Tuesday, January 14, 2014

More Rand Paul Nonsense: This Time on "Ending" the Iraq War

 Foreign Policy reports (my highlights)
It's been more than two years since U.S. troops withdrew from Iraq. But a loophole in the 2002 Iraq War Resolution allows future presidents to re-invade Iraq anytime they want. Now, Republican Senator Rand Paul wants to change that. 
On Tuesday, the Kentucky libertarian is set to formally introduce a bill to repeal the Authorization of the Use of Military Force in Iraq[...]
"The Administration supports the repeal of the Iraq AUMF since it is no longer used for any U.S. Government activities," White House spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said in a statement. "We understand that some in Congress are considering legislation related to the Iraq AUMF, and we will certainly examine these proposals as they come forward."
 An administration official made clear that repealing the Iraq AUMF was not a priority for the White House because the effect would be largely symbolic.
Got that? This is just play time, since the troops have already been withdrawn (or technically withdrawn). FP notes:
Even if the Iraq AUMF were repealed, the administration could technically take military action in Iraq -- thanks to the resurgence of Al Qaeda there.  The AUMF signed by President George W. Bush in 2001 gives the White House broad, broad latitude to strike almost anywhere the terror group or its allies are operating.
And while Rand's bill is big on symbolism, it also includes this juicy bit: It allows for the empire to remain in Iraq, with any resources the president deems necessary . Here's the entire bill, my highlight:
 113th CONGRESS 2nd  SESSION

To repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. PAUL
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on

A BILL

To repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force  Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ.

(a) REPEAL
.—The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107–6
243; 116 Stat. 1498; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is hereby repealed.

2
DAV14025 S.L.C. (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION

.—Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting or prohibiting any authority of the President to—

(1) provide security for United States facilities, military assets, or military or diplomatic personnel located in Iraq; or

(2) gather, provide, and share intelligence with the Government of Iraq if the President determines it to be in the national security interests of the United States.

3 comments:

  1. In 1967 I came to the sad conclusion that the American public was composed primarily of propagandized dullards, and nothing in the intervening 46 years has changed my opinion. Symbolism and clever-talking points can sway the general public with the greatest of ease, as Rand Paul proves time and again.

    My uncle Corey who had survived Pearl Harbor told me in 1967 that I thought too much, and he was a Reagan Republican until the day he died 32 years later. I loved my uncle, but once you understand political parlor tricks, the magic of politicians like Rand Paul is seen for what it is, pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Only a fool/statist would even recognize this AUMF nonsense.
    .
    Its a war or not.
    .
    dumbasses
    .

    ReplyDelete
  3. "On Tuesday, the Kentucky libertarian..."

    And THIS is why its needs to keep being said that, and HOW, Rand Paul is *not* a libertarian... To keep bringing clarity to people where the MSM tries obfuscating the facts. Rand Paul is NOT a libertarian and we need to keep making sure people know that he does NOT represent libertarians.


    "—Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting or prohibiting any authority of the President to—

    (1) provide security for United States facilities, military assets, or military or diplomatic personnel located in Iraq"

    Proving that Rand Paul is a supporter of empire. If he wasn't he would say that military assets, and military personnel have no business being in Iraq in the first place.
    And of course, ANYTHING can be perceived to be in the interest of "national security". That's how NSA snooping and TSA molestation is justified, among others.

    ReplyDelete