“Introduce an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against ISIL that places no limits on time, geography, or means in the fight against the group.”
Sources (click to view full provenance)
Propose an edit to this promise's details
Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.
Sign in and complete the Contributor Agreement to propose an edit.
Assessments
evidence-backed verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
The promised action was to INTRODUCE an AUMF against ISIL with no limits on time, geography, or means. Independent verification confirms Graham did exactly that. His official Senate press release (Dec 3, 2015) — fetched directly — documents the completed act with the exact cited quote verbatim: "The AUMF I introduced today will not limit us in terms of time, geography, or means in the fight against ISIL," and explicitly lists no expiration date, no geographic limits, and no prohibition on U.S. ground forces. CBS News (fetched) verifies the "no expiration date, no geographic bounds and no limit on the scope of U.S. ground troops" quote verbatim. Roll Call (fetched) verifies its headline and confirms the measure reached the Senate calendar. The Congress.gov citation returned HTTP 403 to WebFetch (bot block, not a dead source); I corroborated it via WebSearch, which returned the exact quoted title — "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and its Associated Forces" — and confirmed the resolution (S.J.Res.29, placed on the Senate calendar Jan 21, 2016) lists Graham among the sponsors. Because the promised deliverable was the introduction itself, and Graham introduced precisely the described AUMF, FULL is warranted and does not overstate the evidence. The measure's later failure to receive a floor vote concerns passage, which was not what was promised.
Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)
Sign in to vote.
Discussion
community opinionsComments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.
Sign in to join the discussion.
Propose a correction
community accountabilitySee an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.
Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.
Debate
sourced community argumentsThese are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.
No arguments yet
Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.
Add a sourced argument
Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.
Sign in or create an account to add an argument.