Pelosi on AUMF: ‘This Is a Limitation’ Compared to Iraq, Afghanistan AUMFs

‘It’s easier to say no limitation rather than start naming countries ... the scope is really the issue’

"In terms of the 2001 AUMF, the administration said they didn't put it in this bill because it would be -- this is a big package to move. So if we want to deal with that we should deal with that separately. And that's something we all have the prerogative to do. The second point on geography, well, someone has just [indecipherable] to Iraq and Syria. What about Jordan? Then you get into naming countries and that's a conversation we should have. I'm not saying one side is right and one side is wrong -- it's a conversation we need to have, but it's easier to say no limitation rather than start naming countries and then you've left somebody out.

Giving a road map to the al Qaeda as to where they can go because we're not going? And that's a consideration. In terms of the timing, three years, I think the timing and the geography are related to the scope. The scope is really the issue. As I read the limitations are that this authority granted in subsection does not authorize the use of U.S. armed forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations. And so that is the conversation that we need to have. There is no question that there's no appetite in the public for us to go into any more wars ...

It's going to be hard and I'd hope that we can find common ground to have bipartisan support for how we protect and defend the American people. But that takes work. It's called legislating. You may not recognize it because it hasn't happened quite much around here ... It's a very, very, very serious responsibility to authorize the use of force and put our men and women in uniform at serious risk."

Video files
Full
Compact
Audio files
Full
Compact