I don't read the American Conservative much, but Rand Paul pointed out a nonpartisan article by George O'Neill worth looking at last week, $100 Billion in Weapons to the Saudis Buys a World Full of Hurt. He emphasized that "the meaning of 'friendship' in Riyadh's case has been distorted beyond all reality." Sounding a lot like a Bernie fanzine writer, O'Neill reported that "On December 13, the United States Senate made history with a vote invoking the 1973 War Powers Act to stop America’s military participation in, and support of, the unauthorized and immoral war against the desperate people in Yemen. Never before had a vote of this nature passed the Senate. The measure passed with 56 senators voting in support and 41 voting against. It marked the first time the Senate has been able to put the breaks on our involvement in Yemen, a war that was never authorized by Congress, as is required by our Constitution. Meanwhile, Speaker Paul Ryan went to extraordinary lengths to forestall a vote on a similar motion in the House of Representatives."If you click the link to the vote above, you'll no doubt notice that every single Democrat in the Senate-- even Manchin, Heitkamp, Jones and Menendez-- voted for Bernie's Resolution and that they were joined by co-sponsor Mike Lee (R-UT) and half a dozen other Republicans, including Susan Collins (R-ME), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Jerry Moran (R-KS) Steve Daines (R-MT), Rand Paul (R-KY) and Todd Young (IN). Susan Collins and Rand Paul might be expected to cross the aisle on a vote like this, but look at the Trump affinity scores for the 7 Republicans who backed it:
• Collins- 77.4%• Daines- 88.0%• Flake- 81.3%• Lee- 78.6%• Moran- 92.8%• Paul- 72.8%• Young- 92.9%
For comparison's sake, this is Bernie's affinity score: 14.3%.And this is McConnell's affinity score: 95.2%.Lindsey Graham, who ran away and refused to vote: 90.2%.
The 1973 War Powers Act was written to protect such motions from political shenanigans. However, in 2017, the leadership killed House Concurrent Resolution 81, using parliamentary trickery to table the motion without a vote. In November 2018, the House Rules Committee, controlled by Ryan and company, slipped a rule into the Wolf Protection Act to de-privilege H.Con.Res.138 so that a vote would again be thwarted. When the measure was brought up again in December, the Rules Committee inserted a rule on Res.142 into the farm bill, which again prevented Congress from voting on the issue.Why so much effort on Capitol Hill to protect and perpetuate an illegal war that has brought the 14 million people of Yemen to the brink of starvation? Why so much support for enabling the Saudi government’s inhumane naval blockade and bombing campaign, which are intentionally designed to starve the Yemenis and prevent other supplies, particularly medicines, from coming into Yemen?When queried, the typical supporter of this horror tells us we have to support the Saudis because they are “our friends.” But how can we call those who willfully perpetrate such unthinkable misery “our friends”? For many years, our political, military, and press leadership have intoned the “our friends” mantra. Why? Exactly who benefits from this so-called friendship?Ben Freeman at the Center for International Policy’s Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative has identified many of the American firms that receive vast sums of money from the Saudis. This money is laundered through these firms and into the campaign coffers of our political leaders.It is difficult to imagine how a country that has spent billions of dollars both around the world and in America supporting a virulently anti-American jihadist ideology can be considered a friend. Adherents of this ideology, Saudis, comprised the leadership, the funders, the operatives, and 15 of the 19 hijackers who attacked us on September 11, 2001, killing 3,000 Americans. Yet Riyadh has not stopped funding madrassas overseas that teach extremism (despite a recent pledge to do just that), enabling these schools to breed and train new terrorists for the last five decades. America’s leadership has turned a blind eye in order to continue to protect their money flow.Our national leaders also tell us that selling weapons to the Kingdom gives us the benefit of jobs in our country. This is somewhat deceptive. To paraphrase TAC columnist Doug Bandow: we do have people working to make the weapons, but we do not fully benefit from the export of arms because we do not benefit from them here. Instead, the products are sent overseas, often at our expense.Also, due to this shortsighted practice, our technology and resources end up in dangerous and unstable regions where our own weapons are often used against our troops. The arms bonanza also raises serious questions about arming a bunch of nations that are hospitable to terrorist organizations. What is in it for America besides large sums of money for lobbyists and politicians?Laughably, the defense industry suggests that the price of weapons, planes, and services will cost the taxpayers less money to purchase if the Military Industrial Complex mass produces the equipment for export. They forget to point out in this fairy tale that U.S. troops often end up fighting the terrorist networks to which America provides those same military-grade weapons. That forces us to spend even more resources to protect our troops from our own weapons. This has cost American lives and trillions in taxpayer dollars since 2001.Americans would fare much better if the defense industry charged taxpayers more per plane, precision missile, and bombs-- and then kept our weapons and troops home to defend U.S. interests. We could forego the inevitable trench warfare that kills and injures U.S. soldiers and wastes treasure and instead rebuild America’s infrastructure.And don’t think the American public would be averse to holding back such aid. In a poll commissioned by the Committee for Responsible Foreign Policy in 2017, 57 percent of those surveyed thought giving weapons and other military aid to Saudi Arabia was “counterproductive.”The Saudis are good friends to those who benefit from their lobbying largesse and military contracts. But they’re not so good for the rest of us who have to pay the human, social, and financial costs, and suffer under a corrupted political process.
I reached out to three members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Progressive Caucus members Ted Lieu and Tulsi Gabbard, respectively from Los Angeles and Hawaii, and New Dem Tom Suozzi from Long Island. Their perspectives on this were very similar. "Senators and Representatives," Ted reminded me, "all took an oath to the Constitution. And under the Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war. For far too long, the Executive Branch has been sending troops to war zones without congressional authorization. That has to stop and I am pleased there is bipartisan support to reigning back the unauthorized, endless wars that both Democratic and Republican Administrations have supported to the detriment of our Constitution and the well being of our nation."Tulsi made it clear she feels that "For too long, the United States has supported Saudi Arabia’s genocidal war in Yemen killing thousands of civilians with their bombs, tens of thousands more dying from cholera and starvation, with over 20 million in dire need of humanitarian aid. This must end now. Saudi Arabia is not our ally. Congress must exercise its’ Constitutional responsibility and take action to end U.S. arms sales and support for Saudi Arabia." This is an especially strong statement from someone on the verge of announcing her candidacy for the presidency-- and just a couple of days after she was one of only 3 Democrats in Congress to stand up to House leadership and vote against the problematic PAY-GO rule, an act of extreme personal courage.Tom took it right to the still unfolding catastrophe in Yemen: "The starvation of the people of Yemen is one of the greatest human tragedies in the world today. Withdrawing our support for the Saudi’s in Yemen is an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to end this suffering while sending a clear message that the brutal murder and dismemberment of a journalist is not acceptable to America."