Comment: I'm not liking the apparent deception here.

When Amash said he was voting for it, he sold it like so (bullet format added):

"The bill:

• reaffirms the U.S.-Israel security relationship
• supports the continued development of a joint missile defense system
• [supports] the production of the Iron Dome defense system
• pledges to assist Israel to "forge a peaceful, negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that results in two states living side by side in peace and security,"
• temporarily extends an existing line of credit to Israel's government, which may not be used for activities outside of the 1967 borders."

Now that he has reconsidered, he says: "I recognize that there is a lot of misinformation about this bill. It does only one genuinely substantive thing: It extends an existing line of credit for about three more years."

So which is it? What were all of those other points Amash previously made? Was he just blowing smoke up Israeli-lover ass?

His reconsideration doesn't correct other errors in his initial statement either.

He said: "This is constitutional in connection with Congress's power to raise and support Armies." (and he stands firm in the reconsideration: "If the U.S. government concludes that they are beneficial to OUR defense, then they certainly are constitutional as a Necessary and Proper correlate of Congress's power to raise and support Armies. This has been the view in our country from the Founders on.")

I say: The founders were against standing armies and wanted to make it so military power went away when it was not needed for defense. That's why the Constitution states congress only has the power "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years". As was pointed out in the facebook comments, this bill Amash just signed funds Israeli's military for three years. So the given constitutionality argument (already bogus/treasonous because that clause was never meant to authorize the funding of armies not under the control of the Commander in Chief of the United States) is BS.

He said: "Israel is our closest friend in a very troubled region"

I say: Amash does not speak for me. Israel is no friend of mine. (I would like us to be friends with all countries. That can't happen with Israel so long as AIPAC uses my government to enslave me to them.)

He said: "Our national defense benefits from Israel's ability to defend itself and to serve as a check against neighboring authoritarian regimes and extremists."

I say: Our support for Israel gains us enemies. That harms our national defense. And "serves as a check" how? How does that even make sense?

He said: "Assisting with training and the development of Israel's military capacity allows the U.S. to take a less interventionist role in the region."

I say: Amash seems to be smoking something strong here. Is he suggesting we strengthen Israel so they can occupy Afghanistan? So they can attack and overthrow countries like Iraq and Libya? So they can conduct drone attacks an Pakistan and Yemen and a bunch of other countries? Because frankly, I don't really want to "assist" in that. Or is he suggesting there's just some "magic" where we give Israel money and then suddenly all of the countries in the MENA region bow down to American Imperialism so we don't "have to" resort to military interventionism to get "our" way?

Summary: If not corrupt and lying, then Amash is at least rather ignorant on the constitution and foreign policy.

My suggestion: If you want to help, don't work on me to try and get me to give up essential principles. Instead, work on Amash and try to get him to support them.