The House Voted To Prevent Trump From Attacking Iran; Moscow Mitch Laughs

Yesterday, the House passed a bill written by Ro Khanna and one written by Barbara Lee that taken together would put the country on a much more peace-oriented path than the one the Trump regime has been leading the country down. Khanna's bill would block funding for a war that Trump starts against Iran. It passed 228 to 175. Only 3 Democrats crossed the aisle to vote with the Republicans, warmongers whose names you can probably guess: Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT), Conor Lamb (PA) and Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR). At the beginning on the video above, you can hear Ro referring to the leader of the warmonger faction in Congress, Michael McCaul (R-TX). I might note that on Wednesday, Ro had endorsed his election opponent, Michael Siegel.

Right after Schrader voted for war with the Republicans, I called Milwaukie mayor Mark Gamba, his opponent for reelection, to ask him why Schrader would make a move that so obviously flies in the face of what Oregon voters want. "The constitution wisely gave the power to declare war to Congress," he said. "That has been eroded and overridden for the last 50 years or so. In that time we have engaged in a number of wars without the direct authorization of Congress to our detriment. The main beneficiaries have been the military industrial complex and often, a president looking to improve his polling. The bill that the House passed without the vote of Kurt Schrader and the Republicans, simply attempts to return those powers to where they belong. At a time when the least stable president in my lifetime is looking for anything to distract the public from his mis-deeds, it is the very least the House could do. Why on earth would Schrader vote against it? Does he yearn for yet another endless war? Are the trillions we've spent over the last few decades not enough? Are the young lives put at risk of no concern? They certainly won't be to the narcissist-in-chief. Why would you give free rein to someone who has proven his immorality? Kurt has taken a lot of cynical votes in his time that do not represent the people of Oregon's 5th congressional district, but this may be the most disgusting vote of his career. I hope the folks in the district will remember this vote the next time Kurt pretends to lament the endless wars at one of his town halls. We have real problems to solve like stopping climate chaos and providing 21st century, world class healthcare to everyone in this country. The last thing we need to do is bleed another few trillion dollars into the sands of Iran."

Lee's bill repeals the 2002 authorization for the use of military force. Her bill passed 236-166. Lamb stayed over on the Republican side of the aisle for this one too and was joined by Nashville warmonger Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN). There were even 11 Republicans (+ Justin Amash) who backed Lee.

Both bills are attached as amendments to the bipartisan Merchant Mariners of World War II Congressional Medal Act already passed by the Senate. The fate of the amendments will be determined in a reconciliation committee of members of both houses. Ro told me earlier that "Senator Church helped end the Vietnam war by stopping the funding. We can prevent war in Iran by cutting off the funds. This amendment does that." He told reporters just before the vote that "The reality is that Congress needs to exercise the power of the purse. We need to make it very clear that Congress is not going to authorize a dime for an offensive war in Iran."

Do You Think The Worst Presidency In The History Of The U.S. Will End Without A War?

It increasingly looks like Trump is ginning up a war with Iran to get peoples' minds off the Mueller Report and the myriad other problems that are spinning out of control and drowning his presidency and his hopes for reelection. Maybe Venezuela? Yeah, there's always that... but the Saudis and Israelis are both really pushing for the U.S. to attack Iran.

On Wednesday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was testifying at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing when Rand Paul (R-KY) reminded him that "Only Congress can declare war. You do not have our permission to go to war with Iran." What brought that on, you wonder? Paul asked Pompeo if the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force-- which still technically allows a president to send troops to fight anyone "responsible for the 9/11 attacks." Pompeo ducked the question, as though he were being questioned by a Democrat. He said that it would be something for "the lawyers" to decide but that there is "there is no question there is a connection between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Al Qaeda. Full Stop."

That worried Paul-- and rightfully so-- who said, "I can tell you, you have not been given power or authority by Congress to have war with Iran. So my hope is, I'm not arguing if IRGC is terrorists, my argument is you do not have permission Congress to go to war with Iran. It's the way the constitution was written. You want it, you have to come to us."

On Monday, the Trump administration accused the group, formed by an order of Ayatollah Khomeini as a branch of Iran's Armed Forces founded after the 1979 Iranian revolution, of not only facilitating, but perpetrating, terrorism. President Trump declared the designation an "unprecedented step" that "recognizes the reality that Iran is not only a State Sponsor of Terrorism, but that the IRGC actively participates in, finances, and promotes terrorism as a tool of statecraft."

The designation marks the first time that the U.S. has said a part of another government is a terrorist organization, according to the White House, and will expand the scope and scale of the administration's maximum pressure campaign on the Iranian regime. The White House emphasized the action "sends a clear message to Tehran that its support for terrorism has serious consequences."

If Trump decides to go ahead with a war against Iran anyway, do you think Congress would stand up to him? McConnell? Schumer? McCarthy? Pelosi? Rand Paul and Barbara Lee aren't going to be able to stop it alone.

And speaking of Pelosi, Shahid Buttar is the progressive Democrat challenging her this cycle. I asked him that very question. Here's what he told me this morning: "The military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us to fear has unfortunately co-opted both of the major corporate political parties in the United States, which continue to march in lockstep with our criminal president despite the empty words of leaders mouthing resistance. And with so many Americans ignorant of our own nation's history, the parties have come together to drag We the American people, military families, and overlooked foreign communities from one neo-imperial war to another. Few remember how the U.S. effectively created the right wing theocracy in Iran, by installing and supporting a dictator for decades who inspired a populist backlash. If we merely walked our own talk of supporting democracy abroad, we would advance U.S. national security far more reliably than through any number of military interventions."

I also asked the same question to our old friend Doug Applegate, a strategic thinker, former congressional candidate and ex-Marine colonel. He didn't seem sanguine. "Given the ease of that the Bush Cheney cabal served up the fraud and misrepresentations to invade Iraq, Trump will have no hesitation to lie and misrepresent his way to a war with Iran. But the draft dodger will find out quickly that the Iranians will draw far more U.S. blood and treasure while yielding no prize. But the bigger question will be whether or not the Democrats can stop them given the way the Democrats play chess."

Alan Grayson added, sorrowfully, that "Because no one was held accountable for the last time that we were lied into a war (WMD), or the time before that (the Tonkin Gulf incident) or the time before that (Remember the Maine?) it very well might happen again."

All Dems Want Peace And All Republicans Want War, Right? No

Early this summer it looked like the House would vote on Barbara Lee's attempt to repeal and replace an outdated Bush-era Authorization for the Use of Military Force. But then Paul Ryan, secretly-- in the dead of night-- pulled the amendment out of the 2018 Defense Appropriations Bill that had previously been agreed to. Lee's office: "In a desperate and undemocratic attempt to kill Barbara's AUMF repeal amendment, Speaker Paul Ryan stripped it from the Appropriations bill in the middle of the night without even bringing it up for a vote. This shows the extreme tactics Ryan will use to uphold the status quo and avoid debating endless wars. It shows an underhanded move to make Barbara's amendment vanish into thin air. And it shows a new low for the Speaker that requires us to come together and take action... Congress has been missing in action on matters of war and peace for nearly 16 years. What is Paul Ryan afraid of? Why won't he let members of Congress honor their constitutional responsibility to debate and vote on U.S. military intervention abroad? Paul Ryan should be ashamed of himself. This isn't leadership, this is autocracy. If we are going to continue to send our brave servicemembers into battle zones to fight endless wars, Congress must have the courage to take up this debate. With your help, we'll make it clear to Paul Ryan that the American people want Congress to act to stop endless war."

Wednesday Rand Paul gave it a try in the Senate. He did little better than Lee had. Senator Paul had hoped "to repeal the war authorizations that underpin the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as military action in a slew of other countries." His amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act was killed 61-36. It wasn't a Democrat vs Republican vote. The only Republicans backing Rand Paul's amendment were Mike Lee (UT) and Dean Heller (NV). Progressive tended to support him as well-- Bernie (VT), Elizabeth Warren (MA), Tammy Baldwin (WI), Al Franken (MN), Jeff Merkely (OR), Sherrod Brown (OH), Harris (CA), Udall (NM), Hirono (HI), Markey (MA), Heinrich (NM)...

Democrats who voted against the bill-- the pro-war part of the party-- included Bob Casey (PA), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Joe Manchin (WV), Debbie Staben ow (MI), Cortez Masto (NV), Tom Carper (DE), Mark Warner (VA), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Brian Schatz (HI), Claire McCaskill (MO)...

Alan Grayson first ran for Congress on a pro-peace platform and the issue was never far from uppermost in his mind. Today he mention a classic John Lennon line, All we are saying is give peace a chance. "After the WMD farce, I understand that the military-industrial complex is incapable of embarrassment or shame. However, for a Great Power to be going to war against ISIS on the basis of an AUMF issued against Al Qaida-- before ISIS existed-- is embarrassing. Every time a hard decision comes along, 535 voices shout, in unison, 'Duck!' Bipartisanly."

In a floor speech Tuesday, Paul torched his fellow lawmakers for refusing to vote to authorize the myriad military actions the U.S. has engaged in since the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001.

"I don't think that anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty believes that these authorizations from 16 years ago and 14 years ago ... authorized war in seven different countries," Paul said.

"I am advocating a vote ... on whether or not we should be at war," Paul said. "It should be a simple vote. It is like pulling teeth."

But the war powers vote didn't come easy for the senator. Wednesday's vote came after Paul blocked Senate leaders' efforts to speed consideration of the must-pass defense policy bill for two days. Paul objected to procedural efforts to begin debate sooner and threatened to hold up all other senators' amendments if he wasn't granted a vote on his proposal.

Paul was joined by senators from both parties who supported sunsetting the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs in order to force Congress to debate and pass a new authorization that covers the current military campaign against ISIS as well as other contingencies.

Virginia Democrat Tim Kaine, who has pushed for a new AUMF with Arizona Republican Jeff Flake, said it was "way past time" for a vote.

"There has been no particular motive or forcing mechanism that has made the [Foreign Relations] Committee take this up, bat it around, hear from experts, debate, amend it and send it to the floor," Kaine said of his and Flake's proposal.

"Of all the powers Congress has, the one that we should most jealously guard is the power to declare war," he said.

But opponents of the measure argued repealing the two war resolutions on such a quick timeline would endanger military operations in Afghanistan and against ISIS in Iraq and Syria and send mixed signals to U.S. troops and allies overseas.

"I did not expect that 16 years later we would still be engaged in the evolution of that fight that began on 9/11," said Senate Armed Services ranking Democrat Jack Reed of Rhode Island. "But we cannot, I think, simply stop, threaten to pull back our legal framework with the expectation that in six months we will produce a new and more appropriate authorization for the use of military force."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell piled on Wednesday, arguing a repeal of the legal framework for military operations against terrorist groups "breaks faith" with the troops.

Enacting a new war resolution to cover the ISIS campaign has proved to be a politically fraught effort.

Former President Barack Obama sent Congress a proposed AUMF in 2015, though neither the Senate nor the House voted on the measure. Efforts to attach a repeal of the current AUMF to major bills, including the NDAA, have also been unsuccessful.

In a classified briefing with senators in August, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the 2001 AUMF provides legal authority for current military operations in the Middle East, though Mattis has said Congress should enact a new resolution.

Doug Applegate, the progressive Democrat and former Marine colonel running for the San Diego/Orange County congressional seat occupied by Darrell Issa, summed this up perfectly this evening: "Congress needs to do their Duty under the United States Constitution and vote yea or nay for war. For it is war without question that we are conducting."

Ryan Unilaterally Kills Barbara Lee's Amendment To Repeal To AUMF, Which Has Already Passed Overwhelmingly

Over the last month, Randy Bryce's now famous @IronStache twitter account has gone from 7,000 followers to 121,000 followers. And he's already using it to promote other progressive candidates as well as policies and actions he believes in. Wednesday I saw him reacting to Oakland Congresswoman Barbara Lee's anger at Paul Ryan's decision to secretly-- in fact, in the dead of night-- remove her amendment to the 2018 Defense Appropriations Bill, which had passed overwhelmingly in committee, to repeal and replace an outdated Bush-era Authorization for the Use of Military Force.

In explaining her disagreement with the Speaker to her constituents, her office released this statement:

In a desperate and undemocratic attempt to kill Barbara's AUMF repeal amendment, Speaker Paul Ryan stripped it from the Appropriations bill in the middle of the night without even bringing it up for a vote.

This shows the extreme tactics Ryan will use to uphold the status quo and avoid debating endless wars. It shows an underhanded move to make Barbara's amendment vanish into thin air. And it shows a new low for the Speaker that requires us to come together and take action.

...Congress has been missing in action on matters of war and peace for nearly 16 years. What is Paul Ryan afraid of? Why won't he let members of Congress honor their constitutional responsibility to debate and vote on U.S. military intervention abroad?

Paul Ryan should be ashamed of himself. This isn't leadership, this is autocracy.

If we are going to continue to send our brave servicemembers into battle zones to fight endless wars, Congress must have the courage to take up this debate. With your help, we'll make it clear to Paul Ryan that the American people want Congress to act to stop endless war.

Nor is Bryce the only candidate for Congress pissed off at what Ryan has done. Another progressive veteran running for Congress, Kansan Jim Thompson, sees eye to eye with Barbara Lee on this. "Our founding fathers, in their wisdom," he told us today, "vested Congress with the power to declare war as a check on the President being the Commander-in-Chief. For far too long, Congress has abdicated their responsibility, allowing the President power far in excess of anything our founders envisioned. Whenever we send our sons and daughters to war, Congress should engage in vigorous debate before sending them into harm's way. Congress has not declared war since World War II, but rather passed Authorizations to Use of Military Force. The last Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed 16 years ago on September 14, 2001 in the wake of 9/11. The new law authorized force against anyone responsible, or any country that harbored those responsible, for the 9/11 attacks. Congress drafted the law with such broad language that Presidents Bush, Obama, and now Trump used this law for attacks on many different countries in multiple situations. The House Appropriations Committee recently approved a bi-partisan Amendment canceling the authority for the 2001 AUMF. Rather than allow a debate, Speaker Ryan pulled the Amendment in the middle of the night and never allowed the Amendment to reach the floor for debate despite its bipartisan support. Congress owes it to our men and women in unform to debate and authorize any military use of force. Since Speaker Ryan never served a day of his life in uniform, he may not realize the weight of his responsibility to our armed forces. Maybe he does not understand that his decisions have very real life and death consequences for our troops. The men and women of our armed forces perform their duties every day, you would think Speaker Ryan could at least fulfill his."

Vote Vets is backing Lee up in a big way and contacted their own members, telling them that "Last Tuesday night, in the middle of the night, Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan took unilateral action to pull Congresswoman Barbara Lee's bipartisan bill to repeal the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force from the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill.

"Here's the truth: We have troops in Iraq and Syria who were in diapers when the original AUMF was passed in 2001. Congress must do its Constitutional duty and have a new debate about the use of our troops in operations that could never have been foreseen in 2001.

"It is unconscionable that Speaker Ryan has decided to block this bipartisan effort. Our men and women who put their lives in the line for America deserve so much more. They deserve the Speaker of the House of Representatives to do his job.

"Sign VoteVets petition calling on Speaker Ryan to allow debate and vote on Congresswoman Barbara Lee's bipartisan bill to repeal the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force.

"Frankly, this is the kind of debate that the founders intended-- because war powers to rest with the Congress, not the President, and not the Department of Defense. It's time to allow a debate and vote on where and when the President is authorized to put troops in harm's way."

This Is What Bipartisan Means-- Standing Up Against Illegal War

Wait, wait. First let me tell you what is not bipartisan. When Ryan and McCarthy-- sometimes with the connivance of corporate contributors-- lure votes from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, that is just opportunism, not bipartisanism. This cycle the half dozen faux-Dems most inclined to vote for Ryan's toxic agenda over a wide range of issues have been (from bad to worse): Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN), Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX), Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ), Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ), Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL) and Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ). Their backing doesn't make anything "bipartisan." None of them are actual Democrats and all have earned primaries. I believe tomorrow the first of these monsters, Kyrsten Sinema, in fact, will get an official primary opponent. No, "bipartisan" is something different from the cockamamie, incoherent politics Sinema and her values-free right-wing friends have embraced.

This week, 2 Democrats and 2 Republicans saw the Washington Post headline story, Trump Administration Weighs Deeper Involvement In Yemen War and reacted the way we all expect our members of Congress to react. They cast partisan considerations to the winds and took truly bipartisan action to head this potential catastrophe off at the pass.

The four-- Ted Lieu (D-CA), Mark Pocan (D-WI), Walter Jones (R-NC) and Justin Amash (R-MI)-- weren't eager to read that the Trump Regime is "considering escalating U.S. military involvement in the two-year-old Saudi Arabia-led conflict against Yemen’s Houthi forces, which has left thousands of Yemenis dead and millions on the verge of starvation. One administration official acknowledged to the Post that the proposal under deliberation could be seen as 'a green light for direct involvement in a major war.'" That was from a dear colleague letter they sent to every member of the House, bypassing the Republican and the Democratic House leadership. And this is the letter to Trump and Jeff Sessions that Lieu, Pocan, Jones and Amash are asking all members of Congress to sign on to:

President Donald J. Trump
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.
Washington, DC 20500

CC: Attorney General Jeff Sessions

Dear Mr. President:

We write to express our serious concern over reports that your administration is actively considering “direct support for the anti-Houthi coalition” of militaries led by Saudi Arabia in Yemen. Administration officials are said to be weighing proposals to provide Saudi-led forces with “surveillance and intelligence, refueling, and operational planning assistance” against the Shia Houthis who control most of Yemen’s population centers. One administration official acknowledged that a removal of preexisting White House prohibitions on such assistance could be viewed as “a green light for direct involvement in a major war.”

Direct U.S. hostilities against Yemen’s Houthis would run counter to your pledge to pursue a “disciplined, deliberate and consistent foreign policy” that protects American families in “every decision." Indeed, according to U.S. defense officials, the U.S.-backed Saudi war against Houthis in Yemen has already “strengthened al Qaeda there” and poses “a serious threat to U.S. security.”

We share the concerns of some of your advisers, who worry that direct support for the Saudi coalition’s war against Houthis “would take too many resources away from the counterterrorism fight against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.” We are further troubled by news reports indicating that Al Qaeda in Yemen has “emerged as a de facto ally” of the Saudi-led militaries with whom your administration aims to partner more closely. According to press accounts, Al Qaeda in Yemen has fought against the Houthis on the same side as Saudi coalition forces in several battles near Taiz and al-Bayda, while also operating closely with Saudi-financed Islamist militias.

Moreover, Congress has never authorized the actions under consideration. The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) sought and received by President George W. Bush, which has been interpreted to apply to Al Qaeda and associated forces, has never been cited by any government official as justification for U.S. involvement in military actions against Yemen’s Houthis. The Houthis have never been “associated forces” to Al Qaeda; they are Zaydis, a branch of Shiite Islam, and strongly oppose the Sunni Al Qaeda, which promotes sectarian violence against Shia.

Engaging our military against Yemen’s Houthis when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers clearly delineated in the Constitution. For this reason, we write to request that the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) provide, without delay, any legal justification that it would cite if the administration intends to engage in direct hostilities against Yemen’s Houthis without seeking congressional authorization.

As U.S. Representatives, we take seriously the right and responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of force, or to refuse to do so, as mandated by the Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Resolution. We expect that any direct military actions pursued by the administration against the Yemeni Houthis be brought before Congress for consideration and authorization for approval before they are executed.

In August 2013, when President Obama threatened to bomb Syrian government forces without congressional approval, a large, bipartisan group of U.S. Representatives objected. They urged the president “to consult and receive authorization from Congress,” noting that the president’s “responsibility to do so is prescribed in the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973.” President Obama subsequently agreed to seek congressional authorization.

In light of the gravity of a potential U.S. military escalation in Yemen, we additionally seek the OLC’s prompt legal opinions concerning:

• Defense Secretary James Mattis’s proposal to aid the Saudi military coalition in attempting to seize the Houthi-controlled Yemeni port of Hodeidah. The current, Saudi-enforced blockade of Hodeidah-- a main entry point for food, medicine and humanitarian aid-- is pushing Yemen to the brink of famine. Over 50 members of Congress have urged Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to use “all U.S. diplomatic tools” to reopen the port, noting that nearly half a million Yemeni children are “nearing starvation.” Saudi-led airstrikes have destroyed the Hodeidah province’s roads and bridges, leaving “unexploded rockets” inside the port that further prevent vital aid shipments from effectively reaching the more than 7.3 million Yemenis in need of urgent food assistance.10 In addition to the possibility that a U.S.-assisted operation to capture Hodeidah could worsen Yemen’s humanitarian situation, U.S. involvement in such an action has never been authorized by Congress.

• Your administration’s “increased logistical support for the Saudi-led bombing campaign” against Houthis in recent days. U.S. Senators Rand Paul and Chris Murphy have noted that the Obama administration never received congressional authorization for refueling and targeting assistance to Saudi coalition warplanes. We wish to know your legal justification for continuing and expanding this policy in the absence of such authorization.

• The recent threat by your administration to intercept an Iranian ship in international waters “to look for contraband weapons possibly headed to Houthi fighters in Yemen.” While Secretary Mattis was reported to have “ultimately decided to set the operation aside, at least for now,” we wish to know how such an interdiction-- an act of hostilities-- would be legally justified despite having no prior congressional authorization.

The United States has participated in Saudi-led airstrikes that have been blamed for most of Yemen’s 10,000 civilian deaths, creating a security vacuum that Al Qaeda has exploited to expand its base of operations. We therefore urge you to terminate U.S. refueling for Saudi coalition warplanes and end, rather than increase, U.S. logistical assistance for the Saudi-led bombings in Yemen. At minimum, any decision by the administration to engage in direct U.S. hostilities against Yemen’s Houthis must be subject to a congressional debate and vote, as the framers of the Constitution intended and the 1973 War Powers Resolution demands. As you know, the War Powers Resolution provides a mechanism for individual Members of Congress to force the question of congressional authorization if the administration is not forthcoming in seeking approval for a planned military action.

We await your prompt response regarding any legal rationale for U.S. participation in hostilities against Houthi forces in Yemen and whether your administration plans to seek approval from Congress. Your timely answer is appreciated as we explore how best to assert our constitutional role of oversight and authorization over such actions.

  Sincerely

In coming days, we'll let you know which members of Congress sign on-- and which want to see more war in Yemen, with more U.S. involvement. Remember, it's essential that the Trump administration follow the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973, and consult and receive authorization from Congress before engaging in direct U.S. hostilities against Yemen’s Houthis.

Voting For Peace... Or Not

Barbara Lee says no wars without congressional approval; Fred Upton disagrees

Last week the House passed the 2017 Defense Appropriations bill. As part of the debate, Barbara Lee (D-CA) offered an amendment that would prohibit the use of funds for the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, a blanket excuse any president-- Clinton or Trump-- could use to attack anyone, anywhere without seeking constitutionally-mandated congressional approval. Congresswoman Lee's amendment was defeated by warmongers from both parties 146-274. Although 17 Republicans joined 129 Democrats in supporting Lee, a disgraceful 51 Democrats joined the 223 Republicans who opposed her.

Among the bad Democrats were all the usual suspects from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, the New Dems and Blue Dogs, of course. Four of them are running for the Senate this year: Loretta Sanchez (Blue Dog-CA), Patrick Murphy (New Dem-FL), Ann Kirkpatrick (New Dem-AZ), and Tammy Duckworth (IL). And then there were all the walking garbage cans in the House: Hoyer (MD), DCCC Chairman Ben Ray Lujan (NM), Donald Norcross (NJ), John Delaney (MD), Henry Cuellar (TX), Ami Bera (CA), Pete Aguilar (CA), Brad Ashford (NE), Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), Kurt Schrader (OR), Dan Lipinsky (IL)... all the worst Democrats in Congress.

One Republican who was not among the Republicans crossing the aisle to vote for peace and constitutional government was Central New York's John Katko, who often tries to pass himself off as vaguely mainstream. He isn't-- and he voted against Rep. Lee's amendment. His opponent for the Syracuse-based seat, Eric Kingson, was quick to respond:

The War Powers Act was passed for a reason. By allowing never-ending war based on an Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) passed 15 years ago, we are eroding a fundamentally important check on the power of the executive branch. Congress should show some actual courage, taking crucial votes on whether or not to grant the President the power to wage war, rather than abdicate that power in fear that their vote on a war will come back to bite them later.

This is another example of Rep. Katko lacking that courage. He lacks the courage to denounce Donald Trump's hateful rhetoric. He lacks the courage to take on the NRA and pass common sense gun reforms. And he lacks the courage to provide crucial balance in our government in fear of actually being held accountable for his votes.

DuWayne Gregory, the progressive Democrat running for Long Island's South Shore seat that has been occupied by Peter King, is more scrupulous about the constitution than King is. King voted with his fellow Trumpists last week. Duwayne disagreed. "The 15-year-old war powers authorization approved by Congress in the aftermath of 9/11," he explained, "was never intended to be permanent and no president, regardless of party affiliation, should have open-ended, unchecked power to wage new wars without the consent of Congress. Its time to get back to the checks and balances the Founders intended."

No one doubted Lamar Smith (TX-21-- Austin/San Antonio corridor) would oppose Rep. Lee's amendment. The response of Tom Wakely, his Democratic opponent, shows the clear differencebetween the two candidates. "What Lamar is essentially stating to his constituents is he's perfectly fine with the idea of making it easier for someone like Donald Trump to send our troops into harm's way, so long as Congress doesn't have to do any work. The concept is simultaneously so bloodthirsty and lazy. They're essentially abstaining from responsibility to their constituents and our armed service members. Congress is afraid to have any substantive debate on the ongoing ISIS conflicts, and would rather kick the can down the road than reevaluate our defense strategy. When Congress seemingly votes against its own interests, the public needs to take notice."

  Another Republican always trying to deceive his constituents into believing he takes a vaguely mainstream approach is Fred Upton-- who actually did once take a mainstream approach... a coupke decades aho. He's long since sold out to the extremists and, needless to say, he was a pro-war vote last week when Lee's amendment came up. Paul Clements, the security-conscious progressive with serious feelings about the U.S. Constitution noticed as well. Last night he told us that we could "count the ways the Republican Congress is failing. It is long past time for Congress to reclaim power to fulfill its constitutional obligation, to decide when our country will go to war. So why did Congressman Upton oppose the Barbara Lee amendment that would have done just that? This is a fundamental abdication of responsibility.This time, just possibly, it could give Donald Trump the power to send Americans to war. We need to elect a Congress that will do its job."

We sure do! Please consider helping progressives in Michigan, New York and Texas vote war-mongers like Upton, King, Katko and Smith out of office so they can be replaced by more serious-minded represenattives, Paul Clements, DuWayne Gregory, Eric Kingson and Tom Wakely.

Among The Candidates, Who's For War? Who's For Peace? How Can We Even Know? Take South Jersey...

How do you know if a congressional candidate is more or less likely to support war and aggression? Well, generally speaking Republicans, and conservatives in general, are more likely to be willing to rush to war as an immediate option. Democrats often claim they stand for peace, but the claim is often hollow. In the presidential race we have a rabid, neocon hawk on the Democratic side and an unstable, unhinged and impulsive bully on the Republican side.

In Congress, one way to know who stands for war and who stands for peace is by watching how Members vote on amendments brought up and voted on from Oakland Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who was the only member of Congress to vote against attacking Afghanistan in 2001. Last week she offered an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 that would repeal the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force that pretty much allows any president to attack anyone anywhere. (Imagine Trump with this power.)

Lee's amendment lost 138-285. Most Democrats (125 of them) voted for it and they're joined by 13 Republicans. But 228 Republicans-- virtually the whole party-- voted against repeal and 57 Democrats joined them, obviously the Republican wing of the Democratic Party: Blue Dogs, New Dems, warmongers, Military Industrial Complex shills, etc. Out of deference to Obama-- with a blind eye to her own shameless hypocrisy-- Pelosi voted with the Republicans, probably not thinking about a President Trump with this blanket authorization she was voting for.

Among the Democratic congressmembers vying for higher office this cycle, two voted with Lee for peace: Alan Grayson (FL) and Chris Van Hollen (MD). And four decided to join the war camp and vote with the Republicans:

• Tammy Duckworth (IL)
• Ann Kirkpatrick (New Dem-AZ)
• Patrick Murphy (New Dem-FL)
• Loretta Sanchez (Blue Dog-CA)

This is a hot topic in the congressional race in south Jersey's first congressional district where progressive Alex Law is challenging warmonger Donald Norcross, the Machine candidate. Norcross, who has a clear pro-war record and voted against revoking the blanket authorization in 2001 and again last week, is the only New Jersey Democrat to do so. He's often the only New Jersey Democrat to cross the aisle and vote with the Republicans on a whole array of core values issues. Bonnie Watson Coleman, Frank Palone, Bill Pascrell, Donald Payne and Albio Sires all voted for peace; only Norcross showed the poor judgment to leave Trump (or Clinton) with the blanket approval to attack without congressional approval. We reached Alex Law as he was out knocking on doors in Cherry Hill this morning and he told us "Representative Barbara Lee's anti-war amendment is a necessary addition to our defense bill. I am proud to stand with all New Jersey Democrats in Congress, with the exception of my opponent who yet again voted with Republicans, in my support of this amendment. I firmly believe that our unchecked military incursions into the Middle East with little or no oversight by the American people has fundamentally radicalized many in the region. Our goal in fighting terrorism is to end terrorism, but our policy of endless war at what ever cost is doing the exact opposite. The only way we end terrorism is through bringing opportunity to the Middle East and working through diplomacy-- rather than drones-- to solve problems. We have been lucky with President Obama that he has not abused his nearly unlimited War powers too severely. But, without this amendment and a potential President Trump around the corner, we could see total war waged in the Middle East without authorization of the American people. That is a reality we cannot accept."

Click to get close enough to read the truck

The primary between Norcross and Law will be on June 7. Currently Blue America has the mobile billboard, pictured above, driving around the district 6 days a week, making sure voters are aware that there is a progressive alternative to Norcross. If you'd like to help, you can chip in for gas money here-- or you can contribute directly to Alex Law's campaign here:

Who Spiked Miss McConnell's Bourbon?

I've heard a lot of odd things about Mitch McConnell-- especially in regard to Pickle Park Cherokee, Waverly and Coxs parks in Louisville-- but I never heard he was an acid head. Maybe someone slipped him a dose in his bourbon Wednesday night. Out of the blue-- with no warning to his own leadership team, let alone the Democrats or the party's presidential candidates-- McConnell used a parliamentary maneuver to tee up and fast-track a debate for a complete blank check war authorization against ISIS. McConnell's surprise au­thor­iz­a­tion for the use of mil­it­ary force "would not restrict the pres­id­ent’s use of ground troops, nor have any lim­its re­lated to time or geo­graphy. Nor would it touch on the is­sue of what to do with the 2001 AUMF, which the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion has used to at­tack IS­IS des­pite that authorziation’s in­struc­tions to use force against those who planned the 9/11 ter­ror­ist at­tacks. By con­trast, the leg­al au­thor­ity put for­ward by the ad­min­is­tra­tion last Feb­ru­ary wouldn’t au­thor­ize 'en­dur­ing of­fens­ive ground com­bat op­er­a­tions' and would have ended three years after en­act­ment, un­less reau­thor­ized." This one authorizes endless war, anywhere-- and not just for Obama. This authorization could go right to a dangerous neocon president like Rubio, Hillary or Christie or to one of the unpredictable crazy people like Cruz or Herr Trumpf.

McConnell's resolution was instantly co-sponsored by 4 of the worst warmongers in the Senate, Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and the retiring Dan Coats (R-IN).

Sen­ate For­eign Re­la­tions Chair­man Bob Cork­er said that there is still a “wide di­versity” of opin­ions on the is­sue. Some Demo­crats were crit­ic­al of even the pres­id­ent’s own draft AUMF, warn­ing that they’d need ad­di­tion­al re­stric­tions from the ad­min­is­tra­tion on troop levels and geo­graph­ic bound­ar­ies be­fore they could sup­port any au­thor­iz­a­tion. Re­pub­lic­ans, mean­while, wor­ried deeply about re­strict­ing the pres­id­ent as this ad­min­is­tra­tion, and the next one, work to com­bat IS­IS.

Cork­er’s com­mit­tee-- and the Sen­ate at large-- was so deeply di­vided over the pres­id­ent’s AUMF pro­pos­al in Feb­ru­ary that the pan­el ul­ti­mately dropped the is­sue, with Cork­er ar­guing with the ad­min­is­tra­tion that no new au­thor­iz­a­tion was needed. “I don’t think it changes any­thing,” he said, of the new res­ol­u­tion.

“I’m in the same place that I’ve been-- and that is I be­lieve the ad­min­is­tra­tion has the au­thor­ity to do what they’re do­ing,” he ad­ded. “They be­lieve they have the au­thor­ity to do what they’re do­ing. If a con­sensus de­vel­ops and I be­lieve that something con­struct­ive re­l­at­ive to us deal­ing with IS­IS might come out of it then cer­tainly I’d be glad to con­sider it.”

...[S]ev­er­al long-time ad­voc­ates for passing a new meas­ure au­thor­iz­ing the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s war against IS­IS were pleased to see an AUMF mov­ing, however slightly, for­ward.

“This is the right thing,” said Gra­ham, a co­spon­sor on the new AUMF res­ol­u­tion. “This is the right in­fra­struc­ture to have.”

“If our Demo­crat­ic friends don’t want to give this pres­id­ent and oth­er pres­id­ents the abil­ity to go after IS­IS without lim­it­a­tion to geo­graphy, time and means-- be on the re­cord,” he ad­ded.

Kaine, a Demo­crat who has ag­gress­ively ad­voc­ated for an AUMF, was thrilled Thursday that the Sen­ate could soon take up de­bate, though he ad­ded that he hasn’t yet seen the de­tails. “After 18 months, I feel like the in­sti­tu­tion might be fi­nally wak­ing up that this is a threat,” Kaine said. “So we’ll see what the plan is on it, but the no­tion that we may be fi­nally tak­ing our job ser­i­ously on it is something I’m hope­ful about.”

Kaine said that al­though he and the vast ma­jor­ity of Con­gress sup­port com­batting IS­IS, he dis­agrees with the ad­min­is­tra­tion that the pres­id­ent is with­in his au­thor­ity to do so. “I be­lieve the war is il­leg­al,” Kaine said Thursday. “I don’t think there’s a leg­al jus­ti­fic­a­tion for it. And I think the greatest danger we end up do­ing is al­low­ing the pres­id­ent to wage a war without Con­gress weigh­ing in.”

Kaine ad­ded that the pres­id­ent ac­ted ini­tially “to pro­tect Amer­ic­an lives” and cred­ited the White House for send­ing over an AUMF last year. “We haven’t done any­thing. So just the no­tion that maybe fi­nally there’s some in­terest in this, I find grat­i­fy­ing. But we’ll have to work through the de­tails,” he said.

In the current politically-charged, fear-dominated environment, it would not be difficult to see the Senate stampeded into backing this kind of proposal. This is a time when we need men and women with wisdom and backbone in the Senate. There aren't many. I know we can count on Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul... but is there anyone else? Anyone? I guess we'll be finding out pretty soon. By the way, one Senate Democrat told me this morning, in confidence, that "The Republicans regard it as an excellent issue for them for November, and like the TPP, it drives a wedge between Obama and the Democrats." One Republican senator who will need no prompting to vote for war is Ohio's Rob Portman. And the Schumercrat opposing him would be likely to go right along for the ride as well, as he always has. But Ohio Democrats have an alternative, P.G. Sittenfeld, who is not a war-mongering fool. "While I believe every President needs authorization from Congress before committing the nation to long-term hostilities, I'm suspicious of Mitch McConnell's sudden change of heart about bringing one to the Senate floor for a vote," he just told us. "An open-ended authorization which in reality is a blank check for endless escalation is dangerous, especially since we don't yet know who the next president will be. I would not support any resolution that could lead America into another quagmire like we had in Viet Nam or Iraq." [You can support Sittenfeld's campaign here.]

Why Democrats Are Wary About Obama's Proposed AUMF

Tuesday I blundered into putting on MSNBC before Chris Hayes' show started and the ghost of yesteryear political journalism was barking away happily. Appropriately enough, Chris Matthews' guest was Alabama racist throwback Mo Brooks who was eager to get on TV and accuse President Obama of being-- at best-- weak and, at worst, a traitor. Brooks and Matthews are from another generation, a generation where brain growth ceased many decades ago. Both were positively salivating at the thought of "extermination."

"Personally," said Brooks, "I think this needs to be the standard-- America should not go to war unless we're committed to do the things that are necessary to win, which means that we should not restrain our commander in chief if in fact that is what America wants to do. In that regard, the President of the United States has to show that he has a strategy that can result in the extermination of the Islamic State... The president has to show a willingness to be committed to the cause. There will be casualties, American casualties, and as we have seen from the Islamic State, we might as Americans be confronted with some very horrific events that are on the internet or on TV. We have to be prepared for that if we're going to embark in this endeavor." Matthews, if anything, seemed even more unhinged, confused and bloodthirsty than Brooks.

They were both reacting to Obama's formal request Tuesday for a new-- albeit retroactive-- Authorization for the Use of Military Force. (Obama, on thin ice, claims he already has authority to wage war against ISIS based on the overly-broad 2001 AUMF.) His request Tuesday was for 3 years, had no geographic restrictions and repeals the 2002 Iraq War AUMF while leaving the broader 2001 AUMF in place. This morning Alan Grayson used a committee hearing to explain why he isn't willing to give the president a blank check and why he sees the AUMF as just that; this is a short but  fascinating video:



Predictably, Republicans are demanding less restrictions and their statements seem indicate that nothing will make them happy until military officers are allowed to do whatever they think is best... even if Boehner and McCarthy don't use words like "extermination" the way misfits like Mo Brooks and Chris Matthews do. Nancy Pelosi has said that she and House Democrats also have questions about what Obama's AUMF language actually means. She says some Democrats feel "burned" by the Iraq War experience and are reluctant to support vague AUMF language. One of the first progressives out of the box opposing the AUMF was freshman Ted Lieu, a military officer in the Air Force National Guard himself. "I oppose White House AUMF," he tweeted Wednesday morning." Authorizes massive ground troops against ISIL. But then ties their hands. Recipe for disaster. Makes ZERO sense." This is what Lieu told his Los Angeles area constituents yesterday:

President Obama has shown consistent thoughtfulness and care in dealing with national security challenges as our Commander in Chief. However, as currently drafted, I cannot support the Administration’s proposed authorization for the use of force against the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). The Administration’s proposal potentially authorizes the deployment of unlimited ground troops in Iraq and Syria (and anywhere else in the Middle East) by this President and our next President for the next three years, while at the same time restricting the actions of those ground troops. As a member of Congress, a graduate of Air War College and a former active duty Air Force officer, I believe we can only put American daughters and sons in harm’s way to confront the gravest of threats. ISIL’s actions are repugnant and should be confronted. At present, however, I do not believe the Administration has made the case that ISIL represents a direct, grave threat to our nation. I look forward to continuing this discussion with the Administration and my colleagues in Congress.

Since then MoveOn.org has come out strongly against the AUMF and urged Members of Congress to oppose it, calling it "a recipe for endless-- and costly-- war. It does nothing to repeal the sweeping 2001 AUMF, which 14 years later, is still be used to justify ongoing military action. Congress must not abdicate its responsibility to oversee U.S. war-making by giving the president a blank check to pursue multiple years of war, in Iraq, Syria, or any other nation, against an open-ended array of possible targets. And it certainly must not allow the president to leave open the real possibility of deploying U.S. ground troops, as the proposed AUMF does."




UPDATE: Congressional Progressive Caucus Gives The AUMF A Thumbs Down

This is the joint statement issued by CPC co-chairs Raúl Grijalva and Keith Ellison and CPC Peace and Security Task Force chair Barbara Lee:

“Unfortunately, the authorization proposed by the president this week is too broad. In order to ensure meaningful limits on executive branch authority, an AUMF should at a minimum contain a clear objective and geographical limitations. It should also include an enforceable ban on the deployment of ground troops with exception for only the most limited of operations, unambiguous language, and a repeal of the 2001 AUMF.

“The Administration has argued that the 2001 AUMF, which was designed to declare war on Al Qaeda and the Taliban shortly after the attacks of 9/11 but has since been broadly applied more than 30 times, provides the legal authority for any existing and future operations against ISIL. Until Congress declares that the 2001 AUMF does not apply to ISIL, any limitations or restrictions in the AUMF proposed by the president are irrelevant.

“An AUMF debated by Congress should also be comprehensive, and include the political, economic, and diplomatic solutions that will ultimately degrade and dismantle ISIL. We should work to cut the flow of money, weapons, and fighters to ISIL. We should push the United Nations to start negotiations to end the Syrian civil war. Most importantly, we should ensure that our humanitarian aid is not eclipsed by our military efforts.

“In the coming weeks, the Congressional Progressive Caucus will be holding hearings and meetings on the AUMF. One thing is clear now: the conflict in Syria and Iraq requires a comprehensive solution. ISIL’s barbaric tactics are designed to pull the United States into another endless conflict. We must provide careful consideration to an AUMF, but lasting peace and stability will only come with a regional political solution.”