Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, February 14, 2019

Christian Science Monitor Editorial Board: On Wednesday, the House voted to stop American military assistance for Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen. In coming weeks, the Senate is expected to follow suit. The measure, however, lacks enough votes to overcome a threatened veto by President Trump. The tragic war in Yemen, with its unacceptable toll on civilians, probably will go on. And that might be the end of yet another political drama in Washington with no real-world impact. But wait, something historic may be happening anyway. Not since Congress passed the War Powers Act in 1973 has it voted with a majority to cease United States involvement in a conflict.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Not since Congress passed the War Powers Act in 1973 has it voted with a majority to cease United States involvement in a conflict.

This is a HUGE deal, regardless of whether Donnie Little Hands vetos it or not.

The biggest criticism of the WPA is that it had never been invoked, I guess it took the Saudis and Trump to bring everyone together.

#1 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-14 08:50 PM | Reply


@#1 ... I guess it took the Saudis and Trump to bring everyone together. ...

Sometimes it takes a good [virtual] slap to make one wake up.

#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-02-14 09:04 PM | Reply

Am I having dejavu or did the House bring up a bill that passed but expired in the last session?

#3 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2019-02-14 09:57 PM | Reply

A "low yield" nuclear bomb just rolled of the factory floor in the panhandle of Texas. That warhead, the W76-2, is designed to be fitted to a submarine-launched Trident missile, a weapon with a range of more than 7,500 miles. The W76-2 will yield "only" about one-third of the devastating power of the weapon that was dropped on Hiroshima.

What is the strategic purpose of this weapon? Reagan's Secretary Schultz insisted they are useless because any such use would quickly ramp up. But Trump said there is no sense in building nuclear weapons if you're not willing to use them. Bolton never saw a nuclear treaty he liked and has acted on that belief. Pompeo is of the same mindset.

So far Trump has avoided any serious escalation of war. But where will this madness end?

www.tomdispatch.com

#4 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-02-14 10:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Incredibly newsworthy post Bayviking! Scary as hell with Trump and Bolton in charge.

#5 | Posted by danni at 2019-02-15 08:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

what? someone trying to kill ya daddy isn't gonna be enough anymore?

tsk tsk tsk

what is this country coming to?

#6 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2019-02-15 08:49 AM | Reply

what? someone trying to kill ya daddy isn't gonna be enough anymore?

tsk tsk tsk

what is this country coming to?

#7 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2019-02-15 08:49 AM | Reply

Congress needs to act quickly to make sure Trump doesn't use the military to take out Maduro. I don't love Maduro but he is still the legitimate leader of that nation whether we like it or not. Donald Trump does not get to appoint an interim President.

#8 | Posted by danni at 2019-02-15 09:04 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

but he is still the legitimate leader of that nation whether we like it or not.

Not according to their legislature.

#9 | Posted by boaz at 2019-02-15 10:57 AM | Reply

"I don't love Maduro but he is still the legitimate leader of that nation whether we like it or not. Donald Trump does not get to appoint an interim President."

Trump's a better president than Maduro who is both directly and indirectly responsible for mass starvation in Venezuela (granted that's a low bar). You support using the 25th Amendment to remove Trump, why don't you support Venezuelans using the mechanism provided by their constitution to remove Maduro?

#10 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2019-02-15 11:07 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

"You support using the 25th Amendment to remove Trump, why don't you support Venezuelans using the mechanism provided by their constitution to remove Maduro?"

I have no problem at all if Venezuelans overthrow Maduro any way they can, I just don't want American troops to involved in any way. I don't want the Venezuelan people after they change leaders to blame us for anything that happens in their future. I also don't want our oil companies to take advantage of Venezuela's fragility to steal their oil.

#11 | Posted by danni at 2019-02-15 11:39 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The Founders "would probably be thunderstruck" at how much war power has been given to the executive branch, writes historian Michael Beschloss in a new book, "Presidents of War." "

Woah and woah. If the Founding Fathers saw how much power has been given to the entire government, war would be FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR from their first issue...who's entire purpose according to the Founding Fathers was to provide national defense and preside over state conflicts. Whether or not any branch can or cannot declare war is a function of the government the Founding Fathers actually wanted. Sure, the branches have been blurring lines for a long time, but at least that's what has been under their purview since the Founding Fathers. It's all this other, social crap that the government has to deal with that WASN'T what the Founding Fathers wanted, so don't start using war as any kind of example of how they would feel about anything until you address the actual crap that the government holds power over that they shouldn't.

#12 | Posted by humtake at 2019-02-15 11:54 AM | Reply

A good first step to making wars more unpopular with most Americans, particularly White working-class and middle-income Americans; bring back the draft.

OCU

#13 | Posted by OCUser at 2019-02-15 11:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

A "low yield" nuclear bomb just rolled of the factory floor in the panhandle of Texas. That warhead, the W76-2, is designed to be fitted to a submarine-launched Trident missile, a weapon with a range of more than 7,500 miles. The W76-2 will yield "only" about one-third of the devastating power of the weapon that was dropped on Hiroshima.

What is the strategic purpose of this weapon? Reagan's Secretary Schultz insisted they are useless because any such use would quickly ramp up. But Trump said there is no sense in building nuclear weapons if you're not willing to use them. Bolton never saw a nuclear treaty he liked and has acted on that belief. Pompeo is of the same mindset.

So far Trump has avoided any serious escalation of war. But where will this madness end?

www.tomdispatch.com

#4 | Posted by bayviking

WTF does that have to do with this thread?

#14 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-02-15 12:56 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

WTF does that have to do with this thread?

#14 | Posted by Sniper

It's complicated. It requires reading AND comprehension.

Perhaps you can get a millennial to explain it to you?

#15 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-02-15 05:59 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

OK sniper, one more time, even though its a waste of time:

Restoring a High Threshold for War (which has been sorely lacking)

A low yield weapon was obviously developed by Neocons and their ilk to make them "easier to use". Schultz and many others would disagree. Its impossible to use any nuclear weapon without expecting a retaliation which will be bigger and so forth and so on.

Given this simple fact why are we not striving for mutual nuclear disarmament?

#16 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-02-15 11:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort