6
6
0
Answer by Tim Kaine, United States senator from Virginia, @timkaine:
My sense is that in both houses of Congress, there is an overwhelming majority of members who believe strongly that the United States should be engaged in some sort of military action against ISIL. Yet, despite that overwhelming consensus—and despite the constitutional demand that we should not be at war without a vote of Congress—there’s been a strange degree of silence on this issue for the past 16 months.
If you look back a few years to the last war vote on Iraq, we saw the political consequences of that vote. I think that may have something to do with why Congress has been unwilling and remained mostly silent when it comes to holding a debate and vote on the war against ISIL.
I believe strongly that the voice of Congress is needed. It’s needed to fulfill our Article I responsibility and to send a clear message to our troops, allies, and adversaries that we are committed to this mission. I think when it comes down to it, deciding whether to go to war and put our service members at risk is one of the toughest votes any member will make during his or her time in Congress.
But taking these votes shouldn’t be an option—it’s our constitutional responsibility, and it’s what the American people and our service members deserve.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2015/11/20/why_won_t_congress_vote_on_war_with_isis.html?wpisrc=obnetwork
My sense is that in both houses of Congress, there is an overwhelming majority of members who believe strongly that the United States should be engaged in some sort of military action against ISIL. Yet, despite that overwhelming consensus—and despite the constitutional demand that we should not be at war without a vote of Congress—there’s been a strange degree of silence on this issue for the past 16 months.
If you look back a few years to the last war vote on Iraq, we saw the political consequences of that vote. I think that may have something to do with why Congress has been unwilling and remained mostly silent when it comes to holding a debate and vote on the war against ISIL.
I believe strongly that the voice of Congress is needed. It’s needed to fulfill our Article I responsibility and to send a clear message to our troops, allies, and adversaries that we are committed to this mission. I think when it comes down to it, deciding whether to go to war and put our service members at risk is one of the toughest votes any member will make during his or her time in Congress.
But taking these votes shouldn’t be an option—it’s our constitutional responsibility, and it’s what the American people and our service members deserve.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2015/11/20/why_won_t_congress_vote_on_war_with_isis.html?wpisrc=obnetwork
GWOT
Election 2016
Congress
ISIS
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 23
10
10
0
When it comes to running around saying nothing we have the best elected officials in the history of man.
When it comes to actually buckling down and hammering out a viable solution that works in the best interests of the common man, we have the best legislators Big Anything can buy. Because nothing will be done to help us.
When it comes to doing what they've spent millions saying Obama did wrong by going to war, and how important it was to get Congress involved in the war process, we have the best no nothings in the 240 years of the US.
Nothing will change regardless of party, and it's business as usual. #JUSTSAYNOIN2016
When it comes to actually buckling down and hammering out a viable solution that works in the best interests of the common man, we have the best legislators Big Anything can buy. Because nothing will be done to help us.
When it comes to doing what they've spent millions saying Obama did wrong by going to war, and how important it was to get Congress involved in the war process, we have the best no nothings in the 240 years of the US.
Nothing will change regardless of party, and it's business as usual. #JUSTSAYNOIN2016
(10)
(0)
6
6
0
3
3
0
I hope people understand what a low 'low' it was in the history of the United States for the House of Representatives to pass this legislation basically barring these 10,000 Syrians who are already in the midst of the vetting process.
When France is going to take 30,000 and Germany up to 1 million -- is that how the leader of the Free World acts?
And the bulk of the Amercan people have also showed themselves as unworthy of what has gone before.
The system set up by the Framers will hopefully work and the Senate will not sanction this cowardly action.
Walt
When France is going to take 30,000 and Germany up to 1 million -- is that how the leader of the Free World acts?
And the bulk of the Amercan people have also showed themselves as unworthy of what has gone before.
The system set up by the Framers will hopefully work and the Senate will not sanction this cowardly action.
Walt
(3)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SSG Warren Swan - The same is true in the US, there is nothing stopping someone from filing a civil lawsuit against you if they fall and break their leg while they are breaking into your house here in the US. All they have to do is prove that you were negligent in allowing a safety hazard to exist on your property. Now if you don't have any wealth, there is no getting blood from a turnip... so it would be pointless to sue you. If you do have wealth, then you better have good homeowners insurance policy and it would be advisable to have umbrella insurance as well. If a burglar trips over the garden hose while trying to escape my dogs and decides to sue me, he gets to face high priced lawyers from a major insurance company in court instead of me. Which in a round about way, makes my second point, in order to be truly free in our society... you have got to have money. The same holds true if I am charged with a crime, if I need to accept the services of a public defender... I am probably going to jail or paying a fine, guilty or not. If I can afford a good lawyer, I am probably not going to jail. As a nation, are we as free as the guy who can't afford a decent lawyer or are we as free as a wealthy person who can afford the best lawyers money can buy?
We rank #46 out of 180 when it comes to freedom of the press. We rank #19 when it comes to Democracy. We have been slipping for decades, the only indices where we lead the world are in areas such as prison population and military spending.
We rank #46 out of 180 when it comes to freedom of the press. We rank #19 when it comes to Democracy. We have been slipping for decades, the only indices where we lead the world are in areas such as prison population and military spending.
(2)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
SSG (Join to see) - Who could possibly think this was anything but a police state?
The NSA knows whether it is boxers or briefs for you, or maybe Spanx.
If the cops stop you, they WANT to put you in jail. And with corporate prisons there are always beds to house you. When a lot of us were kids we didn't live in fear of the police. But now we do.
Walt
The NSA knows whether it is boxers or briefs for you, or maybe Spanx.
If the cops stop you, they WANT to put you in jail. And with corporate prisons there are always beds to house you. When a lot of us were kids we didn't live in fear of the police. But now we do.
Walt
(2)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Capt Walter Miller - I don't live in fear of the police, I believe most want to do the right thing and are relatively honest. I also don't worry too much about the corrupt ones because I have enough resources to defend myself. If your middle class and you take common sense steps to protect your wealth your fairly safe.
Corporate prisons and the money they make housing people who lack the resources to afford a decent lawyer is a huge problem.
If NSA surveillance were legal I wouldn't have a problem with it. My only issue is that much of what their doing is probably not legal/constitutional.
Corporate prisons and the money they make housing people who lack the resources to afford a decent lawyer is a huge problem.
If NSA surveillance were legal I wouldn't have a problem with it. My only issue is that much of what their doing is probably not legal/constitutional.
(2)
(0)
A1C Melissa Jackson
Amen.
Donald Trump is also a dangerous loon for even suggesting that ANY group religious or otherwise wear "identifying badges" WTH is the damned matter with him???
That is not the country I offered to die for- AT ALL.
Donald Trump is also a dangerous loon for even suggesting that ANY group religious or otherwise wear "identifying badges" WTH is the damned matter with him???
That is not the country I offered to die for- AT ALL.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
SSG Warren Swan
If they vote in this time period, Trump will be all over them like white on rice, and NONE of them want that man any where near them; regardless of party. Any decision would be the wrong one, why it took so long to do, or "we can't blame Obama" anymore. Both parties have the luxury of blaming him while they do nothing and swear they're doing everything in our best interests. What four years since the VA scandal broke, and what has any politician done to mitigate or even "fix" it?
(2)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
SSG Warren Swan - wait .... Obama did take action without congress ... that is how the bombing campaign started. He do thing when he wanted it to happen, he will ask for permission when he don't want it to happen, I see that pattern. So I kind of disagree.
They are not going to fix the VA ...
They are not going to fix the VA ...
(0)
(0)
MSG Reid Zohfeld
Declaring War brings in a lot of rules and complications into the budget. That is why the government never declared war after the twins towers fell. Under this provision the insurance companies would not have to pay out for the buildings and people who died life insurance. I am sure if a declaration of war is declared any and all collateral damage and again the insurance companies would be off the hook for payments.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SSG Warren Swan - Neither party is interested in spending additional 10's of billions to ensure our Veterans get the care they need while the public is clamoring for less debt and the lobbyists are clamoring for more tax breaks.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
The only thing that they are good at is running a campaign against the current administration and/or lying to the American people. Our country was formed on the basis of fighting for the little guy. But we have lost that sentiment somewhere in our checks and balances with big corporations.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Going to have to agree w/ SCPO David Lockwood - All of the Above.
Maybe if ISIS could be defined as a sovereign nation, Congress could muster the courage to declare war... or, minimally, take action. Set up trade embargos against those nations who fund/support ISIS? Maybe. However, I think our boys in Washington are stuck in antiquated model of "what" or "how" to define the enemy. The dogma: Once we acknowledge ISIS in the context I described, we validate their existence. And I'm not sure ISIS rates a seat in the U.N.
...just my random thought to close the day.
Maybe if ISIS could be defined as a sovereign nation, Congress could muster the courage to declare war... or, minimally, take action. Set up trade embargos against those nations who fund/support ISIS? Maybe. However, I think our boys in Washington are stuck in antiquated model of "what" or "how" to define the enemy. The dogma: Once we acknowledge ISIS in the context I described, we validate their existence. And I'm not sure ISIS rates a seat in the U.N.
...just my random thought to close the day.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
None of the above. It would be pointless for congress to declare a war that the president will not fight in any case - declaration or not.
(2)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
Not pointless to follow the law.
And the president is throwing a lot of bombs and money at the problem.
Walt
And the president is throwing a lot of bombs and money at the problem.
Walt
(1)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
Capt Walter Miller, the president is doing the bare minimum to kick the can down the road until the next president takes office. A declaration of war would not change that.
(0)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
That is your opinion only. The basic problem is that the only people who want to hold that ground are inimical to our interests. As the president said, we could occupy Mosul or Raqqa, or wherever, and it wouldn't make any difference. We'd kick the can down the road until we decide to leave. Then we have the same problem as now.
There is no point in getting our guys killed for that.
Oh I forgot. You just want to carp at the president. What is good for the country doesn't matter.
Walt
There is no point in getting our guys killed for that.
Oh I forgot. You just want to carp at the president. What is good for the country doesn't matter.
Walt
(1)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
Capt Walter Miller, what is good for the country is what Bush did when Iraq was looking so good that the Obama administration was taking credit for it. Then he pulled our forces out prematurely and it all went south.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
If they vote, they're responsible for the outcome. If they hang back and wait, they can either attempt to pass the buck if it goes poorly, or attempt to take credit if things go well... They're just hedging their bets...
(2)
(0)
CW2 (Join to see)
yeah like the media and the left bashed the gop about going into iraq...lets bash them now for not going into syria.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Your survey questions show extreme bias. While the Republican party currently holds a majority in both the House and Senate, that was not always the case and it doesn't hold a veto proof majority now. Sen Reid (D-NV) as Majority Leader blocked many pieces of legislation and as current Minority Leader still has a powerful enough voting block to stall any vote he chooses on behalf of the White House. Pres. Obama would first have to be willing to make a request for that Decleration of War vote (which I do not believe he ever would), then and only then might a Declaration of War pass. Because if Congress tried to declare it without the President's request and approval it would get vetoed, I guarantee it!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
That was funny, however it wasn't right. If your going to have a poll... you should be able to cover a majority of potential respondents opinion on the matter.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google