Iran

Congress Should Debate War, Not Mindlessly Cheer for It

The constitutional role of Congress is not to cheerlead a major escalation of a nearly 17-year-old conflict. It's to consider the best interest of the American people.

|

Things are moving quickly in the aftermath of yesterday's surprise assassination of Qassem Soleimani, the longtime leader of Iran's Revolutionary Guard and key figure in the Iranian regime.

The Pentagon has approved plans to send 3,000 more troops to the region. But the debate over the next steps must now shift to Congress, as the Constitution demands. Sen. Tim Kaine (D–Va.) has announced plans to introduce a war powers resolution in the Senate, forcing a debate over whether the U.S. should go to war with Iran or place limits on Trump's ability to engage in hostilities.

Unfortunately, some members of Congress have failed so far to live up to the expectations that come with their office. The constitutional role of elected officials is not to cheerlead a major escalation of a nearly 17-year-old conflict; it is to consider what is in the best interest of the American people. But many GOP lawmakers preferred to cheerlead, often comparing Soleimani's assassination to the killings of terrorist leaders like Osama bin Laden.

This is dangerously faulty logic. Whatever you think of extrajudicial killings of nonstate terrorists, what the United States did Thursday night is an entirely different matter. Terror cells and militias can sometimes be weakened or even destroyed by taking out top leaders. Soleimani is a high-ranking official within the Iranian military, which is not going to collapse because he's been eliminated.

As for assassinating "evil bastard[s] who murdered Americans": If you do that without regard for circumstances or consequences, you aren't pursuing a doctrine that will promote peace or security. It can as easily encourage more attacks against Americans.

Some Democrats haven't been great on these issues either. Consider Sen. Chris Murphy (D–Conn.), who rushed to Twitter moments after the news of Soleimani's death broke to ask some big questions: "did America just assassinate, without any congressional authorization, the second most powerful person in Iran, knowingly setting off a potential massive regional war?" Those are, indeed, exactly the types of questions a member of Congress should be grappling with today and in the days to come. But Murphy loses considerable credit because he had, just days earlier, criticized the Trump administration for failing to respond with more force after the U.S. embassy in Baghdad came under attack from an Iranian-backed militia.

It's certainly fair for any member of Congress (or any American) to criticize the president's actions, but "Whatever Trump is doing, I want the opposite" is neither a thoughtful nor a useful attempt at fixing America's flawed foreign policy.

Just as neither party has a monopoly on stupid reactions to Soleimani's killing, the serious responses have been transpartisan as well:

While it is tempting to view the domestic political reactions to Soleimani's assassination as a typical partisan game, something more important is also happening here. The executive branch has had free rein—under presidents from both major parties—to engage in a destructive, ill-concieved "War on Terror" that has destabilized the Middle East and caused massive human suffering. Since 9/11, more than 500,000 people have been killed in conflicts across the Middle East and Central Asia, and most of them weren't terrorists.

Now the United States has committed an act of war against yet another country. The threat of open warfare with Iran is now greater than at any time in recent history. The risk now facing Americans—military personnel and civilians—in Iraq and elsewhere is real, as the State Department made clear this morning when it advised all Americans in Iraq to get the hell out as soon as possible. And we may see yet more erosion of Congress' ability to control when the country goes to war. Any politician using Thursday's attack merely to score political points should not be taken seriously.

Advertisement

NEXT: To See How Our Last 'War on Terror' Went Awry, Watch The Report

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “a nearly 17-year-old conflict”

    Is Boehm actually retarded? He thinks this is only 17 years in the making?

    He’s THAT historically ignorant? How is he allowed to write about it?

    1. Eric, newsflash bud, when you say it like that it makes it irrefutably clear to anyone reading that you are grossly misinformed about the subject you are tasked with writing on.

      if I was your editor I would take you off this beat immediately and assign you to something within your lifetime because that appears to be the only thing you’re capable of understanding with any clarity. And you’re not very good at that MARKETS IMPLODING Boehm. You know people call you that and you hate it.

    2. Yes he is. And even if he were not, he would have to mouth the proscribed talking points or he would lose all of his friends and what little career he has.

      And I love how Trump escalated this but Iran attacking a US embassy is just some people who did something. Wokeltarians fucking love radical Muslims. They hate most Americans but my God do they love Muslim terrorists.

      1. Excellent points John.

        Also, wesent Iran a pallet of cash, ostensibly to help resolve this very conflict. I am nearly certain that was the result of actions longer than 17 years ago but maybe not.

        1. The pallet of cash that largely went to funding expanded military research and enhanced operating areas for Qud Forces.

          1. You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about, as usual.

            1. Lol. God that his hilarious coming from you.

            2. Gosh Tony, why don’t you educate us.

          2. You’re full of doo doo. If you have proof of that I’d be happy to review it. That money most likely went to corrupt government officials bank accounts.

          3. You’re full of doo doo. If you have proof of that I’d be happy to review it. That money most likely went to corrupt government officials bank accounts.

            1. oops menat to reply to JesseAz not Tony

            2. Probably. Instead they used the $150 billion that Obama wired them that belonged to the Shah and other Iran’s back in the 70’s.

      2. The Democrats’ campaign slogan for 2020 should be “Just Give The Terrorists What They Want (And Maybe They Won’t Hurt Us)”.

        And in case you think I’m exaggerating, literally every Democrat pundit I’ve seen go on the news today has taken that exact approach to addressing this story. They’re all screaming about how there could be “consequences” for killing a guy who killed thousands of people, including American servicemen.

        If that’s the tack they’re going to take for the election, add another 10 points to the Republicans’ margin of victory. Cowardice and appeasement sell poorly with sane people.

        1. Funny how the media narrative reflects the DNC line that this is a prelude to war with Iran, “which we absolutely have to stop!” These same balloon-heads, to a person, were all crying the blues because Trump our SOF troops out of northern Syria just a few short weeks ago.

          Nothing in the leadup to the embassy invasion or the drone strike indicates that this was a setup by the administration to get another full-scale war going. Iraq in 2003 was teased for months before it finally happened, and the troops being sent there now are, most likely, security to hold off further attacks on the embassy by the Iranian militia groups. There’s no way the US could even get UN authorization for a no-shit war with Iran even if it tried.

          Yeah, we’d be better served pulling out of there entirely, but that’s not going to happen because Saudi Arabia doesn’t want an Iranian proxy operating right on its border, and Israel doesn’t want an Iranian proxy flinging Scuds at it.

        2. The problem was under control until Trump broke the treaty;.

          1. There was no treaty.

          2. And the Iranians were violating that pretend treaty by the time our negotiators touched down back home.

          3. “The problem was under control until Trump broke the treaty;.”

            Define “treaty”.
            Don’t bother; you’re full of shit.

          4. Was under control before or after they took American servicemen hostage and held them for ransom?

          5. Yeah, but Obama made that treaty, so Trump had to be against it.

            1. Considering it wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on (not unlike these international climate change agreements), and almost immediately violated, being against it was the de facto course of action.

              1. No it wasn’t, and you have no proof about that except drivel that comes out of InfoWars

                1. Stop lying.

        3. We shouldn’t be tangled up over there at all now we’re looking to be taking on a country twice the size of Iraq and we see how well Iraq went. It’s like we’re setting up the area to be handed over to Russia or China because they’ll look like saviors after the USA mows down all the infrastructure in Iran just like happened in Iraq.

          1. You just aren’t intelligent (or wise).
            It’s weird you insist on posting to prove it

          2. Stop jerking off over the possibility of war with Iran, you ghoul.

    3. Period of war for VA benefit purposes is:
      Gulf War (August 2, 1990 – through a future date to be set by law or Presidential Proclamation)

  2. “Now the United States has committed an act of war against yet another country.”

    Cool, but that’s a weird non-sequitur since we were talking about killing a terrorist planning another operation covertly.

    1. It’s all non-sequiturs:

      Since 9/11, more than 500,000 people have been killed in conflicts across the Middle East and Central Asia, and most of them weren’t terrorists.

      Since 9/11, more than 1.1 billion people have died throughout the world and most of them weren’t terrorists. I fail to see how an Afghani taliban terrorist blowing himself up and killing 10 Afghan police officers is relevant to 9/11 aside from… AFGHANISTAN!

      Would Boehm feel better if US hadn’t gotten involved and one of the 10 would’ve-been police officers blew himself up trying to kill 10 of the Taliban warlord’s men?

      Kinda begs the question(s): What’s the appropriate number of deaths in the region since 9/11 (according to Boehm) and exactly what should the US do/have done to bring about that number? I’m all for better plans and even agree with criticism without an effective counter plan (as a/the point) but this is pretty clearly encroaching on just abject bitching that people are dying while the US exists.

      1. “this is pretty clearly encroaching on just abject bitching that people are dying while the US exists.”

        Well said.
        It’s perfectly consistent with Reason’s editorial position.
        Though it could simply be shortened to “bitching that the US exists”

      2. +1

    2. Libertarians for taking government at its word and assassinating foreign leaders to distract from domestic troubles! Who’s with Tulpa??

      1. “Libertarians for taking government at its word and assassinating foreign leaders to distract from domestic troubles!”

        Fucking lefty ignoramuses dragging strawmen all over the place!
        Fuck off and die where we can’t smell you.

    3. Obama got credit, as deserved, from both sides of the aisle, when he gave the order to execute Bin Laden. This guy was also the head of a terrorist organization, taken in a similar fashion. Very little difference in the 2 targets, though the process leading to it was different.

    4. I wouldn’t have written that the US “has committed an act of war against another country”. This happened in Iraq which has a war going on there, so in a way it’s just another soldier’s death. Given the guy’s involvement in the war in Iraq (and in several other countries) it’s just another casualty, just like many other Iranians killed in Iraq.

      Seems the Democrats are cheering on a war, while Trump took out a military leader with American blood on his hands. That’s a whole lot better than invading Iran, and not “an attack on another country”.

  3. Ben Sasse: “General Soleimani is dead because he was an evil bastard who murdered Americans”

    — Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 3, 2020

    I’m not saying Manu Raju is a ‘Boomer’ but there’s something very ‘out of touch’ in the way he quotes people without context (effectively retweeting their message to some portion of their audience) on Twitter.

  4. The constitutional role of elected officials is not to cheerlead a major escalation of a nearly 17-year-old conflict

    No, it’s to fucking end those conflicts on terms favorable to the country they’re leading. And Trump’s actions just created some very favorable conditions for us. He took out a guy responsible for killing a lot of U.S. servicemen.

    You’re an idiot, Boehm. Why don’t you and the rest of the Koch liberaltarians move to Tehran if you think they’re the ones to sympathize with in this story? I’m sure your “blame America first” bullshit will sell there.

    1. I’m sure your “blame America first” bullshit will sell there.

      I disagree. I think they’re backing the tulpas, puppets, ideologies, and false equivalencies they’ve constructed in their heads. The leadership would treat them as Western spies and, if not, the population would regard them as worthless mouthpieces and idiotic ideological sympaticos of Tehran. I think their schtick will garner even less than 5% of the popular vote over there even if the elections were free.

      1. Touche. 🙂

      2. “tulpas”

        Awww ????????????????????

        1. That should be smiley faces lolol

    2. Eric has completely ignored the escalating actions of iran that have occured in the last year because of the iran agreement and appeasement.

  5. Boehm, the second birdbrain (the first was Brown), blathers his Blame America First bullshit now.

    1. Amash’s comment is also indicative of what a pathetic shill he is. His position is literally that whenever the military and President get notification of an *imminent* attack, they have to go debate it with Congress and get permission before they’re allowed to intercede.

      And that’s all that happened with Soleimani…we killed a terrorist who had just attacked our embassy and was planning more attacks in the immediate future. And Amash is pissy about it.

      I look forward to seeing his pathetic political career end in November. I hope his opponents tie him to Ilhan Omar and smear him relentlessly as one of the terrorists’ best friends in Congress. Prick.

      1. I will be very surprised if Team D fails to draft another article of impeachment. I mean, POTUS Trump was impeached for the truly heinous crime of obstructing Congress. I figure killing an enemy general in a war zone who was consorting with the leadership of the terror group that attacked and ransacked our embassy just a few days earlier is probably grounds enough to Team D for another article of impeachment.

        1. Times like this, Emperor-For-Life Trump is starting to sound pretty good.

  6. Whether you believe, as many libertarians do, that all wars are bad, or you believe, as many non-libertarians do, that we can avoid wars simply by refusing to fight, you need to have an answer for the question of what happens when someone bullies you.

    The general thrust of libertarianism is that you can punch back at a bully. The question is, who punches back on your behalf after a bully murders you?

    1. A true libertarian would rise from the grave and drag his bully down to hell his damn self.

    2. “The question is, who punches back on your behalf after a bully murders you?”

      The remaining members of your militia?

  7. What’s to debate when a bunch of cowardly bullies have the opportunity to beat up and take from a little guy?

    When the propaganda has the voting citizens going gaga, what could go wrong?

    1. Who’s the “little guy” in your hypothetical?

      1. His junk. Always his junk.

    2. “When the propaganda has the voting citizens going gaga, what could go wrong?”

      The Holocaust, but shitbags like you keep lying about it.

  8. major escalation of a nearly 17-year-old conflict

    1979 to 2020 is only 17 years? I … I feel young again!!!!!

    1. What is the proper response to ok, Boomer?

      Ok, Pampers.

      Boehm has soiled his.

      Again

  9. If it goes like it went back in 2002-2003 Congressional debate will go something like this…

    Step 1: Conservatives will unanimously vote for war while liberals oppose it
    Step 2: Conservatives will blame liberals for being anti-American or not supporting the troops
    Step 3: a few liberals will cave and end up supporting the war
    Step 4: Things go to shit
    Step 5: Conservatives make racist arguments about how people in the ME aren’t ready for democracy, development, human rights, etc.
    Step 6: Conservatives blame liberals for the war.

    1. Introduced in Congress on October 2, 2002, in conjunction with the Administration’s proposals,[3][8] H.J.Res. 114 passed the House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon at 3:05 p.m. EDT on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 296-133,[9] and passed the Senate after midnight early Friday morning, at 12:50 a.m. EDT on October 11, 2002, by a vote of 77-23.[10] It was signed into law as Pub.L. 107–243 by President Bush on October 16, 2002.

      Vote tally:

      Republican: 215 AYE – 6 NAY
      Democrats: 81 AYE – 126 NAY

      Republicans were near universally in support of the invasion of Iraq, but it wasn’t actually universal like you said. And, notably, 81 democrats voted for the war. That’s not a majority, but it certainly a lot more than you’re acting like it is. The decision to invade Iraq wasn’t as clear-cut along ideological lines like the current impeachment process is.

      You should at least look up the facts before you post something that is so easy to look into.

      1. So 97% of Republicans vote for war and 39% of Democrats vote for war and you can’t see the difference? Also: conflates liberal with Democrat.

        1. Now do Korean war and Vietnam.

          1. “Now do Korean war and Vietnam.”

            Do not do Civil War, ever.

        2. See the problem with using raw numbers like that is that

          1) the numbers work against you. 39 IS a significant amount. It simply is, as a subjective observation.

          2) there was resistance to the leadership that was realized in the votes of the representatives, which didn’t necessarily correlate to a denunciation of the action. You’re assuming those no votes were for action and not simply a no vote toward the leadership, as well as some self preservation.

          39 is too much for your point to hold water, and even if it weren’t, those of us around remember the political environment.

          1. I know. Democrats who voted 39 times out of a 100 were more responsible for that war than the Republican Party. I get it.

            1. AAHAHAHHAHAJA

              I LOVE COMPLETELY SHUTTING YOU THE FUCK UP!!!

              AHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHJA

              YOU TRY SO FUCKING HARD AND GO NOWHERE AHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH

              AND THEN YOU DO THAT!!!!

              AHAHAHAHAHAAJ

              AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

              HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

              HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

              1. Oh geesch… this again. I reported you again. For your Tourette’s.

                1. Ahahahah

                  ” I reported you again”

                  AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
                  AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA
                  AHHAHAAHHAAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHH
                  AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH

                  AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA

                  HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

                  1. AAHAHAHHAHAJA

                    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

                    HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

                    IT CRIED

                    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

                    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

                    HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

                    TO MANAGEMENT

                    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH
                    AHAAHHHHHHH@HH@HHHAAHHHHHHHH@

                    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH
                    AHAAHHHHHHH@HH@HHHAAHHHHHHHH@

                2. First. Everyone here knows the report thing does nothing. Second, what a fucking baby.

                  1. TO MANAGEMENT

                    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH
                    AHAAHHHHHHH@HH@HHHAAHHHHHHHH@

                    1. Tulpa, take some strong medication.

                    2. Tony, fuck off and die.

                  2. It’s a useful tool for collapsing comments, so you don’t have to scroll through the dozens of idiotic hihn and sqrlsy posts every time you go through a thread

      2. ” The decision to invade Iraq wasn’t as clear-cut along ideological lines like the current impeachment process is.”

        That’s partisan lines. Don’t confuse partisanship with ideology. Ideologically, there’s not much difference between the members of congress. Both Left and Right opposed the war. ANSWER was about as Left as you get in the US, and they were organizing massive demonstrations against it. Pat Buchanan and other paleo conservatives were not organizing demonstrations, but they were pretty vociferously arguing against the war.

        1. Right opposed the war.

          Yeah, a precious fucking few. Most of them didn’t get going until 2006 when me and the commies had been marching for 4 years.

          1. Was that before or after your ideology killed 100 million?

        2. mtrueman
          January.3.2020 at 4:30 pm

          mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
          “Spouting nonsense is an end in itself.”
          Stuff it up your ass, bullshitter.

    2. You losers are so, SOOOOO blatantly desperate to pull out your mid-2000s political playbooks. Predicting recessions, hoping for a new war in the Middle East, claiming that gas prices are going to skyrocket.

      Shouldn’t you try crafting a 2020s playbook for 2020s events, instead of using the political equivalent of the split-back offense?

    3. LeaveTrumpAloneLibertarian
      January.3.2020 at 3:58 pm
      “If it goes like it went back in 2002-2003 Congressional debate will go something like this…
      Step 1: ”

      Pay your mortgage, you piece of shit. I’m not your daddy.

  10. Victory to Iran. Chase out the American invader.

    1. Chase out the American invader.

      Of Iran?

  11. Why doesn’t the Iraqi government tell these US mercenaries to get out?

    1. Because “Iraqi government” is not a phrase that has a clear meaning.

      1. Don’t worry–AmSoc is having 2003 flashbacks and thinks the same recycled slogans apply in this situation, too.

        1. AmSoc is less than ‘adult’; he is still waiting for his pony.

  12. Wait, does Boehm actually think the U.S.’s conflict with Iran all started with our invasion of Iraq?

    Yikes. I’m about the same age as the author and even I know this conflict has been going on for a lot longer than my lifetime. I rag on older people a lot here, but historical ignorance in the millennial generation is widespread, profound and there is no excuse for it. No wonder our generation keeps proposing 20th century government solutions like they’re new ideas.

  13. This article apparently written by a high schooler.

    1. Of a public school.

    2. Unlike Hihn’s comment, which is grammatically incorrect.

      1. Holy shit you are Nicole ahahahahaah!

      2. That’s not hihn.
        Dude really needs to change his handle

  14. The only ones here that seem to be cheering for war over a retaliatory strike seem to be democrats and Reason writers.

    1. “cheering for war over a retaliatory strike”

      We might get both if we play our cards right.

      1. Do you need a dictionary too? Do you not know what retaliatory means?

        1. “Do you not know what retaliatory means?”

          It’s something about negotiating nuclear deals with Iran?

          1. Dictionary.com. take your time.

            1. He won’t bother; facts are not his friends, bullshit is.

  15. Typical Joe Sixpack tonight
    Heh, heh, heh….got that son of a bitch who killed a lot of Americans. Fuck him.

    Brown & Boehm
    Where do we send flowers?

    The disconnect is just…..fascinating to watch.

    1. Yeah, Joe Sixpack sure is susceptible to the bullshit being disseminated by the government and state-run media at Fox. It isn’t something to celebrate.

      1. Right, you said you like fucking kids, which is of course gross. Isn’t that why you got banned?

      2. “state-run media at Fox”

        Now that’s funny.
        You’d think he might stay away from the “state run” attack on the one outlet that wasn’t proven to be actively carrying out the orders of the CIA, FBI, and Obama administration.
        I mean, it just happened. It’s in everybody’s extremely recent memory.
        But I guess lack of self-awareness is a necessary trait for progressives. Unfortunately for them, it often leads to walking into walls and falling off cliffs

  16. My favorite part of today so far has been watching Russians and Democrats use essentially the same talking points.

    1. Fake news! Trump is on the Russians’ side, didn’t you hear!

    2. Put another way, even the Russians can’t keep a straight face with their phony anti-warmongering stance now that Trump is literally warmongering.

      American Republicans have no such concerns, of course.

      1. As much in life, you seem ignorant to reality Tony. You’re completely unaware of all the actions iran has taken the last year against the US?

      2. Tony
        January.3.2020 at 6:00 pm
        “…Trump is literally warmongering.”

        But when Obo really was, our fucking lefty ignoramus was all for it.

    3. I haven’t seen what the Russians have to say, but I’m fairly confident in assuming it was more rational than the Ds

  17. The author presumes that support for the decision is “mindless” and does not constitute contribution to “debate”, while all criticism of the decision constitutes “debate”.

    These presumptions do not stand to scrutiny.

    1. It’s always projection with progressives

  18. On the battle field warriors are not assassinated they are killed in combat. this man was making war, he died at war. Quit claiming he was assassinated

  19. “If you kill your enemies, they win.”

    -Justin Trudeau

    Didn’t know Reason was a bunch of fucking leafs now. Can’t wait for the day of the rake.

  20. So Trump, without congressional authorization, assassinated an Iranian leader for reasons he alleges but nobody has proven.

    Libertarians cheer at the warmongering they used to be against because the guy has an (R) after his name. Same shit, different day.

    Burn in hell, assholes.

    1. Tony, just to be precise. As a legal matter, Soleimani was not assassinated. This was an extra-judicial killing. Just sayin’.

      The world will not weep for him, Tony. You shouldn’t either.

      1. I am weeping for the repercussions.

        I somehow doubt Trump has gamed this out.

        1. This was the repercussion to Iran’s actions over the last year dumbfuck.

        2. “I am weeping for the repercussions.”
          You.
          Are.
          Full.
          Of.
          Shit.

    2. “Smart power at its best.”

    3. I’ll trust the analysis of actual lawyers like Dershowitz who are all claiming this retaliatory strike was more legal than OBL due to the actual contemporary actions against the US Soleimani was taking.

      But you do your usual ignorance Tony. We dont expect anything more of you.

      1. Actual lawyers like Dershowitz will tell you OJ was innocent if you pay them enough money.

        1. You’re rationalization of all things dumb is amusing.

          1. ” dumb is amusing”

            It’s taken you a while, but you’re catching on, it seems.

            1. “It’s taken you a while, but you’re catching on, it seems.”
              Our fucking bullshitter assumes this line of bullshit is other than bullshit.
              It’s not, bullshitter. It’s bullshit no matter what your mommy told you.

              1. Thanks for your effort. I can tell you are sincerely trying to tell us something you feel is important.

  21. Sen. Tim Kaine (D–VA.) has announced plans to introduce a war powers resolution in the Senate, forcing a debate over whether the U.S. should go to war with Iran or place limits on Trump’s ability to engage in hostilities.

    I’m afraid they might place limits on Trump’s ability to not engage in hostilities.

    See, that’s it: HyR bloggers trust US senators more than they do Trump, because the other politicians’ badness is “within normal limits”, but Trump is completely outre. I’ve come to trust Trump more than I do 90% of US senators. I don’t think he’s got the right set of ideas, in fact he might not have much in the way of ideas at all, but that’s a relatively good thing.

    1. Eh, it was like this with Howard A. Stern in the LP too.

    2. Trump has something better than ideas: common sense. As for instance in the present crisis.

  22. Apparently, this ‘Reason’ article is not only unreasonable, but, also, incredibly ill-informed about the real world, and blatantly childish in its conclusions. It seems as if many ‘reason’ writers live with a hood over their heads, regarding humanity.

  23. Reason on Democrats trying to impeach without evidence:

    Who cares?! They all deserve to be impeached anyway! Lets impeach them all and let the resulting chaos and turmoil usher in the next libertarian moment!

    Reason on US military assassinating a terrorist:

    But the established ways of doing things must be obeyed! Read your Bibles, people! What about the children?!

  24. Endless war, not declared by Congress, is not constitutional, and is dangerous. Any war, not declared by Congress, is not constitutional, and is dangerous. A demagogue in office can enhance his own power by creating war, thus making it possible to brand political opponents as unpatriotic. When Trump broke the nuclear treaty with Iran, he (knowingly or unknowingly) started taking us down the path to war. Trump may not remember that the US and UK overthrew the elected government in 1953, and installed a king (Shah) for 25 YEARS, to protect business interests in continued flow of cheap oil. Just when Obama started to restore trust with Iran, Trump made it clear that the US can never be trusted. I am glad I am too old to be drafted.

    1. War is not constitutional because it requires people to believe that rights can be in conflict.

      That delusion is dangerous.

      1. Two people foraging in a forest, both reach for the same mushroom, who has the right to that item?

        1. Go ask Alice.

        2. Your example demonstrates how the earth is a closed system.

          No person has the right to monopolize the resources that are here for all people.

          The mushroom belongs to both and neither.

          If they cannot agree on a peaceful solution, they should cut it in half and share it.

      2. “War is not constitutional because it requires people to believe that rights can be in conflict.”

        Gee! A pile of bullshit which didn’t include the JOOZE! Misek has branched out!

    2. There was no treaty. The rest of your argument is as wrong as the fact you believe there was a treaty.

    3. “…When Trump broke the nuclear treaty with Iran,..”
      You need to learn what “treaty” means; you’re full of shit.

    4. skeptic
      January.3.2020 at 8:08 pm
      BTW, your claim to skepticism is, demonstrably, a pile of bullshit. A skeptic would be familiar with the facts surrounding the issue.
      Suggestion: Change your handle to ‘bullshitter’. Be honest.

    5. Iran certainly trusted Obama enough to take a dozen American sailors hostage and hold them for ransom

      1. The Iranian regime, that is.
        I should remember to specify

  25. “…Tim Kaine (D–Va.) has announced plans to introduce a war powers resolution in the Senate, forcing a debate over whether the U.S. should go to war with Iran or place limits on Trump’s ability to engage in hostilities…”

    Mr. Taft and Mr. Truman had this discussion regarding the Korean war. Anyone willing to do any research will see that Taft was not demanding that Truman avoid any action at all, but that he at least include Congress in the discussion. Taft lost that argument; he was Republican.
    I’m betting that Kaine has no inkling of the discussion at that time; to him, it’s simply ‘orange man bad’.

  26. The constitutional role of Congress is not to cheerlead a major escalation of a nearly 17-year-old conflict. It’s to consider the best interest of the American people.

    It’s the job of Congress to approve wars, not the killing of individual terrorists inside countries where US military action has already been approved.

    And the US has been trying to kill this guy for years; if they wanted to protect him, they could have done so years ago.

  27. Sadly the Congress will sit on its hands as long as they are able. Remember when Syria used chemicals weapons and President Obama asked for Congressional approval to attack Syria. Congress instead attacked President Obama for not taking action. In this election year every House member and every Senator up for election should be asked if it is time for a review and new authorization for actions in the middle east. Anything less that a “yes” answer should be a sign the Representative or Senator needs to be retired.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.