Tag: NDAA

One Step Closer?

For most of this year the Dems have been trying to make it a policy that the president cannot go to war without permission from the Congress and yesterday they may have come one step closer to making it so….

Lawmakers in the House just sent another warning shot over President Trump’s Iran policy. On Thursday, they passed a Democratic-backed war powers resolution aimed at curbing his ability to continue the conflict, with four Republicans crossing the aisle in a 214–208 vote. GOP Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Warren Davidson of Ohio, and Tom Barrett of Michigan sided with Democrats on the resolution to require congressional approval for the war, the Washington Post reports. The same four Republicans voted for a similar resolution last month, before the conflict reignited with daily US strikes on Iran.

The resolution’s sponsor, Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington, said the war has “no clear mission, no strategy, no end goal.” The measure doesn’t go to Trump’s desk and is widely viewed as symbolic, and any binding curb on his authority would almost certainly face a veto. Still, with the Senate weighing its own war powers measure Thursday morning, the move underscores mounting bipartisan unease over a grinding conflict that has recently intensified, including the deaths of four US troops in the region over the weekend, Politico reports.

During debate on the resolution, Republican Rep. Brian Mast of Florida, chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, read out the names of the 18 US service members killed since the war began, the AP reports. “To belittle this mission is to belittle and demean the very service these members gave their life for,” he said. “Their sacrifice was not meaningless. This operation is bringing reckoning for the hundreds of times Iran has attacked and killed people of the United States of America.” The committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, said presidents are supposed to obtain congressional approval for wars. The service members, he said, died in “an illegal unauthorized war that the American people don’t want.”

This is not a done deal but at least we are closer to making Donny ask permission before bombing more countries…..which is a good idea for he is considering another country to be bombed…..

President Trump is considering opening a new military front in another nation, with advisers weighing military strikes in Mali against an al-Qaeda-linked group known as JNIM, reports the Washington Post. The idea is reportedly championed inside the National Security Council by foreign policy hawks such as Sebastian Gorka, Trump’s counterterrorism director, but faces resistance from other senior officials, according to current and former unnamed officials who spoke to the Post. The militant group’s stronghold is in Mali, but it has launched regional attacks throughout West Africa.

The US is pressing African and NATO partners to support Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger in the Sahel region. All are ruled by juntas that have ousted democratic leaders and turned to Russia for security help, and the US faults Moscow for being a weak partner. Critics warn US strikes could entangle Washington with Russian forces, empower Islamic State rivals, or push JNIM to target Americans and deepen ties to al-Qaeda. Others argue force is needed to keep jihadist groups from cementing a stronger foothold in the region. If approved, Mali would become the eighth country where Trump has ordered strikes in his second term, after Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, and Venezuela, per the New Republic.

Time for the Congress to put on the brakes on Donny’s blood lust and he is not alone….

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

A Vote For More Defense Spending

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was passed by Congress and then vetoed by Trump…..this got the M-IC up in arms and pulled no punches to get the congressional override of the veto….and they succeeded.

There were a few brave representatives that think we spend way too damn much on the military and should reassign those funds where they are needed…..

The efforts by the industry that owns damn near all our elected officials was overwhelming…..

First it was the House of Representatives that voted to override…..

The House convened on Monday for an override vote of President Trump’s veto of the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). In a vote of 322 to 87, the House secured well over the two-thirds majority needed for the override, and the bill now moves onto the Senate.

The Senate is expected to convene for the override vote on Tuesday. Before President Trump’s veto, the NDAA passed through the Senate by a vote of 84 to 13, well over the two-thirds majority needed for the override. But the bill could be delayed if a senator chooses to drag out procedural hurdles. If the vote is delayed past January 3rd, Congress will have to restart the NDAA from scratch.

There were a few brave reps that voted against the override…..

Just 20 House Democrats opted to break with their party and their Republican counterparts late Monday to vote against overriding President Donald Trump’s veto of the National Defense Authorization Act, a sprawling bill that greenlights over $740 billion in military spending for fiscal year 2021.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), one the few House Democrats who voted against overriding the president’s NDAA veto, applauded his colleagues for having “the courage tonight to vote no on the bloated defense budget.”

“They are changing the culture of endless war and calling for more investment instead in the American people,” said Khanna.

“We’re spending money on the modernization of nuclear weapons. And we can’t find money to get food in to people who need it?” Khanna said. “We can’t find money to get more rental assistance for folks who are going to face evictions? We can’t find money to get $2,000 into the pockets of Americans? The priorities are wrong, and so I’m not going to vote to override his veto.”

(commondreams.org)

For those interested in the people that voted against war and for as better society…..

Here are the 20 Democrats who voted against overriding Trump’s NDAA veto: Reps. Earl Blumenauer (Ore.), Suzanne Bonamici (Ore.), Yvette Clarke (N.Y.), Mark DeSaulnier (Calif.), Adriano Espaillat (N.Y.), Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii), Jesús García (Ill.), Jimmy Gomez (Calif.), Jared Huffman (Calif.), Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), Joe Kennedy (Mass.), Ro Khanna (Calif.), Barbara Lee (Calif.), Jim McGovern (Mass.), Grace Meng (N.Y.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Mark Pocan (Wis.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.).

And the Senate follows suit….

the Senate voted to override President Trump’s veto of the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). In a vote of 81 to 13, the Senate easily secured the two-thirds majority needed for the override.

Earlier this week, the House also voted to override the veto in a vote of 322 to 87. The votes mark the first time Congress rebukes one of President Trump’s vetoes with an override.

President Trump had several issues with the $740.5 billion military spending bill. Chief among them is the lack of an amendment to repeal Section 230, a law that shields tech companies from liability for content published on their platforms by third parties.

Another issue the president had is over amendments that seek to block planned troop drawdowns in Afghanistan and Germany. Another provision can block any future plans to withdraw troops from South Korea.

The senators who voted against the NDAA are Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), John Kennedy (R-LA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Bernie Sanders (D-VT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Mike Braun (R-IN), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Josh Hawley (R

(antiwar.com)

These people did what elected officials are suppose to do….they voted for the best interest of the people they represent.

I may not agree with some of the issues these reps hold dear….but I applaud their vote for the country and its people.

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

2021 NDAA

NDAA? 

That would be the National Defense Authorization Act……for FY2021

Every year, members of the congressional armed services committees go through the long and sometimes torturous journey of assembling the National Defense Authorization Act, the annual bill that sets policy for the Defense Department. The entire process, however, is also a critical exercise in the formation of U.S. national security policy. 

The defense policy bill is so valuable to Pentagon operations that lawmakers frequently refer to it as a must-pass piece of legislation. Ideally, the NDAA debate forces lawmakers to explain why certain military investments are necessary or why a particular overseas military engagement has outlived its usefulness.

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2020/07/ndaa-should-prompt-rethinking-costly-us-foreign-policy/166686/

The M-IC has won the battle to keep troops fighting and dying in Afghanistan……

By a vote of 284-129, the House of Representatives soundly defeated an amendment to establish a plan to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan. A slight plurality of Democrats supported the measure, with most of the leadership opposing. All Republicans except two voted in to oppose. Libertarian Justin Amash supported the measure. The amendment to the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was offered by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN).

President Trump declared in late May that he wanted to withdraw all US troops from Afghanistan before the November election. Since that time, Democratic leaders have shifted to an even more hawkish position, pulling out all the stops to prevent such a move. Much of the foreign policy of the Democratic leadership has been driven by opposition to Trump’s positions, rather than by what is best for the country or what the American people desire.

American troops have been fighting in Afghanistan for 19 years, with no progress in reducing violence.

(antiwar.com)

Seems that the Dems are joining the Repubs as the warmongers…..so it really is truly a one party government……two sides same coin.

The Act is one of pure Neocon-isms…..

A $740 billion defense policy bill that President Trump threatened to veto has passed the House with a veto-proof 295-125 majority, with 108 Republicans voting in favor of the 2021 Defense Authorization Act and 43 Democrats voting against. The bill calls for military bases and other properties named after Confederate military officers to be renamed within a year, a move Trump firmly opposes, the Hill reports. It also includes a 3% pay rise for troops and allocates $1 billion to a pandemic preparedness fund.

The House bill passed with bipartisan support, although Republican lawmakers strongly objected to an amendment placing limits on the president’s ability to use the Insurrection Act to deploy troops within the US, CNN reports. The amendment passed 215 to 190, with only one Republican voting in favor. The Senate is expected to pass its version of the bill this week, which calls for the renaming of bases named after Confederate officers within three years. Trump said weeks ago that he would veto any bill that included the renaming of bases, but since the measure appears in both the House and Senate version of the defense policy bill, it is likely to remain in the final version that makes it to his desk.

Trump has said he will veto this bill…..we will see if he means what he says or was it all just theatrics?

It is time for the Congress to get real about this country and the money we throw at war…….time to defund the Pentagon…..yep…I said DEFUND the Pentagon.

Congress has appropriated nearly $3 trillion dollars to fight the economic and public health impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic. This is on top of a terrible budget deal last year that blew through spending caps imposed by the 2011 Budget Control Act. With little end in sight to the pandemic and its associated recession, Congress is likely to spend even more in the months to come.

With resources more limited than ever, areas of the budget that were off-limits for years should now be more closely scrutinized. At the top of that list should be the single largest part of the federal discretionary budget, an entire category of spending that has long been off the table: the Pentagon.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/07/16/defund-the-pentagon-the-conservative-case-366066

I know hard to believe that I am agreeing with a conserv on the Pentagon……it worries me as well…..but matters not…..I will support a good idea no matter where it originates.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

NDAA: War Hawks Win Again

The National Defense Authorization Act has been approved to move to the House, the Senate and then to the President…..and the warmongers get another win by taking all antiwar tone out of the Act.

The House version of the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) set aside an irresponsibly large amount of money for military spending, but it also added some antiwar amendments and other very basic limitations. The House and Senate versions have now been reconciled into a final bill, and materially all of the limitations that the House voted on and approved have been stripped away, in favor of a $738 billion bill that continues spending, but makes no attempt to rein in the military in any serious way.

The House bill had included the latest attempt to use the power of the purse to end US military involvement in Yemen, something that both houses had attempted to do in a War Powers Act resolution that was previously vetoed by President Trump. That language will not be in the final bill.

At its core, a lot of the language in the House bill was aimed at giving Congress more specific say on how the military is to carry out certain operations, and more importantly certain things that it is absolutely not to do. This was presented as necessary because Congressional Democrats were worried about President Trump acting unilaterally.

In the end, more or less all of this was stripped away, even backing away from border wall restrictions that were one of the first things put in place in the House bill.

The expectation is that this final NDAA will be voted on in the House on Wednesday, and in the Senate some days later. It will almost certainly be signed by the president, since anything remotely objectionable to him has already been forgotten.

(antiwar.com)

US support for the Saudi war on Yemen will continue…..

The 2020 Pentagon budget will not end US involvement in the war in Yemen as some Democratic lawmakers had hoped. 

The Democratic-controlled US House of Representatives in July approved amendments to next year’s military budget legislation that would have halted US assistance to the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen.

But an advanced version of the bill – released late on Monday – excluded the provisions, effectively ending the push to use American military spending to help end the devastating war in Yemen.

Progressive members of Congress, several of whom have lobbied against US support for Saudi Arabia, were outraged by the final draft of the budget, known as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

“Voters would be appalled to know that instead of seizing the opportunity to end illegal US participation in the horrific Saudi-led bombings of Yemen, Congress will continue to fund Trump’s unconstitutional war,” the legislators said in a joint statement. 

Earlier this year, Donald Trump vetoed a bill passed in Congress with bipartisan support that would have halted US support for the coalition.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/push-end-american-support-yemen-war-blocked-us-defence-budget

So no chance of any antiwar policies with the renewed NDAA…..looks like our endless wars will continue to be endless.

Dems pretend to be against our endless wars when it suits them in elections but fold under the pressure and show their true warmongering policies…..

More than 180 House Democrats joined a nearly united Republican caucus Wednesday night to pass a sweeping $738 billion military spending bill that gives President Donald Trump his long-sought “Space Force,” free rein to wage endless wars, and a green light to continue fueling the humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/12/12/atrocious-188-democrats-join-gop-hand-trump-738-billion-military-budget-includes

That is 180 cowards!  1slugs!80 people that has prostituted themselves to M-IC……all for the love of the high dollar donors…..pathetic pack of  slugs.

I Read, I Wrote, You Know

“Lego Ergo Scribo”

Where’s The Money?

The time draws closer for the Congress to take up the issue of military funding….that is cash that we will need to funding all the wars we are now fighting and the ones on the horizon awaiting approval to be fought.

It appears that there are a few in Congress that want the AUMF to be addressed before any funding is approved….

Senate officials are hoping to get to a final vote on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a military spending bill in excess of $700 billion. Getting to that vote, however, means dealing with all the military and war-related amendments in the bill.

Senate leaders appear to have decided that the easiest way to get around this is to severely curtail debate on certain particularly controversial issues, with an 89-3 vote today agreeing to limit procedural debates on the matter.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is trying to manage the debate, which is to say, dramatically curtail the debate. There are still major issues to be settled, however, with Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) both pushing major debates, on war authorization and transgender soldiers, respectively.

Sen. Paul intends to repeal the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). The amendment is seen as politically awkward for some hawks, who argue that they want to create a new AUMF that explicitly covers current wars, but who are reluctant to see any limitations placed on the way America’s wars are waged.

(antiwar.com)

That’s the 2001 AUMF problem all over. Though on paper it was intended to only cover 9/11 and the Afghan War, the authorization has been used by all presidents since as carte blanche to wage any war, anywhere on earth, in which the term terrorism can remotely be applied.

There is no secret if you are a regular here on IST that I am a definite antiwar person…..while I do not agree with muich the Sen. Paul offers up as policy I do appreciate his stand in the AUMF……

As Congress takes up the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), I will insist it vote on my amendment to sunset the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for the Use of Military Force.

Why?

Because these authorizations to use military force are inappropriately being used to justify American warfare in 7 different countries. Sunsetting both AUMFs will force a debate on whether we continue the Afghanistan war, the Libya war, the Yemen war, the Syria war, and other interventions.

Our military trains our soldiers to be focused and disciplined, yet the politicians who send them to fight have for years ignored those traits when developing our foreign policy.

Source: Rand Paul: Why we must repeal the 16-year-old Authorization for the Use of Military Force | Rare

Personally, I think any new conflict we must fight must be authorized by Congress….there should be NO blanket authorization.

Update:  After writing this draft news came down about the defeat of this proposal….

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) had to push heavily and very publicly against the Senate leadership to get even the limited debate that ultimately occurred on his amendment, aiming to revoke the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). The vote did not occur. In the middle of the debate Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) moved to table (kill) the amendment, forcing an immediate vote. The Senate then voted to kill Paul’s amendment, by a vote of 61-36.

The post-9/11 AUMF has been interpreted broadly by US presidents as allowing unlimited war-making powers against anything even loosely described as “terror.” Sen. Paul argued that the AUMF was wrongly been used to authorize seven distinct wars, and that repealing it would force Congress to debate specific authorizations for specific wars as an alternative.

While he’d hoped this would bring in support not only from opponents of the war, but from hawks eager to get their votes on the record to authorize these many, effectively unauthorized wars, little support ultimately materialized. In addition to Sen. Paul, speaking in favor during the debate were Sens. Ben Cardin (D-MD), Chris Murphy (D-CT), and Dick Durban (D-IL).

While the failure of the amendment doesn’t preclude future efforts at passing new AUMFs to cover America’s many wars, it makes such debate a less pressing matter. Talk of an AUMF for the ISIS wars, put off since the 2014 mid-term elections on various reasons, can be expected to remain just talk, and no real advance on the effort is likely.

(antiwar.com)

This seems to get a little more popular every time they try to bring it up for a vote……hopefully the Congress will come to its senses eventually.