Sullivan refuses to cross Trump to even debate war with Venezuela

In 2017, Sen. Dan Sullivan said that if the United States wanted to go to war, the president had to get approval from Congress under the U.S. Constitution.

"If one of the military options that the administration is looking at is a preemptive war on the Korean peninsula launched by the United States, that would require the authorization of Congress," Sullivan said on Fox News that year. "Article I of the U.S. Constitution is very clear about that."

He’s right. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 is still very clear about that.

It applies to potential wars in North Korea, Venezuela or Greenland.

The U.S. Constitution has not changed. Sullivan has.

It’s no coincidence that Sullivan, who is running for reelection, has adopted the Trump point of view on this matter and everything else. Trump wants no debate, so Sullivan wants no debate.

Sullivan voted to prevent any debate on a resolution that would require Congress to approve military action against Venezuela.

The measure passed, however, on a bipartisan 52-47 vote.

Trump says that Sen. Lisa Murkowski and four other Republicans who joined Democrats in calling for a debate on the matter “should never be elected to office again.”

This is the resolution that Sullivan and 46 other Republicans refuse to debate.

Here is the statement from Murkowski:

“Today, my colleagues and I voted to bring a resolution to the Senate floor requiring congressional approval for further military operations against Venezuela. This will allow the senate to begin debate on this measure following President Trump’s statements yesterday suggesting that the United States could remain in Venezuela for years, while failing to rule out the deployment of American troops on the ground. Such outcomes clearly require congressional authorization.

“I want to acknowledge and commend the remarkable bravery, technical mastery, and operational precision demonstrated by the U.S. servicemembers and intelligence professionals involved in the January 3 mission to remove Maduro. This operation exemplifies the level of coordination and advanced capability that only U.S. military power can deliver. Nicolás Maduro is a dictator who led a brutally oppressive regime, and Venezuela—along with the world—is better off without him in power.

“However, there remains deep uncertainty surrounding the path forward for Venezuela’s political transition, the implications for regional stability, and whether the United States has a clear and achievable end goal. I have long been an advocate for the relevance of Congress in its constitutional role over the use of military force, and Venezuela is no different. Any future use of force or significant policy shift in Venezuela must include robust congressional oversight and authorization, consistent with our constitutional responsibilities, the rule of law, and a clear assessment of the benefits to the American people.”

Sullivan, through his spokeswoman Amanda Coyne, said he doesn’t want to limit the authority of the president in military actions. That is the opposite of his claim in 2017.

Last month he said he opposed sending U.S. troops to Venezuela. Trump says the U.S. will “run” Venezuela, control all of its oil production and decide where the money will go.

“I don’t think having troops on the ground in Venezuela is a good idea,” Sullivan told HuffPost in December. “Putting pressure, in terms of the sanctions on the oil — a lot of that oil has already been sanctioned, as you know — I think it’s fine.”

After Trump sent the military to Venezuela to topple Maduro, Sullivan praised Trump and refused to say anything about the military action that may follow.

The thing to remember is that Sullivan has proven that he is unable to stand up to Trump on anything—not even whether this measure should be debated—while Murkowski has proven she is capable of making independent decisions and thinking for herself.