"OMG! We could actually DEBATE this!" (Congress on Iraq, ISIS, and AUMF)

more war? what if Congress JUST SAYS NO! ??

Iraq is melting -- how did that happen? -- and the usual suspects have concluded there's no time like the present to inject another dose of US firepower into the situation. (Because . . . nothing helps stop violence like additional violence?)

Rep. Peter Welch (VT) has pointed out that Congress is abdicating it's Constitutional responsibility if it doesn't debate the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) for US troops and other military activity in Iraq.

Peace Action West has provided an action page showing how you can contact your member of Congress and tell them to do their job.

PS - Congress held such a debate just a few years ago. It stopped the Obama administration in its tracks from attacking Syria. See Syria: Where Have We Ended Up?

Related posts

Greenwald Was Right: "Humanitarian" War in Syria? It's Just More War

J'ACCUSE: The Beneficiaries of Permawar


More related posts

It will be the 2016 presidential election that will provide the main form of entertainment and distraction to the U.S. populace between now an the end of next year. An enormous amount of political fluff will fill our lives -- pushing aside, I suppose, vast amounts of sports fluff and shopping fluff and celebrity fluff and -- well, you get the point.

(See What Will Dominate Election 2016? (ANSWER: ISIS and #BlackLivesMatter) )








I believe an enormous number of people will conclude that, if they really believe "we can choose to abolish war," then what's required is to speak it.

(See "We can choose to abolish war" (The rest is just details) )

In the past several weeks, the President of the United States tried to undertake an attack against a foreign country, but the American people said "Hell no!" and the Congress let the President know they couldn't support it. How often does that happen?

(See When THE PEOPLE Take Control: "Anything Can Happen")