Jump to content
mugtang

Sen Mike Lee goes off on Administration over the Iran briefing

Recommended Posts

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rocket said:

"Off"

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lee also announced he will support Kaine’s war powers resolution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mugtang said:

Thanks

:P

  • Cheers 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for him !!! Good to see Mike Lee have a moment of clarity :rock:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume he is part of a committee that would normally have input into military decisions, and I also assume the CIC has the last word. Whatever the case, no action was taken on our part so it worked out in the end. Maybe Lee thought we should nuke them. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, soupslam1 said:

I assume he is part of a committee that would normally have input into military decisions, and I also assume the CIC has the last word. Whatever the case, no action was taken on our part so it worked out in the end. Maybe Lee thought we should nuke them. 

There are so many flipp'n whiners these days in Congress. It's like they need camera time so people back home see that they're doing SOMETHING. Trump doesn't have to get any approval other than to declare war. Self defense actions are all his to decide. 

Iran is lucky Reagan isn't president because he would've conducted some sort of action. The politics have gotten to Trump, the pressure to back off. It really affected him on this, and doing nothing shows some weakness in Trump. I understand the pressure he's under, and he's got a stronger backbone than anyone in America. So I probably shouldn't give him shit about it. But not responding to 15 or so missiles shot towards Americans is a big deal even if they didn't kill anyone. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Nevada Convert said:

There are so many flipp'n whiners these days in Congress. It's like they need camera time so people back home see that they're doing SOMETHING. Trump doesn't have to get any approval other than to declare war. Self defense actions are all his to decide. 

Iran is lucky Reagan isn't president because he would've conducted some sort of action. The politics have gotten to Trump, the pressure to back off. It really affected him on this, and doing nothing shows some weakness in Trump. I understand the pressure he's under, and he's got a stronger backbone than anyone in America. So I probably shouldn't give him shit about it. But not responding to 15 or so missiles shot towards Americans is a big deal even if they didn't kill anyone. 

He has shown remarkable restraint, but Iran is going to push it too far at some point, and will pay the price. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least he and Rand are consistent. During the Obama days, Republicans would commonly question the use of force, while Democrats would cheerlead.

Now with Trump, the Democrats are questioning things, while the Republicans cheerlead.

https://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/29/obama.libya.reaction/index.html

Quote

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama, complained that "the extent to which Congress has been bypassed in this process is breathtaking." White House officials insist they have fulfilled the congressional consultation requirements required under the 1973 War Powers Act.

Meanwhile, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Indiana, has led calls for a full accounting of the costs of the mission.

Meanwhile, Rand is saying the same thing:

Quote

SEN. RAND PAUL: I think what President Obama is doing [in Syria] is unconstitutional. The founding documents are clear: the declaration of war should be from the peoples' house -- from Congress. Even President Obama agreed with this when he ran for office in 2007, when he said no president should unilaterally go to war without the approval of Congress. He doesn't so much agree with that anymore. That's a real problem for me, I think the Congress should debate and decide whether or not we go back to war in the middle east.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/03/rand_paul_obamas_actions_in_syria_unconsitutional_no_president_should_unilaterally_go_to_war.html

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, CV147 said:

At least he and Rand are consistent. During the Obama days, Republicans would commonly question the use of force, while Democrats would cheerlead.

Now with Trump, the Democrats are questioning things, while the Republicans cheerlead.

https://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/29/obama.libya.reaction/index.html

Meanwhile, Rand is saying the same thing:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/03/rand_paul_obamas_actions_in_syria_unconsitutional_no_president_should_unilaterally_go_to_war.html

But Rand Paul is a special kind of clueless when it comes to foreign policy with terrorist states. 

  • Idiot 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Nevada Convert said:

But Rand Paul is a special kind of clueless when it comes to foreign policy with terrorist states. 

I don't think so.

What's clueless, to me, is citing the Constitution and the Founding Fathers when it comes to things like the 2nd Amendment, but not when it comes to authorizing use of force.

According to the Constitution, only congress can authorize military action. Rand Paul is right, in my opinion, and the War Powers Act should be rescinded or be tested in the Supreme Court at the very least.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nevada Convert said:

There are so many flipp'n whiners these days in Congress. It's like they need camera time so people back home see that they're doing SOMETHING. Trump doesn't have to get any approval other than to declare war. Self defense actions are all his to decide. 

Iran is lucky Reagan isn't president because he would've conducted some sort of action. The politics have gotten to Trump, the pressure to back off. It really affected him on this, and doing nothing shows some weakness in Trump. I understand the pressure he's under, and he's got a stronger backbone than anyone in America. So I probably shouldn't give him shit about it. But not responding to 15 or so missiles shot towards Americans is a big deal even if they didn't kill anyone. 

Concert is still hating Trump I see. Lol

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CV147 said:

I don't think so.

What's clueless, to me, is citing the Constitution and the Founding Fathers when it comes to things like the 2nd Amendment, but not when it comes to authorizing use of force.

According to the Constitution, only congress can authorize military action. Rand Paul is right, in my opinion, and the War Powers Act should be rescinded or be tested in the Supreme Court at the very least.

What is amazing to me is these GOP Senators have been lap dogs across a number of constitutional issues and now they complain!

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/08/politics/iran-briefing-senators/index.html
 

Not sure why they think the base will support them.  Most of their base can’t or don’t read and get all their information from Foxda.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m unclear as to what actions the president can take in a situation similar to Iran. I can understand the Congress should be involved in a declaration of war, but situations like Iran are so fast moving, that actions on the battlefield may be compromised if Congress must be involved in every decision. 

In the past there have been numerous military actions taken against foreign powers without the consent of Congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, soupslam1 said:

I’m unclear as to what actions the president can take in a situation similar to Iran. I can understand the Congress should be involved in a declaration of war, but situations like Iran are so fast moving, that actions on the battlefield may be compromised if Congress must be involved in every decision. 

In the past there have been numerous military actions taken against foreign powers without the consent of Congress.

Well, first of all, we should never participate in preemptive war. We should only fight defensive wars. If a president wants to respond to an attack on us, then he should have no problem going to congress seeking authorization for military action. The military action could be a declared war (unlikely these days), open-ended, or with a time frame, but that would be up to our Representatives in our Republic.

That's the way it worked for every military action we had as a country until the War Powers Act, which has never been tested for its Constitutionality.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, soupslam1 said:

I’m unclear as to what actions the president can take in a situation similar to Iran. I can understand the Congress should be involved in a declaration of war, but situations like Iran are so fast moving, that actions on the battlefield may be compromised if Congress must be involved in every decision. 

In the past there have been numerous military actions taken against foreign powers without the consent of Congress.

Because these events unfold at a pace much quicker than the Congress can be expected to react to, The executive is the commander and chief. It has immediate discretion to react as they see fit. But the war declaration powers reside in the Legislature, so they have the power to sanction, reign in, or defund actions taken by the executive if they can get their ducks in order.

The War Powers resolution of 1973 was an attempt to codify this check in the wake of reports of unauthorized bombing in Cambodia.

The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds each of the House and Senate, overriding the veto of the bill by President Richard Nixon.

This entire Iran imbroglio has taken place under the 2002 AUMF which gives congressional authority to the president to fight terrorist organizations in Iraq, among other things. When the Iraqi government invited us back in 2014 to help fight against Isis’s takeover of the country, it was under this authorization that the Obama administration justified its actions. Note that all the military action taken this week occurred in Iraq, against groups long designated as terrorist organizations.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Because these events unfold at a pace much quicker than the Congress can be expected to react to, The executive is the commander and chief. It has immediate discretion to react as they see fit. But the war declaration powers reside in the Legislature, so they have the power to sanction, reign in, or defund actions taken by the executive if they can get their ducks in order.

The War Powers resolution of 1973 was an attempt to codify this check in the wake of reports of unauthorized bombing in Cambodia.

The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds each of the House and Senate, overriding the veto of the bill by President Richard Nixon.

This entire Iran imbroglio has taken place under the 2002 AUMF which gives congressional authority to the president to fight terrorist organizations in Iraq, among other things. When the Iraqi government invited us back in 2014 to help fight against Isis’s takeover of the country, it was under this authorization that the Obama administration justified its actions. Note that all the military action taken this week occurred in Iraq, against groups long designated as terrorist organizations.

Thanks for the info. It makes it clear now why we designate certain groups as terrorist organizations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Note that all the military action taken this week occurred in Iraq, against groups long designated as terrorist organizations.

Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has actually only been designated a terrorist group rather recently (April 2019).  This was mainly due to their support of groups like Hezbollah and for pirating ships in the Straight of Hurmuz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×