http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/congress-selective-fickle-interest-foreign-policy
what eye thynk: Yesterday I wrote about John Boehner calling President Obama anti-war. (As if that were a bad thing.) Today's shared post points out how Congress is all for war, sort of, unless ignoring one plays better, but then again, if they could cause one, particularly one with nuclear weapons...
(Any underlines are mine.)"It's been eight months since President Obama launched a military offensive against ISIS targets in the Middle East. It's been four months since the president publicly called on Congress to authorize the ongoing mission. It's been three months since Obama used part of his State of the Union address to urge lawmakers to take action. It's been two months since the White House, at Congress' insistence, sent a draft resolution to Capitol Hill for consideration.
But as of now, Congress intends to do literally nothing. Lawmakers can't agree on the scope of a resolution authorizing the conflict, so they're prepared to simply take a pass."
I'd like to mention here that, in another part of the statement I referenced yesterday, Mr. Boehner said, "Where's the robust strategy to take on the terrorist threat? And if there's a robust strategy, then we can have our robust authorization to use the tools at his command to actually fight and end this war."
The "robust strategy" has been in place for eight months. Congress refused to act--and I believe rightfully so--without a written resolution from the White House. Though delayed, that written draft has been in Congress' hands for eight weeks. It's time for Mr. Boehner to stop lying about the President's lack of strategy. Playing the poor-us-we-really-really-want-to-do-something-but-we-can't-'cause-the-President-is-a-bully-who-won't-play-nice card is getting old."That does not mean, of course, that the mission against ISIS must cease. On the contrary, Obama continues to launch airstrikes on ISIS targets... He's just doing so without any real limits or legal authorization. Congress has effectively told the administration, 'Go ahead and wage war. We're staying out of it.'"
But let the President make a move on immigration or health care without Congress' blessing and watch the GOP lawsuits fly!"But while Obama uses force against ISIS, the president is also working with an international coalition to prevent a war with Iran. Indeed, the White House has had considerable success helping create a diplomatic framework embraced by most U.S. allies, that would block Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
And wouldn't you know it, all of a sudden, Congress has decided to leap to action, reasserting its foreign-policy role in such a way as to possibly kill the international agreement. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told Greg Sargent he's concerned about the obvious double-standard...
...'There's clearly a double-standard,' Murphy argues. 'Congress wants to be all over his diplomatic engagement, while appearing eager...to stand aside when he intervenes militarily.'
This is such an important and frequently overlooked point."
In Republican-land, if you ignore military intervention like that which the President has launched against ISIS, then you can pretend that military intervention doesn't exist. And if it doesn't exist, you can call the President "anti-war," which is a sound-byte perfect for keeping the eager-to-hate-everything-Obama masses in a state of perpetual excitement."If lawmakers want to take an institutional stand in support of Congress' legitimate role in matters of national security, great. The system is designed to have checks and balances for a reason, and if the legislative branch wants to share the burden of responsibility on matters of life and death, it'd be a welcome development.
But what the Connecticut Democrat (said) is exactly right--Congress can't be fickle about it, taking an interest to block diplomacy, but looking away when it's time to authorize an ongoing military offensive abroad.
'Congress should be spending its time debating an (Authorization of Use of Military Force),' Murphy added. 'We have a war going on in Iraq and Syria that is unauthorized and extra-Constitutional. We should be voting on an AUMF, which is required by the Constitution, rather than debating an Iran nuclear (deal) which hasn't even been signed.'
If anyone, in either party or either chamber, can present a coherent counter-argument to this, I'm eager to hear it."
Me too.
No comments:
Post a Comment