentialed to cover President Barack Obama, then VP Joe Biden, 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and exclusively interviewed Speaker Nancy Pelosi multiple times and exclusively covered her first home appearance after the first impeachment of then President Donald Trump.
Sarah is two-time Telly award winning video producer and a member of the Society of Professional Journalists.
Connect with Sarah on Post, Mastodon @PoliticusSarah@Journa.Host, & Twitter.
