Reason Roundup

No War With Iran, House Tells Trump. Next Up: Finally Forbidding Military Force in Iraq?

Plus: Tarriffs are killing U.S. wine, Vermont bill would ban cell phones for kids, and more...

|

Antiwar fervor continues to percolate in Congress, thank goodness. On Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a measure telling President Donald Trump to stop fighting with Iran without congressional approval.

"Pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(c)), Congress hereby directs the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran or any part of its government or military," states the House resolution, sponsored by Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D–Mich.).

Exceptions are permitted when "such use of the Armed Forces is necessary and appropriate to defend against an imminent armed attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces." The resolution also explicitly states that it should not be construed "to prevent the use of necessary and appropriate military force to defend United States allies and partners if authorized by Congress consistent with the requirements of the War Powers resolution; or to authorize the use of military force."

The only non-Democrats to vote for the measure were Reps. Justin Amash (I–Mich.), Matt Gaetz (R–Fla.), Thomas Massie (R–Ky.), and Francis Rooney (R–Fla.).

The resolution passed 224–194, with eight DemocratsReps. Anthony Brindisi (D–N.Y.), Joe Cunningham (D–S.C.), Josh Gottheimer (D–N.J.), Kendra Horn (D–Okla.), Elaine Luria (D–Va.), Ben McAdams (D–Utah), Stephanie Murphy (D–Fla.), and Max Rose (D–N.Y.)voting against it.

It now heads to the Senate.

Another House bill, introduced by Rep. Barbara Lee (D–Calif.), would repeal Congress' 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq.

Lee submitted the bill back in May 2019, and it's gone nowhere sinceattracting only one co-sponsor (Democratic Rep. Ed Perlmutter of Colorado) before this month. But since the start of 2020, some 63 more co-sponsors have signed on (a mostly party-line list, but for Reps. Amash and Massie).

Meanwhile, in Trump world:


QUICK HITS

NEXT: Abolishing Single-Family-Only Zoning Expands Freedom and Choice

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. “It appears the Ukrainian airplane that crashed outside of Tehran on Wednesday was probably shot down by Iran.”

    Still 100% Drumpf’s fault.

    #Resist
    #Impeach

    1. Exceptions are permitted when “such use of the Armed Forces is necessary and appropriate to defend against an imminent armed attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces.

      So nothing actually changed.

      It is amusing watching the video of Pelosi in regards to Libya making the rounds.

      I also like Boehm calling out others for exaggerating. Quite funny.

      1. Well that didnt post by itself. Sorry OBL. Didnt mean as reply.

      2. It’s not even a binding resolution.
        US congress: show trials, show votes, taxpayer money


      3. Exceptions are permitted when “such use of the Armed Forces is necessary and appropriate to defend against an imminent armed attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces.”

        Indeed, it would seem that Trump exploding a ‘general’ that staged an attack on an embassy would be authorized by this measure.

        Curious that they’re being lauded for reinforcing the status quo.

    2. You guys got trolled so hard by Robby on that last night. He managed to wrack up almost 500 posts by writing up that silly take.

      1. Yep.
        That’s where Reason is at now
        HuffPo jr

        1. Similar to the Scootie puff junior?

      2. It was a sophomoric take.

    3. Hello.

      Everyone is full of shit.

      They’re not anti-war. They’re anti Trump.

      Full. Of. Shit.

      1. Yeah, how many dead Yemenis are Obama’s fault?

        1. How many dead ______ are _______’s fault?

        2. I mean, if we want to argue that the USA has any responsibility with regards to the plane, I’d say it IS Obama’s fault for being such a weak leader and letting Iran see that they could do whatever they wanted because Obama’s US wasn’t going to enforce any lines in the sand. This is why they started acting up in the first place.

          But if we want to be realistic, Iran made the choice to shoot missiles off, not ground all civilian aircraft, and then not verify a target before firing on it. I’m blaming Iran.

          1. “”and then not verify a target before firing on it””

            I don’t care if it’s a flintlock pistol or a nuclear missile. If you haven’t properly identified your target, don’t pull the trigger.

            Iran chose to act. Iran picked the target. Iran pulled the trigger.
            The fault goes to Iran.

            1. Thank you.
              Whoever stuck out his tongue at Iran is not at fault.

            2. Yeah, like I said, Iran’s 100% at fault in my book.

              Always know what you’re shooting at, and always be aware of what’s around and behind your target, because you’re responsible for what that bullet does

        3. Anwar al-Awlaki an American who from 7 years old was raised in Yemen.

          Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki an American of Yemeni descent and the 16 year old son of Anwar.

          1. Anwar was allowed to be placed on a CIA kill list.

            The Obama authorized the drone murders that led to the death of both of these Americans.

  2. On Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a measure telling President Donald Trump to stop fighting with Iran without congressional approval.

    You know what else would get the president to stop? IMPEACHMENT!

    1. They already tipped their hand to the fact that they know that the whole Iran thing worked out great for Trump and he won, hands down. Yesterday they started pushing the idea of impeachment starting next week.

      Gotta get this Iran thing off of the front page… it is a total loser for the Dems. They thought they had a winner with Biden running around telling everyone how much braver and smarter he would be in this situation, only to have everything collapse on them. No WWIII. No end days.

      Just good ol’ carrot and stick diplomacy, working its magic.

  3. A group of D.C. residents is working to decriminalize hallucinogenic mushrooms in the district.

    Well, they think they are. In reality they’re just sitting around the apartment staring at their fingers.

    1. An alternate reality for an alternate district.

  4. “Tarriffs are killing U.S. wine”

    You know what else tariffs are killing? Our benefactor Charles Koch’s hard-earned fortune.

    It’s still stagnating in the $58,000,000,000 to $62,000,000,000 range and is down over half a billion already this year. Most alarmingly, Mr. Koch is now only the 10th richest person on the planet.

    #DrumpfRecession
    #HowLongMustCharlesKochSuffer?

  5. Antiwar fervor continues to percolate in Congress, thank goodness. On Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a measure telling President Donald Trump to stop fighting with Iran without congressional approval.

    Poor ENB does not know how our government works.

    There is the little matter of the US Senate not passing said resolution.

    1. The resolution is toothless.

  6. Now by itself..

    Exceptions are permitted when “such use of the Armed Forces is necessary and appropriate to defend against an imminent armed attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces.

    So nothing actually changed.

    It is amusing watching the video of Pelosi in regards to Libya making the rounds.

    I also like Boehm calling out others for exaggerating. Quite funny.

    1. You’re correct. This resolution, even if it were binding, would be absolutely toothless. We’ve already seen this and at least the last administration twist the word “imminent” or the AUMF to cover anything they want.

      It is virtue signaling all the way. Those for it are either against endless ME war or Trump personally (most are likely more in the latter camp) and those for it are for endless ME war.

      1. So you’re cosigning Boehm’s full-retard take on the word “imminent”
        Makes sense

        1. Definition of imminent
          : ready to take place : happening soon

          If that’s Boehm’s take then yes. Notice there is no past tense in there.

          1. Each moment a spontaneous product of itself, in no way connected to previous events.
            This is the world in which you and Boehm interpret the meaning of imminent correctly

    2. It’s toothless legally, but it does say loads to the world when our president forces Iran to stop acting up, and half our government stands up to stab him in the back for acting competently.

      1. I think what you described is exactly what the Founders intended. Trump not being able to convince half the electorate to go to war is a feature of Democracy. It’s only a bug if you prefer a king.

        1. Trump is showing zero interest in going to war, though.

  7. “No War With Iran”

    Phew! Narrowly avoided. Unless the Iranians do something anyway. Just so I can have my talking points ready ahead of time, are we going to call that blowback?

  8. It appears the Ukrainian airplane that crashed outside of Tehran on Wednesday was probably shot down by Iran.

    Apparently so many planes taking off from Tehran look like F-14A Tomcats to missile operators.

    1. Well, Iran is the last operator of the F-14. Not sure if they are into volleyball as well.

  9. Much of the U.S. wine industry is now in peril because of a squabble with Europe over…airplane subsidies…

    Does that mean domestic wine will taste more or less like aviation fuel?

  10. Federal prosecutors say they accidentally lost video footage from outside Jeffrey Epstein’s jail cell following his first suicide attempt.

    In yet another brazen fuck you to the American people.

    1. Weve already been told by reason to just accept the explanation of government incompetence.

    2. This. How about if everybody involved in this cover-up fiasco is gathered into a room with 24/7 streaming coverage until the truth comes out?

    3. The clearest example yet that sometimes applying Occam’s Razor results in concluding that the conspiracy theory is right.

    4. They also accidentally deleted the backups. I shit you not. They’re saying it’s a funding/staffing problem.

      1. Shouldn’t they be able to bring that back up in a restore point?

        1. Not after they delete that too, R.R.

          Sheesh, what are you, some kind of troublemaker or something?

      2. Moar training required!


      3. They also accidentally deleted the backups. I shit you not. They’re saying it’s a funding/staffing problem.

        They forgot to train their guards not to work for 3rd party assassins, I would assume.

        It’s possible Epstein killed himself after what he did, and knowing what punishment he faced, but when one considers the dirt he almost certainly had on many rich and powerful people…well the conspiracy theories write themselves. Mysteriously missing footage doesn’t help make the case that the conspiracy theory is wrong, either.

      4. “They also accidentally deleted the backups. I shit you not. They’re saying it’s a funding/staffing problem”

        Unless the system is set to intentionally erase all backups, how can it be a staffing issue?

        All we’re seeing is that WHATEVER monies went into that facility…it was too much.

  11. It appears the Ukrainian airplane that crashed outside of Tehran on Wednesday was probably shot down by Iran.

    I guess that explains why they aren’t sending back the black box.

    1. But they have now said the US and Boeing can come help investigate now that they’ve cleared all the wreckage.

  12. A couple of points, in no particular order.

    25% of Iran’s missiles malfunctioned. Says a lot about readiness.
    POTUS Trump can veto the resolution, and his veto would be sustained.
    Napa Valley (and others) can be an acceptable substitute for Frog wines.
    Wisconsin (and others) can be an acceptable substitute for Frog cheeses.
    Iran shooting down an airliner tells me their staff is not well trained.

    And that POS Soleimani is transitioning from red jello to fertilizer.

    1. No need to veto, it won’t even get brought up in the Senate.

    2. I think it was Soldiermedic who mentioned that mobile launchers tend to have a much higher failure rate than stationary sites, and it does appear that they were using mobile launchers. Add on that they clearly weren’t going for actual damage, just a show of force to save face, and it would make sense to me if they threw at us some of their older, crappier missiles rather then waste more useful hardware. I wouldn’t automatically assume that failure rate is the standard, although I do agree that they don’t appear to be well trained.

      1. Do you think for one minute US mobile launchers would ever have a 25% failure rate? You think Israel will have a 25% failure rate with their mobile launchers?

        Technology has made these launchers more reliable – much more so.

        IMHO, Iran has a readiness issue and quite likely a maintenance issue. They are nowhere near as tough as the MSM makes them out to be. That is important to know, if we need to go toe-to-toe with them.

        1. Has anyone said why the missiles failed, or how? Was it that:
          1, they didn’t ignite,
          2, the motors had a fault and blew the missile to pieces, (not unusual with rocket motors)
          3, the thing crashed somewhere between here and there
          4, the thing missed the target area completely
          5, it hit the target area, but the warhead didn’t go off,
          6, some F-22 orbiting Iraq shot some Amraam skeet with the missiles as the pigeons,
          and so on…

          I mean, there’s failures, and then there’s failures. Though if they’re trying to make a show of force, and not actually kill anybody, wouldn’t they want to use ordnance that could be relied upon to reliably miss?

    3. Nobody needs frog cheeses. I could mostly do without French wine, but it’s hard to beat real Champagne.

      Reminds me of another political faction telling people what they don’t need.

      1. No one’s saying that you don’t need it, we’re just saying that if you have enough money to buy it then you should pay your fair s– wait a second, that sounds familiar. Shit.

        1. LOL = wait a second, that sounds familiar. Shit.

      2. “I could mostly do without French wine, but it’s hard to beat real Champagne.”

        Gruet’s seen better days, but it’s still tasty fizz for $15-20 or so. Roederer Estate and J. Schram if you’re feeling spendier. Still not as good as great Champagne, but decent good fizz.

        I wish the Aussies and Kiwis could get it together with their sparkling wine. Besides sparkling shiraz, that is.

        1. Pro Secco is more than an adequate replacement. In fact, Italian champagne is under rated a tad.

          1. I like prosecco, but franciacorta is better, and closer to Champagne, IMHO. A touch pricier than prosecco, but worth it.

            Of course, it’s going under the tariff ax too.

  13. Federal prosecutors say they accidentally lost video footage from outside Jeffrey Epstein’s jail cell following his first suicide attempt.

    He wasn’t being held in some county jail – isn’t this the place that has been described as an impenetrable fortress, the same place where they held El Chapo a few months ago? Have they even talked to his former cell mate, the homicidal former cop who beat the shit out of Epstein a few weeks before he was murdered?

  14. So evidently there was some legal jiggery-pokery with the War Powers resolution.

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/09/politics/war-powers-resolution-republicans-yes-vote/index.html

    The structure of the House resolution is unique, however, calling into question whether it is actually legally binding. It was introduced as a concurrent resolution, a type of resolution often used for “sense of Congress” bills. They don’t go to the President for a signature, and they aren’t legally binding.

    But House Democrats are arguing that concurrent resolutions under the War Powers Act are a special case, and they are legally binding. Republicans, however, say the resolution is not binding.

    I can understand why to use a resolution like that, so that it won’t get vetoed by Trump. But I don’t know if that’s legit or not.

    1. It’s symbolic.
      Unless you think Congress should be able to pass laws without the president’s signature.
      Since you’re all about coequal branches, I’m sure you’re against that idea
      Right?

      1. This is what the War Powers Resolution says:

        (c) Concurrent resolution for removal by President of United States Armed Forces

        Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

        https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1544

        So it would seem that this isn’t a new law that is being enacted, but a resolution being passed in accordance with the procedure of another law.

        1. without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization

          Like, say, this one, shit for brains?

          Holy fucking Christ you’re stupid.

          1. Well, here is the relevant text of that resolution:

            AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—
            (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
            (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

            Item (2) is moot, and Item (1) is a big stretch. The “continuing threat posed by Iraq” contemplated in this resolution dealt with Saddam Hussein’s regime, which is long gone.

            1. LMAO. So every day we’ve spent in Iraq since Saddam Hussein was hanged has been illegal then? Even the 8 years Obama spent there when you remained silent for all of his cock you had in your mouth?

              1. At the time the resolution was written, the “continuing threat posed by Iraq” was Saddam Hussein’s regime, was it not?

                And besides, it’s hard to argue that some paramilitary group funded by Iran but operating in Iraq represents a continuing threat BY IRAQ. Let alone an Iranian general.

                How far do you want to stretch this resolution, anyway?

                1. “Iraqi militias don’t count as Iraqi”
                  Riiiiiiiiiiight

                  1. If these militia groups are not sponsored “by Iraq”, meaning, by the Iraqi government, then how can the resolution apply to these militia groups?

                    1. “Americans aren’t America, so the US government can’t defend them”

                    2. That is a complete non-sequitur.

                      The actions of individual Iraqis do not necessarily represent the policy of the Iraqi government. Agreed?

                      What exactly do you think the phrase “the continuing threat posed by Iraq” means? To me, it means “the threat posed by the Iraqi government”, and not “the threat posed by every single Iraqi living in Iraq”. And in the context of when this resolution was passed, it means “the continuing threat posed by the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq”. That regime is gone.

                    3. Any threat in Iraq

                    4. Well I think your interpretation stretches too far the meaning of the phrase “continuing threat posed by Iraq”, particularly in light of the context in which the resolution was passed – the threat, in 2002, consisted of Saddam Hussein’s regime.

                2. chem….I don’t want to stretch them, I want to repeal them. But let’s be honest about this: Congress is just as guilty as the Executive branch here. They allowed (and encouraged) this to happen.

              2. Pretty much. We had Hussein boxed in after Desert Storm. His WMDs were destroyed. We did NOT need to go back in. Bush Sr was correct: toppling Hussein destroyed the coalition. Going back in was a mistake. We had no real reason and certainly no exit plan. Chickens running round with their heads chopped off.

    2. If the resolution has no actual teeth, than it’s pointless. And like I said yesterday, the Democrats are hedging their bets that one of their own is sitting in the chair in 2021. The last thing they actually want is to tie the hands of the leader of their own party.

      Of course, I could be wrong. Reid ended the filibuster, and it’s resulted in Trump and McConnell filling hundreds of judiciary slots with Republican judges, and the flipping of three circuit courts. So maybe the Dems are actually thinking that Trump will win this year, and they’re not exercising any actual future-time orientation here. Considering their caucus, it wouldn’t surprise me a bit.

  15. And I am surprised that Matt Gaetz voted for the resolution. He has been a complete Trump toadie from day one. Wait for the Tweeter In Chief to offer some juvenile insults towards him now.

  16. Also good news that the unemployment rate remains low.

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/10/economy/december-jobs-report/index.html

    1. Is this your attempt at trying to pretend to be neutral?

      1. It is genuinely good news that more people have jobs.

        1. How’s the unemployment in the GTA where you actually live?

    2. Not good news at all, actually. As AOC has explained, a low unemployment rate means everyone needs 2 or 3 jobs to survive.

      #LibertariansForAOC

  17. “Antiwar fervor continues to percolate in Congress, thank goodness.”

    I don’t see why this is necessary. President Trump doesn’t want to go to war with Iran.

    Meanwhile, just three months ago, the Democrats in both the House and the Senate were fighting for a resolution that would have effectively forced Trump to go to war in Syria.

    Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, along with Senators Jack Reed and Bob Menendez [both Democrats], the ranking members of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committee, respectively, said sanctions alone will not be enough to resolve the situation.

    “President Trump’s withdrawal of U.S. forces is contributing to the chaos and havoc Turkey is causing in northeastern Syria,” they said. “The first step when Congress returns to session this week is for Republicans to join with us in passing a resolution making clear that both parties are demanding the president’s decision be reversed.”

    . . . .

    In a tweet before Trump announced his sanctions package, Pelosi said the White House proposal was insufficient. That tweet came after Pelosi spoke with Graham about sanctions, when she also called for a joint resolution from the House and Senate to reverse Trump’s actions in Syria.

    —-Bloomberg, October 14, 2019

    “:Anger Over Syria Unites Trump Defenders and His Biggest Critics”

    The Democrats aren’t anti-war.

    They’re just anti-Trump.

    They’re in favor of anything Trump opposes, and they’re opposed to anything he wants to do. In this case, they’re pretending he wants to go to war with Iran, which is a delusion.

    1. “They’re in favor of anything Trump opposes, and they’re opposed to anything he wants to do.”

      Yes, this!

      Political divisions run deep! Even ants know how to do it!

      https://phys.org/news/2020-01-ants-men-ant-behavior-mirror.html
      Of ants and men: Ant behavior might mirror political polarization

      1. MIKEY HIHN LADIES AND GENTLEMEN!

        WHAT A KNEE SLAPPER!

    2. It’s necessary in that it’s an attempt to make the gaslighting seem real.

    3. The Democrats aren’t anti-war. They’re just anti-Trump. They’re in favor of anything Trump opposes, and they’re opposed to anything he wants to do.

      That’s not exactly correct. We’ve had plenty of bipartisan spending bills during this administration.

      1. The one thing both sides love to do. Spend taxpayer money.

    4. Yes, congress does nothing on principle. It’s all politics.

  18. Huh. Guess those “imminent attacks” weren’t so imminent after all.

    https://www.newsweek.com/mike-pompeo-us-did-not-know-when-where-soleimani-imminent-attacks-1481442

    1. QS was meeting with Hezbollah and Militia leadership to plan FY 2021 items, I’m sure

    2. If Robby hadn’t posted that troll about the plane shootdown being Trump’s fault, this would be the dumbest take of the last 24 hours.

      He used the phrase “we don’t know exactly when”…. .therefore it wasn’t imminent.

      Look, I have no idea what they have on their intelligence reports. But saying “I don’t have the exact time of the attack” is certainly not an acknowledgement that they were not in the category of “imminent”. Sooooo stupid.

      Not to mention that taking out Soleimani doesn’t really come under the heading of declaration of war or war powers act, particularly not in the era of the AUMF, which pretty much explicitly allows for exactly that type of action…and in that exact location as well, all with no requirement for any “imminent” element to the threat.

      I’m so sick of weak minded and stupid people being in charge of the discussion, in and out of government. This whole “imminent” thing is an invention of the talking head pundits and some think tank guys who were pushed to go out and find a reason why Trump’s actions were illegal.

      It is a lame take. On that requires ignoring most of the relevant facts in order to even express. Yet we even have Republican politicians falling for it and heading down that dead-end path.

      You don’t even need the AUMF on this one, but it would be the controlling law…. and it clearly authorizes this action. Not even a close call.

      1. I’m so sick of weak minded and stupid people being in charge of the discussion, in and out of government. This whole “imminent” thing is an invention of the talking head pundits and some think tank guys who were pushed to go out and find a reason why Trump’s actions were illegal.

        No, it was Team Red who tried to justify their actions by insisting that there were “imminent attacks” coming.

        https://theweek.com/speedreads/887268/pompeo-says-killing-iranian-general-disrupted-imminent-attack-region

        Even if you think that the attack was justified, imminent threat or not, it is useful to call out politicians for their lies.

        1. No, it was Team Red who tried to justify their actions by insisting that there were “imminent attacks” coming.

          In no fucking way shape or form does anything you posted support that. Stating that an attack was imminent based on the same intelligence that told us an Iranian terrorist was at a clandestine meeting with an Iraqi terrorist who just pulled off an attack on our embassy doesn’t have fuck all to do with justifying the action. The action didn’t need justification. It was fully authorized by our existing AUMFs.

        2. Yeah, that analysis is exactly the level of stupid I’m talking about. He keeps getting asked about imminent attacks, so he talks about imminent attacks. And then everyone pretends that he’s just lying.

          Every syllable of it is stupid.

          Of course there were imminent attacks in the works. They’ve been on a campaign of provoking a US response for months. They apparently invited Reuters to the terrorist management meeting where they layed out the plan. You coulda just used that article as your intel report. Or you coulda used the fact that the head of a terrorist organization was meeting with the leader of a terrorist network in US occupied territory.

          But the “unless you say ‘imminent’ it is illegal” was invented by talking heads. It is stupid. There is no gotcha there. Here’s what the AUMF says:

          That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

          1. the president determines.
          2. prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States.

          That is a blank check wide enough for Obama to drive attacks on 9 or more different countries through. All without any notice to anyone.

          It certainly covers taking out the leader of a terrorist network that has attacked US troops and an embassy.

          Hence, your talking point is stupid. Really, really stupid.

          And the fact that politicians are not quick enough to simply say so is also stupid. Which was my point.

          But even dumber is saying that “imminent attacks were planned” is a lie. Of course “imminent attacks were planned”. They are attacking shit over there all the time. You coulda made that analysis from your basement, without even picking up the phone to call a friend who has a sorta middle eastern accent as your source.

          1. Pompeo was asked about imminent attacks because that was part of the justification he himself used. It was not some sinister invention by a hostile media.

            1. Dude… we were all there. We all watched it play out in real time. We all watched the talking heads flail around trying to figure out what the hot take was.

              We all watched them call it an illegal assassination. That didn’t work.

              Then we watched them talk about notification. That gained traction with the politicians, but nobody else cared.

              So then they started in on WWIII.

              And they started in on Soleimani actually being a good guy. Or a figurehead. Or beloved. Anything. But nobody has proven that he was the terrorist leader that the Administration claims. Show us the proof!

              And Soleimani as a good guy didn’t stick. But WWIII was still in the offing with threats of retaliation in the air. And the “show us the intel that lead you to take this action” was still in the air. As was notification.

              This all synthesized into someone running down to read the War Powers Act. Suddenly the Democrats were back in love with the War Powers act, after saying it completely didn’t apply when Obama used military force to overthrow (and kill) the leader of Libya…. all without notifying congress, before or after his actions. He specifically avoided notifying congress in order to flout the war powers act. And the same democrats we have today fully supported that action.

              In that War Powers Act, they found the phrase “imminent threat”. The point was to say that the War Powers Act applies to this, which gives congress some control.

              It doesn’t apply. Probably not even without the AUMF, but with it? It isn’t even close.

              But that’s where that came from. So all of the talking heads who had been demanding proof that Soleimani was involved in supporting terrorist organizations switched to demanding proof that there were “imminent” attacks planned.

              That’s when the administration’s lackeys and mouthpieces began talking about imminent threats.

              Which is exactly what I called stupid.

              But hell, for the sake of argument… we could have had a bug in that car. If we knew enough to blow it up, it is entirely possible. Maybe they were actually talking about target selection for their next project, instead of small talk about their grandkids soccer game, and we knew it. That would be plenty imminent, and it would also be something you wouldn’t want to divulge.

              Either way, imminent doesn’t have squat to do with anything other than talking head partisans trying to score meaningless points.

              1. Excellent, concise summation, Cyto.

                Why can’t you buggers at Reason write this well?

            2. Are you illiterate?
              Honest question

            3. chem…seriously? WTF do you call the attack on our embassy? That is an act of war. Literally.

              These dumb militia bastards are on video. I mean, how stupid can you get? Especially with Apache helocopters flying around, shooting flares. Helpfully, they left the name of their leader and his Iranian sponsor as graffiti on the embassy walls. This no doubt saved us taxpayer money, as we did not have to piss it away on a long-assed investigation.

              Now look, if it makes you feel a little better, let’s just say that the warrior-poet, peace-loving, General Soleimani was just a terrible, tragic victim of circumstance: He was in the wrong place (Baghdad airport, in a war zone), at the wrong time (1am in the morning? Really?), with the wrong people (militia leader).

              Now chem, I am sure there is a perfectly innocent explanation why he was there, I personally think it was to exchange Chelo-Kebob recipes. I mean, how does an Iraqi militia leader get good Chelo-Kebob (btw, the national dish of Iran) in downtown Baghdad?

              chem…buddy, give the semantics a rest.

              1. “…Chelo-Kebob (btw, the national dish of Iran)…”

                Not Ghormeh Sabzi? I mean, yours sounds tastier than the bitter herb fest that Ghormeh often is. I’ll take that pilaf though with basmati, almonds, currants, and that crusty bit on the bottom that’s so like bibimbap.

    3. So you demand more dead Americans in order to justify your hatred of Trump.

      Soleimani was in Iraq when he got pasted, not Iran. The only people talking about attacking Iran were lefties like you and now your bitterly dissapointed your moment has passed.

    4. I don’t understand why this matters.

      1. What difference at this point does it make?

        1. That was totally different. Because that time we didn’t take military action and it was our people who got killed.

          Taking action so that our people don’t get killed is dangerous. Do you even understand diplomacy?

          1. Trump sending in the Marines to defend our embassy was a good move and it was defensive. It was actually a response to an imminent threat.

            Trump drone striking Soleimani was offensive, and unilaterally that’s dangerous and against the idea of separation of powers.

            1. “”and then not verify a target before firing on it””

              Are your referring to the Marine QRF? That was not in response to an imminent threat. That was in response to an attack. If you want to assume there would be another attack because of an attack, and you want to call that imminent, then why wouldn’t you go after the people that was behind the first attack?

              1. It might be a good idea to go after the people that started the attack. In this case it probably was, or at least turned out to be in the limited hindsight currently available.

                But that’s not for a President to decide. That’s for Congress to decide. That distinction is extremely important and should be the point of all of this discussion.

                1. An addendum….

                  This was impossible to deliberate in congress. There were a couple of friendly congresscritters present, but this obviously was a target of opportunity.

                  They have not said as much, as far as I know.

                  But the notion that they could have made a strategic decision to take this guy out, and then subsequently he just happens to show up in our territory with the head of the organization that just attacked our embassy and base just a few hours later seems really, really implausible.

                  It certainly makes a lot more sense that the CIA found out about this meetup and rushed someone over to tell the president to authorize a drone strike, giving him a very limited time to make the call. Certainly not enough time to get Pelosi and Schumer on board. Maybe enough time to get them on a conference call….. but it would be a call that you couldn’t make via conference call.

                2. No = But that’s not for a President to decide. That’s for Congress to decide.

                  Congress makes the decision to go to war, which they did via AUMFs.
                  The Executive makes all decisions on how to fight it.

                  1. Congress makes the decision to go to war, which they did via AUMFs.
                    The Executive makes all decisions on how to fight it.

                    This. If Congress wants the war to stop, repeal the AUMF. Which, to their credit, they are trying to do.

        2. The primary reason why Trump killed Soleimani was in retaliation for Iran’s proxies killing an American contractor–and to show Iran that that our reluctance to attack them directly had limits. I thought the risk of stating a never-ending spiral of retaliation might lead to war, so I opposed what Trump did, but that’s no reason to get distracted by whether Soleimani was literally on his way to kill some Americans at the time he was killed.

          By focusing on that, you lose the argument–even if you oppose what Trump did. Are you saying that Trump should retaliate against every provocation so long as the threat is imminent–even if it risks starting a war that isn’t in the best interests of the United States? I don’t believe that at all. My opposition to Trump’s action wasn’t because the threat Soleimani posed was insufficiently imminent. I opposed an action that might lead to a war that isn’t the best interests of the United States.

          In short, I don’t understand why it matter whether the threat Soleimani posed was imminent or how imminent, and if that’s your primary criticism, it doesn’t really speak to the larger issues of US foreign policy or where and how we should counter Iran as a security threat to the United States. In fact, if your primary concern is pointing out that the Trump administration is full of shit, you’re likely to make people think your opposition is just about election year politics.

          If you don’t want to see President Trump reelected, that’s fascinating to someone, I’m sure. In the context of foreign policy, Iran policy, etc., I don’t understand why this matters.

          1. It matters as to the question of whether or not Trump was authorized to do what he did. The administration has stated that both the idea of defense against and imminent threat and the AUMF authorize it.

            You can simultaneously think that Soleimani deserved death for his crimes against humanity AND that it’s reckless for a President to unilaterally escalate a conflict without consulting Congress. It’s also important to call a spade a spade when a President acts recklessly and without consideration of separation of powers.

            Even if the end result is ideal, the end doesn’t justify the means here.

            1. Trump does not need to go to Congress to drop bombs in Iraq. They already gave him the authority to do so. Congress does not get to micromanage military action. Congress does not an option to veto target selection inside of a combat zone.

              How often did Obama go to Congress for the same reason? Did he go to Congress for authorization to attack an American citizen?

              1. Trump does not need to go to Congress to drop bombs in Iraq.

                Would he need to go to Congress to drop bombs on Russian assets in Iraq? European assets in Iraq? Civilians in Iraq?

                Congress should have say in actions of the President that might lead to new or expanded war that it hasn’t authorized. We’re not at war with Iran, thankfully cooler head prevailed. But that attack certainly raised the possibility of war with Iran at the time.

                How often did Obama go to Congress for the same reason? Did he go to Congress for authorization to attack an American citizen?

                No, and that’s a pretty good reason to call Obama and his anti-terror policies out. Because Obama liked to drone people is no reason for Trump to like to drone people or for anybody to defend either of their actions.

                1. You’re bound and determined to make your brand of “libertarianism” look abysmally stupid, leo

                  1. Your argument is that Congress should send soldiers into combat zones then micromanage their every decision.
                    That is pure, utter, unrestrained stupidity

                    1. No, that’s your strawman. My argument is that Congress should have a say in whether the President can force them into yet another war by expanding the scope of their AUMF(s).

                      Luckily that’s not what has happened here. But it certainly was a possibility by targeting Iranian military leaders, whether they deserved it or not.

                    2. Bullshit.
                      If Iranian leaders are in Iraq engaging in hostilities, they’re active participants on the battlefield.
                      If you think there should be congressional approval to target them just because they’re Iranian, you’re demanding congressional micromanagement of field level decisions.
                      That’s exactly the kind of shit Obama pulled, having soldiers call everything in, that got so many people killed.
                      Indefensibly stupid, leo, though not a huge surprise given prior discussion

                    3. Should Congress have power to decide the precise scope of the “battlefield”?

                  2. Which brand, the one that isn’t Republican?

                    1. The brand that contradicts the laws of nature, is poorly thought out, and exists only because you live in the luxury of a world provided to you by others

                2. “Would he need to go to Congress to drop bombs on Russian assets in Iraq?”

                  He didn’t in Syria, when US special forces killed a hundred or two Russian mercenaries from Wagner Group. That was a case of clear self-defense against an imminent attack.

                  If the Russian assets in Iraq in your example are in the process of attacking or getting ready to attack Americans then I’d think the same logic would apply. If they’re just sitting there, then it’s less clear.

                3. “”Would he need to go to Congress to drop bombs on Russian assets in Iraq? European assets in Iraq? Civilians in Iraq?””

                  No, No, and No.

            2. But it is really hard to make that argument in an environment where using the military to overthrow the government of Libya and kill their leader was not considered a spade by any of the people making the argument that Trump killing a terrorst group leader and his Iranian boss while meeting in Iraq is the biggest, most spadiest spade of all time.

              That tends to muddy the water quite a bit.

              It takes a pretty hard read of the WPA to say it applies here – but there’s no doubt that working with congress on this sort of strategy is a good idea. And it also doesn’t take a Harvard Law School valedictorian to make the argument that the AUMF does apply here.

              That also muddies the water quite a bit.

              The problem arises when you say that taking out this one Iranian dude is an act of war against Iran. I can certainly see that take.

              But that raises the question.. why this guy? All of the same people were opining that Trump was a total puss for calling off the strike against the Iranian base that launched drone strikes on Saudi oil fields because it might kill 500 Iranians. But that wasn’t WWIII for them. Because he didn’t do it. That means he cannot handle the big decisions. Nobody made the argument that he would have been starting a war by killing a bunch of Iranian soldiers. Nobody seems to be acknowledging that Iran is committing acts of war against the US via proxies pretty much continuously.

              Well, nobody except the libertarians… and particularly the anti-war, isolationist subset of libertarians.

              But it isn’t fair to allow the democrats to rant about the imagined speck in Trump’s eye while angrily attacking anyone who mentions the plank in their own eye.

            3. Far as I can tell, Trump is still operating under the auspices of an authorization to go to war in Iraq that was granted to his predecessors.

              The question to me isn’t whether he was authorized to act as Commander-in-chief in a war zone. The question is whether what he did was smart.

              1. this

                and the jury is still out, but signs say yes.

              2. Honestly, I don’t think smart even comes into it. Our embassy was attacked, they guy who did it was meeting with the leader of a huge terrorist group. That was a double blessing to nail both at once. The attack on our embassy, an act of war, absolutely requires a severe response.

                1. The attack on our embassy, an act of war, absolutely requires a severe response.

                  Yes, and authorization of and definition of the scope of that response should fall on Congress. Execution of the response falls on the Commander in Chief.

                  1. So war or nothing for you, leo?
                    You should try thinking before posting

                  2. “”Yes, and authorization of and definition of the scope of that response should fall on Congress.””

                    If it is in territory which permission to conduct combat operations is already granted, then the president already has the authorization.

                    If it is not in a territory where permission has been granted, then the president can act unilaterally under the WPA temporarily.

                2. I appreciate that it’s often in the best interests of the United States to respond when we’re attacked, but, no, the United States should not respond to attacks if and when it’s in our best interests not to do so.

                  Smart always comes into it.

                  Always.

                  If responding might lead to a war that is not in our best interests, then that is an excellent reason not to respond.

                  1. Will you ever admit you were wrong on this one?
                    I’m guessing not

                    1. Wrong that the risk wasn’t worth it?

                      “The historian’s fallacy is an informal fallacy that occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.”

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian%27s_fallacy

                      President Trump could not have known how Iran would react.

                      We were lucky.

                    2. P.S. The United States should not respond to attacks if and when it’s in our best interests not to do so–regardless of whether I was wrong.

                    3. So no, you’re going to dodge.
                      It’s ok to be wrong sometimes, Ken.

                    4. “President Trump could not have known how Iran would react.”

                      Bullfuckingshit, Ken.
                      We had this debate before Suleimani was hit and immediately after.
                      Many of us predicted exactly what would happen.
                      No, Trump could not have 100% known. But is less than 100% knowledge to always prohibit action?
                      You don’t 100% know you’re not going to crash every time you get on your motorcycle.
                      For someone who loves to share their wisdom, you have some YUGE blindspots.
                      Iran’s reaction was predictable, and was predicted by many of us and Trump (based on his actions).

                    5. I’ve often admitted I was wrong–when I was wrong. In fact, I’ve written repeatedly about how glad I’ll be if I was wrong about Trump’s trade war with China and if the concessions he gets from China on forced technology transfers have a real impact on the problem. I will continue to criticize him for starting the trade war in the first place because there was no way he could have known that he would get those concessions when he initiated the trade war.

                      Incidentally, Trump is even happier than I am that Iran’s retaliation wasn’t far worse than it was. He should not have risked starting a war with Iran–or ending European participation in the sanctions regime–by responding to Iran’s provocations.

                      The discussions we had before the Soleimani execution were about whether it was in the best interests of the United States to go directly to war with Iran and Hezbollah, an idea that remains monumentally stupid. Trump’s decision not to respond to the last round of Iran’s provocations suggests that even he thinks maintaining the sanctions and avoiding war with Iran is in the better interests of the United States.

                      Meanwhile, WTI traded between $65 and $60 a barrel over the last few days. Trading on margin with 5% up front, if you were so sure that Iran wouldn’t respond with even greater provocations than they did, you could have made a fortune shorting oil futures over the last few days. The reason most rational people with money didn’t make that trade is because they’re rational and they were unsure of the severity of Iran’s response. Did you short oil in the aftermath of Trump’s retaliation but before Iran retaliated? If facts and reason were insufficient justification for taking that risk with an investment in oil futures, then it was also insufficient justification to risk a war with Iran and Hezbollah.

                      Your inability to grok or respond to a standard logical fallacy, like the Historian’s fallacy, is telling, by the way. You probably made the same irrational error when you looked at Trump’s behavior on the trade war with China, too. The fact is that gambling your life savings on a single hand of blackjack is a stupid thing to do–and if you got lucky and won, that doesn’t make it any smarter. The only thing that would make that stupid decision rational is if you knew you were going to win, but there was no way to know that.

    5. It’s a good thing that there didn’t need to be any imminent attack in order to strike at a military target in a designated war zone where congress authorized military action 18 fucking years ago you fucking sped.

  19. Member when GWB was supposed to stop 9/11 because a memo said “Bin Laden determined to strike US”?

    Now, we can’t blow up a terrorist meeting with other terrorist while the smoke from their latest attack still lingers in the air without giving away all of our intel

    1. Member when GWB was supposed to stop 9/11 because a memo said “Bin Laden determined to strike US”?

      Pepperidge Farm remembers, but most people on the left side of the (autistic) spectrum have selective amnesia about this.

  20. So why didn’t Democrats revoke the AUMF in 2009? Why didn’t they try to modify the WPA then as well?

    Was it because they suddenly today 10 years later realized it needed to be done. Or were they hedging that they might need to use military force with the Nobel Peace Prize winner in office.

    Let’s recall that in his first term Obama invaded a foreign country to nab bin Laden. And invaded Libya to depose Gaddafi. And droned civilians in the Middle East and Central Asia.

    Trump seems far less crazed with military power than Democrats.

    1. Like I said up top.

      They’re full of pure shit.

      They’re ‘assuming’ that by killing Salami he wants war but has he or the party actually said this was the end game?

      Let’s not forget they also didn’t support him when he wanted out of Syria.

      Love how they pick that NOW they’re anti-war but watch how their tune changes when one of their own is in power and starts pissing all over countries like Obama did.

      Then they go silent again like unprincipled cowards.

      Their empty posturing remind me of Beni Gabor.

      1. Luckily a Democrat is likely never going to be President ever again.

    2. And later started a civil war in Syria. And stationed troops in the Democratic Republic of Congo. And intervened in a civil war in Yemen.

    3. No one should be confused that Democrats are saints when it comes to the perpetual warfare state. They are just as much a part of the War Party as the Republicans are.

      But if they are doing to move in the right direction, even if it’s for the wrong reasons, we genuinely anti-war people should welcome it.

      Same goes for Republicans who are hopping on to the anti-war train, even if their motives aren’t exactly pure.

      1. Hey remember when you were still using your cytotoxic handle and incessantly defended the Iraq war, then sat there with your mouth full of Obama cock for 8 years and said absolutely nothing about his military adventures, then had histrionic bitch fits when Trump ended his illegal Syria war and “abandoned our Kurdish allies”? Haha, that was fun!

        1. 1. I’m not cytotoxic
          2. I never defended the Iraq war
          3. I never defended Obama’s military adventurism
          4. I criticized Trump’s MANNER in which he withdrew from Syria, not the idea of withdrawal itself.
          5. Get professional help, Mr. Jones. Or maybe you can get a Darth Vader speaking gig or something.

          1. You get under his skin more when you ignore him.

        2. Cytotoxic was Canadian.

          We can settle this here right now: Chemjeff, are you Canadian?

          Prove it.

          1. I’m not Canadian. I don’t like hockey, Molson’s is disgusting, I’ve never seen a caribou outside of a zoo, and I’ve never had poutine.

  21. Joined @AllInWithChris to talk about Congress acting to reign in this President and reasserting our Constitutional authority on war and peace.

    Just in time, eh, Barbara? Good thing there wasn’t anything going on between Jan 2009 and December 2016 for you to get involved.

  22. “The economy added 145,000 jobs last month and unemployment stayed at a 50-year low of 3.5%, capping a 10th straight year of payroll gains and the longest stretch in 80 years of data, the Labor Department said Friday.”

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/december-jobs-report-11578657600?

    November 3, 2020 is less than 10 months away, and the Democrats are losing hope that the economy will tank and they’ll have any decent chance to retake the White House. That’s why they’re seizing on every opportunity.

    “Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.”

    —-Revelation 12:12

    They’ll accuse him of trying to go to war with Iran.

    They’ll accuse him of not wanting to go to war with Iran.

    They’ll accuse him of sexual assault and wanting someone to pee on him.

    Actually, they’re already done all of that, but it’ll get worse and worse as we get closer to election day. Whichever side of the fence you’re on, the challenge will be to try and not make a fool of yourself. Try to remember that opposing or supporting everything someone does and says because of who they are isn’t just irrational. It’s also abnormal.

    1. The fact that economy continues to defy the business cycle is the result of two things. First, it shows how much of a drag the regulatory state is on the economy. Whatever downward pressure the normal business cycle is putting on the economy is being swamped by the positive effect of Trump cutting regulations. Second and even more importantly, I think it shows the enormous effect that fracking has had on the economy. Thanks to fracking the US has added trillions of dollars in energy assets to its wealth in the last ten years. Not only that, fracking has kept energy prices stable preventing the energy price shocks that have nearly always triggered recessions in the past.

      I hope that the public understands the enormous economic windfall they are getting from these two things and that the Democrats are absolutely obsessed with ending both of them.

      1. Deregulation and fracking, oh yeah!

        There is something to be said for trade and low inflation, too.

        I bought a well made, Fruit of the Loom, hoodie at Walmart the other day. It was $9.00. If they made it in the USA at that price, it was probably by automation. I suspect it as made in China or South America. Wherever it was made, when people can buy quality stuff that cheap . . .

        1. 12 trillion dollars of new money in less than 10 years and no inflation! WE SO LUCKY! HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.

          The Dow has doubled in the same period of time and housing prices are up 400% because of fracking! And Ken can buy underwear sewn by an 11 year old Vietnamese girl on $2/day subsistence that will have holes in them in 3 weeks! THANK U FEDERAL RESERVE!

          1. Yeah, if we can “print” all that money and not experience inflation, I strongly suspect it has something to do with foreign trade keeping prices down.

            If you’re one of these people who wishes we suffered from runaway inflation because it would help keep spending down, you’re putting the cart before the horse.

            If you’re oppose to international trade because it helps keep inflation down and that makes it less painful for the government to spend more money, then you’re out of your fucking mind.

      2. I think Paul Ryan deserves some credit here too, he was able to get an amendment for ending the 40 year oil export ban included in the 2015 omnibus spending bill.

        1. That was bound to happen as soon as we had surplus oil to export.

      3. Whatever downward pressure the normal business cycle is putting on the economy is being swamped by the positive effect of Trump cutting regulations.

        Do you have something quantitative to back up this claim?

          1. Okay – so your citation asserts that Trump’s deregulation has saved American households about $3100 per year. I don’t have the expertise to challenge that number so I’ll just accept it for now. Fine, that’s great. Now what is the evidence that this figure represents enough to overcome “the downward pressure the normal business cycle is putting on the economy”?

            I ask because, while the deregulation is great, I think it’s more monetary policy and loose credit that is driving current business success, not deregulation per se.

            1. $3100 a household is an enormous boost. I don’t know what else to tell you.

            2. chem….do some math. 3K * 110MM households = a lot of fucking economic activity. It is not rocket science.

        1. Economic theory?

      4. I’m sure cutting taxes across the board on income and slashing corporate taxes from 36% to a whopping 21% to mesh in line with other Western economies had to have an impact too.

        The thing is, will this be offset by his other decisions, say, on tariffs and spending?

    2. The Democrats’ banking cabal will cause a colossal market disruption just like they did in 2008 when they deliberately crashed IndyMac and started the “financial crisis”.

    3. Even by political standards it’s abnormal.

      Fresh off the most militarized Presidency in history and now they think war is bad?

      GTFOH.

  23. “No War With Iran, House Tells Trump”

    Well, shucks. He had his heart set on it, too. How about the house telling him no unicorns, either?

  24. BTW, wasn’t there something recently about ‘impeachment’? Weren’t the walls closing in?

    1. That is coming back.

      The Democrats have realized that Iran=WWIII is a total loser. They have figured out that Trump won this one, big time.

      So they are already signalling that they are going to move forward with impeachment next week. That gives them total control over the news cycle for at least another 4-6 weeks. Negative advertising against Trump for free, all day, every day. That should swamp out the bump he’s getting by being right on Iran.

      1. I think the country has tuned out impeachment. The Democrats blew their chance when they had the country’s attention. Everyone watched the House hearings, no one’s mind was changed, and the public tuned it out.

        1. It’s gotta be a pretty good movie to sit through 3 1/2 hours. This impeachment is no Lord of The Rings.

      2. “…Negative advertising against Trump for free, all day, every day. That should swamp out the bump he’s getting by being right on Iran.”

        Not sure this will work, either. According to the Chron this morning, Pelosi won’t “rush” the impeachment; seems she’s hoping to control the senate trial, which ain’t gonna happen.
        Once the Senate gets hold of it, it may well not be “negative advertising”.

      3. That gives them total control over the news cycle for at least another 4-6 weeks. Negative advertising against Trump for free, all day, every day.

        So, just like every other day then.

        That should swamp out the bump he’s getting by being right on Iran.

        HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahaha..ha..ha….oh, THAT was a good one. Ha. ha. As if anyone could really believe that.

    2. Pelosi is a brilliant strategist. Everything is going according to her plan.

      1. I now have this image of her shooting force lightning out of her hands stuck in my head. Thanks for that.

        1. Strangely, in this version Pelosi is Senator Palpatine, Trump is Emperor Palpatine, and Schumer is Jar-Jar Binks.

        2. That ain’t lightning and that ain’t her hands…

  25. Where was the anti-war movement during the last eleven years? Where they off attending a conference?

    1. Where was the anti-war movement during the last eleven years?

      We were there: ignored, written off as cranks, not being noticed enough to bother anyone.

  26. Discuss this article on Quora:

    https://www.quora.com/q/sgrmlrcbxkjitfee/No-War-With-Iran-House-Tells-Trump-Next-Up-Finally-Forbidding-Military-Force-in-Iraq

    Quora is a vibrant community where everyone must use their real names and a “be nice, be respectful” policy is strictly enforced.

  27. Marianne Williamson is dropping out of the race. I am so disappointed.

    I was prepared to donate the Federal maximum allowable contribution to her. She would be the perfect Team D candidate.

    #WeHardlyKnewYeMarianne

    1. “Marianne Williamson is dropping out of the race. I am so disappointed.”

      #MeToo

  28. I think a someone should amend the current bill to include pulling troops from Syria too. Then let’s see who’s still for it.

  29. No War With Iran, House Tells Trump.

    I’m glad the House finally agrees with Trump on something, though it took them a while to come around to his anti-war position.

  30. The resolution is unconstitutional. The Declaration Clause requires the POTUS to obtain Congress’s permission to start a war. When another nation wages war against the United States, the POTUS may exercise his Commander in Chief power to use the military to defend the nation, the people and their soldiers. Iran has waged war against the US since 1979 and its proxy militias killed several hundred US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The resolution forbids the POTUS from using the military to defend us and itself from Iran or its proxies absent an “imminent” attack.

Please to post comments