Congress ashamed of Congress. Taking 2 month break

[Major]

Congress Ashamed Of Congress For Tending To Elections Before War Authorization Debate

Congress is ashamed of itself for tending to elections before having a war authorization vote. But they'll do it anyway.

A bipartisan faction of lawmakers has been demanding a vote to authorize President Barack Obama's military escalation against the Islamic State, also known as ISIS. Obama maintains he doesn't need a new authorization to expand U.S. military strikes against the terrorist group; indeed, the U.S. has already carried out 160 airstrikes in Iraq this summer and plans to expand into Syria. But some lawmakers disagree that the president has the authority under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force to carry out an open-ended campaign of airstrikes against the Islamic State, and argue that Congress must weigh in -- if not for legal reasons, then at least to show where they stand on the serious matter of going to war.

But with elections around the corner, many lawmakers aren't inclined to wade into a thorny debate about war authorization that could jeopardize their races. So the debate is being sidelined for two months, at a minimum, as political campaigns take hold. Not that members of Congress seem particularly surprised by their collective priorities.

Gotta love this part...

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), for example, wouldn't be adjourning for two months if most Democrats were demanding attention to a war authorization debate. The same applies to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Republicans. In others words, some of the same lawmakers telling reporters they want a debate on war authorization may also be privately telling party leaders they want nothing to do with it.

"People don't really want to take that vote," said one frustrated House Democrat, who requested anonymity. "People say stuff in there, but they won't vote on it. Talk is cheap. Do I think there will be a vote when we come back? No."

So, this war we were scared into? Congress has basically decided that the elections are more important than national security and authorizing the war, and they are now taking a two month vacation until after the elections. And they just got back from a five week break through all of August and into September.

Tax dollars at work! USA! USA!

 

[Hilander]

Who cares if ISIS spreads even further as long as they get their person voted into office. ISIS will wait until congress decides to act, not.

Lazy asses, none of them are worth a dime. I'm ashamed of them, of course they will bitch if Obama acts. They will whine that it should have went up for vote but don't blame them for going on vacation, that is what they are there for, vacation from the real world.

 

[CaptainObvious]

I am of the opinion the authorization given to President Bush in 2001 cannot be extended here. No Congress should be bound by such an authorization a former Congress passed 13 years ago.

This doesn't surprise me at all. Do your job and represent your constituents and vote yay or nay and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Van]

Maj, this is exactly right. Their are loads of bills that the senate has passed and loads of bills that the house has passed that the other party who controls the other house of congress won't let come to a vote simply because they don't want to give it a chance to pass. In most cases however, even if they know that something will not pass they still won't allow the vote simply to protect their party members from actually having to put up or shut up. Put their actions where their words are.

Personally I think we should absolutely obliterate ISIS. But congress still has to freaking vote. It is the same war we have been fighting for a decade, but from a legal perspective it's not the same war because we pulled out. Congress does not have the power to simply vote away their constitutional power indefinitely. This is clearly a new conflict that needs authorization from congress.

Maj, when congress is not is session they still work very hard...but not for us, just for their re-elections. The problem is most politicians (or all?) seem to only be focused on what will look good and get them elected again. They don't answer questions with what they really think they answer questions with what they think will get them higher ratings. Because apparently what's right doesn't always look good enough.

 

[dDave]

I think that in the future authorizations of this nature should have a specific time frame listed. Maybe have a renewal date that congress must pass every 2 years or something.

Is Congress really ashamed of itself? Everyone seems to think the problem is other people.

The game of politics is always played before election season. Is amazing just how short the memory of the American people really is. Our politicians get away with doing very unpopular things right after election season that they knew would be unpopular. Yeah, they're really good at representing their people. Just imagine if our representatives actually did what their title says.

 

[Major]

If Americans were smart, we would vote against every single incumbent regardless of party affiliation. After a few election cycles maybe they would get the message. Either that or have term limits. But why would they ever limit themselves?

 

[Hilander]

I think that would be a great idea, get rid of them all. All they know how to do is go on vacation and vote themselves raises.

No they will never vote for term limits. Need to get up a petition to have it put on the ballot and let the American people vote on it for them.

 

[Van]

I'm trying to think if I've ever voted for a incumbent at the federal level...and other than my congressman ( who I always vote against in the primary), I don't think I have. I've voted for a few incumbents at local levels but a lot of times there are only the 2 choices.

I think we need a 3rd party or even a fourth party too. But elections need to be at a 50% majority wins, anything lower goes to a runoff. That is the only way to break the third party system and make a third party viable. But the corrupt politicians in DC would never agree to that. If less people in the initial election cycle that are forced to vote for the lesser of two evils the better the country would be. A national movement for something like this would be very beneficial.

Also wow. I was just reading and the congress apparently worked an amazing 8 grueling days and went home early to campaign. And they only really voted on one thing, the continuing resolution which probably just screws us more into debt. I generally don't like to curse, but if I could address congress, I would have some words I won't write here. Lol

And of course this continuing resolution had the 500 million to "train" the Syrian moderates...who may or may not be, members of ISIS the very people we are trying to defeat....and only a few senators from both parties opposed it. Freaking establishment corrupt morons in both parties.

Also Maj I would absolutely support term limits. I think a majority of Americans would.

 

[MenInTights]

I am of the opinion the authorization given to President Bush in 2001 cannot be extended here. No Congress should be bound by such an authorization a former Congress passed 13 years ago.

This doesn't surprise me at all. Do your job and represent your constituents and vote yay or nay and let the chips fall where they may.

I'm of the opinion that is can. I'm the furthest from an expert, I just read "60 Words and a War without End" 60 Words And A War Without End: The Untold Story Of The Most Dangerous Sentence In U.S. History Great article, scary as hell.

Generally I'm all for Congress not being in session but come on man, this could be the most important debate of your stupid f'n career.