Pelosi vows vote to end 2002 Iraq War authorization

Pelosi vows vote to end 2002 Iraq War authorization
© Greg Nash

Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiDemocrats offer mixed reactions to Trump's Mideast peace plan James Taylor to perform at awards ceremony for Ruth Bader Ginsburg this week Trump offers two-state peace plan for Israeli-Palestinian conflict amid skepticism MORE (D-Calif.) said Thursday that the House will soon vote to repeal a 2002 resolution that empowered the Pentagon to conduct military operations in Iraq.

Earlier in the week, Pelosi said the House "may" vote on Rep. Barbara LeeBarbara Jean LeeOvernight Defense: White House threatens to veto House Iran bills | Dems 'frustrated' after Iran briefing | Lawmakers warn US, UK intel sharing at risk after Huawei decision White House threatens veto of House Iran bills This week: Senate barrels toward showdown on impeachment witnesses MORE's (D-Calif.) resolution to repeal the earlier action, known as an authorization for use of military force (AUMF), that governed the Iraq War. On Thursday, Pelosi was more concrete, saying the vote is imminent.

"We will have that resolution coming up soon under the leadership of congresswoman Barbara Lee," Pelosi said during a press briefing in the Capitol.

The comments came just hours before the House was scheduled to vote on a separate resolution designed to limit President TrumpDonald John TrumpCNN's Don Lemon explains handling of segment after Trump criticism NPR reporter after Pompeo clash: Journalists don't interview government officials to score 'political points' Lawyer says Parnas can't attend Senate trial due to ankle bracelet MORE's unilateral military confrontations with Iran. That measure, sponsored by Rep. Elissa SlotkinElissa SlotkinMixed feelings on war power limits: Lawmakers and vet candidates Democrats plot new approach to win over rural voters Iran resolution supporters fear impeachment will put it on back burner MORE (D-Mich.), is a response to Trump's decision last week to launch a drone strike in Baghdad that killed a top Iranian security commander.

ADVERTISEMENT
Slotkin's resolution is nonbinding, meaning it would not be sent to the White House for the president's signature and does not carry the force of law. Pelosi defended that strategy on Thursday, saying she didn't want to give Trump the opportunity to veto the measure.

"We're taking this path because it does not require ... a signature of the president," she said. "This is a statement of the Congress of the United States, and I will not have that statement be diminished by whether the president will veto it or not."

A number of progressives in the Democratic caucus had initially sought to expand Slotkin's war powers resolution to include both Lee's AUMF repeal as well as another provision, offered by Rep. Ro KhannaRohit (Ro) KhannaOvernight Defense: White House threatens to veto House Iran bills | Dems 'frustrated' after Iran briefing | Lawmakers warn US, UK intel sharing at risk after Huawei decision White House threatens veto of House Iran bills The DCCC's 'blacklist' protects a white male political status quo MORE (D-Calif.), to deny the Pentagon funding for offensive military force targeting Iran without prior congressional approval. But some moderate Democrats balked at those additions, leading Pelosi and Democratic leaders to pursue the slimmer resolution proposed by Slotkin.

Still, there's plenty of appetite within the liberal-leaning caucus for the Lee and Khanna proposals, both of which the House passed late last year as part of a sweeping defense authorization bill but which were stripped out in negotiations with the Senate.

The AUMF debate is hardly new: Lawmakers in both parties have pressed for years to repeal or update both the 2001 resolution, broadly governing the war against terrorism, and the 2002 Iraq resolution, both of which passed following the 9/11 attacks. The debate has been snarled by sharp disagreements between liberals worried that a new AUMF would greenlight sweeping new conflicts in the Middle East, and conservatives wary of tying the Pentagon's hands at the expense of national security.

ADVERTISEMENT
Pelosi on Thursday was quick to acknowledge those tensions, noting that repealing the AUMF presents a larger challenge: how to replace it?

She outlined the three areas that any new AUMF would have to address: the timeline for operations; the regions of the world to be covered; and the range of operations to be sanctioned, from boots on the grounds to air strikes to mere surveillance.

"Timing, geography and scope. ... It's harder than you would think," Pelosi said. "But we have to do it."

She did not say when.