• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate rejects symbolic end to Iraq war

danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
WASHINGTON — The US Senate on Tuesday easily defeated a symbolic measure formally declaring an end to the war in Iraq, roughly one month before US forces are due to leave the strife-torn country.

Republican Senator Rand Paul’s proposal, an amendment to a $662 billion annual military spending bill, failed in a 30-67 vote.
Click to expand...

But here is the part that pissed me off even more:

But Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, a Democrat who voted against authorizing the use of military force against Iraq in 2002, warned that Paul’s resolution could tie US commanders’ hands.

“I just am unwilling to take this risk during the critical transition period,” said Levin. “There are just too many unknown, uncertain consequences.”
Click to expand...

This is the same Democrat who went after Bush for going to war in Iraq in the first place without Congressional approval. Yes, the Democrats bashed their opponents for concentrating more power in the presidency, but when one of their own is in office, they have no problem with it.

I have a word for this.... Friggen hypocrites.... OK, make that two words.

Article is here.
 
Where is the hypocrisy? I'm confused. Levin was against the war in 2002, fine. I get that, but his reasoning for being against the amendment are quite solid, and show that he realizes that the end of the war effort needs to be done without hampering the situation with a worthless amendment to a defense spending bill.

I say he's being responsible in this matter.
 
Last edited:
I'm with MrV on this one. I don't see the hypocrisy. I think it's a responsible decision to not complicate the situation any further. They should "formally declare the war over" when the war is literally over and the troops are home. For all we know, something crazy could happen in Iraq tomorrow and we would have to stay longer.
 
theplaydrive said:
I'm with MrV on this one. I don't see the hypocrisy. I think it's a responsible decision to not complicate the situation any further. They should "formally declare the war over" when the war is literally over and the troops are home. For all we know, something crazy could happen in Iraq tomorrow and we would have to stay longer.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree with you. Levin said, in the runup to the Iraq War, that it should be Congress making the decision to go to war. Levin did agree to cede some powers to Bush, but Bush did end up having to consult with Congress before he went into Iraq, and Levin still voted against Bush. With Libya, however, he is OK with the power in the hands of the president, without going through Congress. In the case of Libya, what Obama did was unconstitutional, because he did not consult Congress. Levin is OK with that. Why wasn't he OK with Bush doing the same thing, and demanding Congressional consultation at that time? That is what makes him a hypocrite.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
I strongly disagree with you. Levin said, in the runup to the Iraq War, that it should be Congress making the decision to go to war. Levin did agree to cede some powers to Bush, but Bush did end up having to consult with Congress before he went into Iraq, and Levin still voted against Bush. With Libya, however, he is OK with the power in the hands of the president, without going through Congress. In the case of Libya, what Obama did was unconstitutional, because he did not consult Congress. Levin is OK with that. Why wasn't he OK with Bush doing the same thing, and demanding Congressional consultation at that time? That is what makes him a hypocrite.
Click to expand...
Okay, but this is a separate issue from the one in the OP. The subject of your OP is Levin's lack of support for a resolution to formally declare the end of the Iraq War. Here, you're talking about his reaction to Obama's entrance into Libya. I agree that Levin's response to Obama's Libya actions was hypocritical as he didn't appear to have any problem with Obama not going through Congress. However, I still do not see his rejection of Paul's proposal to be evidence of hypocrisy. It's irresponsible to formally declare the end of a war that has not yet ended.
 
Levin knows the war isn't going to end and he doesn't want to be a part of a "Mission Accomplished" moment.

What should have passed is a binding resolution that the Iraq War ends next month which includes no more funding.
 
I don't get this whole thing.

If Congress didn't declare a war has begun - how can they declare a war is over?

Per the Constitution - the power given to congress to control activities during conflict are budget (etc) - they don't approve, they don't fund. :shrug:
 
This is the same Democrat who went after Bush for going to war in Iraq in the first place without Congressional approval. Yes, the Democrats bashed their opponents for concentrating more power in the presidency, but when one of their own is in office, they have no problem with it.

I have a word for this.... Friggen hypocrites.... OK, make that two words.
Click to expand...


I don't think it's hypocrisy. He was against the war, voted against authorizing force, but now that we're in there he wants it done right. If anything it's pretty pragmatic.
 
theplaydrive said:
Okay, but this is a separate issue from the one in the OP. The subject of your OP is Levin's lack of support for a resolution to formally declare the end of the Iraq War. Here, you're talking about his reaction to Obama's entrance into Libya. I agree that Levin's response to Obama's Libya actions was hypocritical as he didn't appear to have any problem with Obama not going through Congress. However, I still do not see his rejection of Paul's proposal to be evidence of hypocrisy. It's irresponsible to formally declare the end of a war that has not yet ended.
Click to expand...

Oops, wrong quote. Here's the proper one.

The senator tied the measure to Libya, accusing President Barack Obama of circumventing the US Constitution by committing US forces to the conflict there without an explicit authorization from the US Congress.
Click to expand...

Levin did support Obama's going into Libya without congressional approval.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom