House votes to bar Obama from sending troops to Iraq without authorization

[n2doc]

Source: Reuters/RS

The U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly on Friday for a resolution that would bar President Barack Obama from sending U.S. troops for any “sustained combat role” in Iraq without congressional authorization.

The House adopted the resolution by a vote of 370-40, reflecting the strong desire by both Republicans and Democrats in the chamber that the White House not act in Iraq without Congress’ backing, although it was a largely symbolic vote.

To be enacted, the measure would require backing by the U.S. Senate, which is not expected, and even then it would not have the force of law.

It was introduced by Massachusetts Democratic Representative Jim McGovern, California Democrat Barbara Lee and Republican Walter Jones of North Carolina.

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/25/house-votes-to-bar-obama-from-sending-troops-to-iraq-without-authorization/

---

The Irony. If only this had been passed 12 years ago….

[Swede Atlanta]

1. What?

Isn't BO the Commander in Chief?

This is the ongoing debate we have in this country. I thought under the War Powers Act the President could commit U.S. troops for up to 90 days without Congressional approval.

The Constitution is clear that only Congress can declare war but the President is CIC. So can the President send troops, sailors, airmen, marines anywhere outside the country for any reason? That is the question.

[MACARD]

10. 20th Century Congress gave away many of their rights

no war since World War 2 has been Officially declared by the US Congress, Seriously look it up, the only power Congress has is to not Fund military incursions in the budget which is soo easy to pass *sarcasam*. more to the Point BO doesn't seem likely to send troops, he said that unless Malaki can get all the tribes Sunni and Shia to work together he wont consider it. Malaki can't resist being a Dick to the Kurds and Sunnis. the President knows the American public is against going back, it would do him no favors. I am not concerned

[Autumn]

2. I will not say what I want to say.

[jwirr]

3. Does this resolution do away with the one that gave bushie the right to do whatever he wanted?

I hope so.

[mark67]

4. Bewildering...

What is this all about? Bill was actually introduced by Democrats, otherwise I would think it was just more Republican meddling to tie up the "dictators" hands.

Anyone have any ideas?

[JackRiddler]

13. Reasonable fear of what crisis may suddenly arise.

Most oppose a new involvement of U.S. ground troops, even among politicians, but there are powerful forces who always support every proposed intervention. These things can happen as fait accompli, if some new development is followed by a rush to respond. A sudden unexpected turn in the crisis can trigger an intervention, even with the president genuinely not contemplating it beforehand. Also, just last year Obama was wavering in the face of the neocon pressure to strike Syria. Let's keep in mind that because of ISIS, the new war in Iraq is continuous with the ongoing war in Syria. Thus, it's a sensible precaution from the Congress. Although, if the "sudden something" does happen, they'll no doubt be among those lining up to join the hostilities, etc. etc.

[Jack Rabbit]

5. Too bad these congresscritters weren't in charge when the Frat Boy and Big Dick invaded Iraq

Oh, wait. They were.

[George II]

6. The whole thing is idiotic and cosmetic...the President already has authorization to send troops...

....to Iraq.

Nothing like a bunch of Democrats to undermine the President. As you say, too bad that wasn't done 12 years ago.

[rtracey]

7. ok fine

This is a saving grace for this president. This is going to clear him if troops are needed there. Why look a gift horse in the mouth, and actually, how many of you arguing against this came out against sending troops there in the first place. So ok congress wants to get involved, and President wants to send troops, so he presents to congress, and of course congress hates this president says no....ok so whos shoulders does this fall on...congresses ..also its says its for IRAQ, not anywhere else it the world....

[El Shaman]

8. Odd

how they bend-over forwards for the little bush.

[El Shaman]

9. Learning

your lessons the 'hard way' . Ouch!

[kelliekat44]

11. Huh? I thought Obama was bringing troop out of Iraq? Did they mean he had to ask Congress before

he brought more troops out of Iraq?

[Comrade Grumpy]

12. He sent in advisors to help the Maliki government after ISIS took Mosul.

There's no sign that he wants to reinsert US combat troops, but Congress can't pass up a chance to slap at him.

[JackRiddler]

14. It's a good thing...

although in practice if there's a propaganda build-up for a new intervention in Iraq, they'll almost surely go along.

McGovern & Lee, among the handful of best in Congress.

Ridiculous to see this as personalized. Did the House once kow-tow to Bush? They should not have!

Here's the roll-call:
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/113/house/2/452

Check out the 40 Nays - 37 R, 3 D. That's as good a snapshot of the Permanent War Caucus as any.

[blkmusclmachine]

15. Meh.

[SummerSnow]

16. Wait, I remember those idiots fucking whining and drooling that Obama needs to send troops there?