Which one of those things is not already U.S. policy?
Except that the bill doesn’t authorize force and that hypothetical Republican administration isn’t going to plow ahead with a war based on a Senate resolution authorizing sanctions that was passed a couple of years earlier. You’ll recall the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were supported by separate legislation authorizing the use of military force.
So how’s that Lalalalalala I Can’t Hear You!!! defense working out for ya? Myself, I’d think that ignoring points that show weaknesses in your argument and responding with vapid sarcasm might weaken one’s position. Then again, mine is supported by the actual facts…
…says not one word about authorizing the use of military force nor declaring war. It (re)states US’ policy regarding Iran, policy which has not changed any time recent recently, which has not led to war with Iran ever and which is immediately followed not by measures which are a runup to war, but “US Diplomatic Efforts”.
Unfortunately again the facts speak against you and your rather creative interpretation (ironically* which yet again tries to sell your position with baseless fear-mongering * even while you attempt to handwave facts that you are unable to deal with by simply responding with variations on: “scary!”).
The provision you quote demonstrates conclusively that the language added by Paul is entirely unnecessary.
As many have been saying above, you can’t interpret the bill in issue as specific authorization for use of force.
Show me where it has been declared so by Congress.
Was there legislation supporting, say, our invasion of Grenada? Or before Reagan sent the Marines into Lebanon?
No, I think clarity is VERY important.
Even the OP’s hysterical PolicyMic link (which says Rand Paul stopped World War III) notes that bill just backs the Iran policy that was laid out in an Executive Memo by Obama in November. Why is Congress’ authorization relevant?
So Paul’s amendment is irrelevant anyway, according to you.
Aside from that being US policy going back years now, I’m still not seeing where in the bill it says ‘A vote of yes shall be construed as a vote of yes to a Declaration of War between the United States of America and Islamic Republic of Iran.’ Must be written in invisible ink (Sarcasm, since you don’t seem to be able to spot it in others and like pointing it out when you use it).
Oh, just a little thing called the Constitution. Which gives to Congress the power to make war.
The risk which concerns Rand Paul, evidently, is that this resolution might be misconstrued as an exercise of that power.
While I certainly value your personal interpretation of the bill, it does not have the force of law. I would prefer clarity, to prevent some future executive from construing the bill to meet his own ends.
We were talking about U.S. foreign policy, not the power to make war. Congress has the power to declare war; there’s no particular requirement that Congress sign off on foreign policy.
Nope. It is one more obstacle for an unscrupulous executive.
Yes, and the peril is that this resolution might be construed, by an unscrupulous executive, as an exercise by Congress of its war power, authorizing the executive to use force against Iran.
Ah yes, the resolution that does not deal with, mention, or authorize the use of force might somehow be misconstrued as an authorization for the use of force. Other things which rise to Spoke’s standard include but are not limited to: particularly evocative clouds, images of the Virgin Mary in toast, compelling dreams that ‘just felt real’.
Truly, we are on the edge of war with Iran.
So if it doesn’t authorize force (as you say) what’s the harm in adding a clause to clarify that, for the sake of poor readers like me?
As I understand it, the sanctions bill has already been passed by the House. Any changes will require negotiations between the Senate and House, delaying passage of the bill for weeks for an amendment that has no effect whatsoever.
And who benefits from delaying passage of the bill? US companies that skirt current sanctions laws by having a subsidiary operate in Iran. Thanks for helping Halliburton in the name of an amendment that does nothing, Mr Paul.
As your question is in bad faith and has been answered multiple times by multiple posters, including myself, I trust you’ll understand why exactly I’m refusing to play your game here.
There’s no danger of that here, and this is exactly the kind of thing the Pauls are expert at using to scare voters into supporting them. There is no danger that a Romney administration will use a bill signed by Obama that authorizes sanctions on Syria and Iran and does not authorize the use of force as an authorization of force. Please give me any example in U.S. history where something like that has happened. I am positive you will find none. When an administration wants Congress to give it authorization to go to war, it asks for that directly. When it wants authorization to use force in some flexible way, it asks for that. When it doesn’t bother requesting that authorization, it simply won’t ask. Find an example where one administration used force based on a law enacted by a different administration that did not authorize the use of force.
So, aside from the fact that Iran has nothing to fear from the US since it’s attacked us multiple times with no military response, and the fact that sanctioning Iran is a legitimate action supported by multiple nations, and the fact that if Iran should gain nuclear weapons it will most likely touch off a regional nuclear arms race, and the fact that the bill in question could not possibly honestly be read as authorizing the use of force, and the fact that the addendum was political pandering of the worst sort, and the fact that said pandering is now delaying the implementation of a much-needed bill, and the fact that no president in the history of the republic has ever pointed to a sanctions bill from a previous administration and used that as an authorization for war… why can’t y’all get behind Paul on this and oppose pandering to AIPAC, eh?
Oh please. I don’t “support” either Ron Paul or Rand Paul. But even a broken watch is right twice a day, and I fear Rand Paul is right here.
That’s weird, I don’t remembering you answering this question. I just remember you whipping out a couple of snark-filled but poorly-drawn analogies. If that’s your only answer to the question and you’re happy with it, well, OK then.
Oh the irony. A pandering bill delayed by pandering.
Nowhere in the bill does it say ''A vote of yes shall be construed as a vote of yes to a Declaration of War between the United States of America and Islamic Republic of Iran." How is it unclear to you that the bill isn’t a declaration of war? That’s not just my personal opinion, it has that force of law thingee.