Ohmar, Lee, Kaine, announce war powers resolution to prevent war with Iran

[JimL]

Right, and since we haven't declared war, and since the President authorized a limited combat operation well within his Constitutional authority as Commander in Chief, and since open hostilities have now ceased after less than a week, what's the problem? Even Nancy Pelosi has defended the president, saying that he has the authority to order military strikes without Congressional approval.

Of course that was back when Obama was president. She's singing a different tune today.

Soleimani was an official, probably the second in power of a soveriegn state, and assassinating him was an act of war and a risk by Trump of taking us into war. Had the Iranians assassinated General Petraes or General Mattis during the war in Iraq no doubt we would have considered that an act of war and gone to war with Iran over that. Assassinations of foriegn leaders is not the kind of military strikes that don't need congressional approval.

[lilpixieofterror]

Soleimani was an official, probably the second in power of a soveriegn state, and assassinating him was an act of war and a risk by Trump of taking us into war. Had the Iranians assassinated General Petraes or General Mattis during the war in Iraq no doubt we would have considered that an act of war and gone to war with Iran over that. Assassinations of foriegn leaders is not the kind of military strikes that don't need congressional approval.

Attacking an embassy and US forces and interest, is an act of war.

[JimL]

Attacking an embassy and US forces and interest, is an act of war.

The story is that they took him out for planned imminent attacks, intelligence for which they have shown no evidence as of yet.

[Mountain Man]

Soleimani was an official, probably the second in power of a soveriegn state, and assassinating him was an act of war and a risk by Trump of taking us into war. Had the Iranians assassinated General Petraes or General Mattis during the war in Iraq no doubt we would have considered that an act of war and gone to war with Iran over that. Assassinations of foriegn leaders is not the kind of military strikes that don't need congressional approval.

If Patraes or Mattis had just finished attacking an Iranian embassy and killing Iranian citizens, and they were in Iraq at the time to coordinate further attacks against Iran, then they would have been valid military targets.

[DivineOb]

If Patraes or Mattis had just finished attacking an Iranian embassy and killing Iranian citizens, and they were in Iraq at the time to coordinate further attacks against Iran, then they would have been valid military targets.

And we would have considered it an act of war.

[JimL]

If Patraes or Mattis had just finished attacking an Iranian embassy and killing Iranian citizens, and they were in Iraq at the time to coordinate further attacks against Iran, then they would have been valid military targets.

And the Trump administrations briefing to Congress did not show any evidence of those claims of attacks or planned imminent attacks against Americans. Even the President himself has no idea what those supposed plans of imminent attack were. he was interviewed on FOX, of course, where he was asked about it and replied, I think there could be 4 Embassies planned for attack and there could have been other things as well, but I think at least 4. In other words he has no clue and as usual is just rambling.

[Mountain Man]

And the Trump administrations briefing to Congress did not show any evidence of those claims of attacks or planned imminent attacks against Americans. Even the President himself has no idea what those supposed plans of imminent attack were. he was interviewed on FOX, of course, where he was asked about it and replied, I think there could be 4 Embassies planned for attack and there could have been other things as well, but I think at least 4. In other words he has no clue and as usual is just rambling.

Trump's actual statements in context:

Ingraham: Don't the American people have the right to know what specifically was targeted without revealing methods and sources?

Trump: Well, I don't think so, but we will tell you that probably it was going to be the embassy in Baghdad. You saw that happening. You saw with all of the men, very few women, circling it and circling it very strongly and very viciously, knocking out windows and trying to get and they were close to getting in, and I called out the military. They said we'll have it there tomorrow. I said, nope, you'll have it there today. We're not going to have another Benghazi on our hands. And we did a really amazing job. I get no credit for it, but we never get credit for anything, and that's OK.

...

Ingraham: Did they have large scale attacks planned for other embassies? And if those were planned, why can't we reveal that to the American people. Wouldn't that help your case?

Trump: I can reveal that I believe it would have been four embassies. And I think that probably Baghdad already started. They were really amazed that we came in with that kind of a force. We came in with very powerful force and drove them out. That ended almost immediately. But Baghdad certainly would've been the lead. But I think it would've been four embassies that had been military bases -- could've been a lot of other things too, but it was imminent. And then all of a sudden he was gone.

https://factba.se/transcript/donald-...anuary-10-2020

Remember, intelligence gathering is rarely like the movies where they can pinpoint exactly who, what, when, and where, so they can know that something is definitely going to happen even if they don't know precisely what. The other thing to keep in mind is that Trump is talking in very general terms because, as Ingraham pointed out, he can't publicly reveal sources and methods.

[DivineOb]

Trump's actual statements in context:

Ingraham: Don't the American people have the right to know what specifically was targeted without revealing methods and sources?

Trump: Well, I don't think so, but we will tell you that probably it was going to be the embassy in Baghdad. You saw that happening. You saw with all of the men, very few women, circling it and circling it very strongly and very viciously, knocking out windows and trying to get and they were close to getting in, and I called out the military. They said we'll have it there tomorrow. I said, nope, you'll have it there today. We're not going to have another Benghazi on our hands. And we did a really amazing job. I get no credit for it, but we never get credit for anything, and that's OK.

Do you believe that actually happened in the real world? In a post Benghazi world our embassy is under attack and the military says "We'll be there tomorrow."

[Cow Poke]

Soleimani was an official, probably the second in power of a soveriegn state, ...

Trump's power to get liberals to defend terrorists and State Sponsors of Terrorism is amazing.

[JimL]

Trump's power to get liberals to defend terrorists and State Sponsors of Terrorism is amazing.

Nobody's defending terrorists, though your perspective is not surprising.

[rogue06]

Trump's power to get liberals to defend terrorists and State Sponsors of Terrorism is amazing.

Just like he got them to defend MS-13 and just like he got them to defend Kim Jong-un

[Cow Poke]

Nobody's defending terrorists, though your perspective is not surprising.

Jim, you're so far in the woods of the echo chamber you can't even see what you're doing -- It's right there in your own words...

Soleimani was an official, probably the second in power of a soveriegn state,

Soleimani was a murderous thug who even killed his own people who were protesting the totalitarian regime of the world's largest State Sponsor of Terror, that you refer to as a "soveriegn [sic] state"

That crap is straight out of the loony left's talking points.

[Cow Poke]

Just like he got them to defend MS-13 and just like he got them to defend Kim Jong-un

And the amazing thing is that they don't even realize they're doing it!

Nobody's defending terrorists...

[NorrinRadd]

Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution gives the power to declare war to Congress, not the President. Presidents, and to some extent Congress, have ignored this, though in 1973 Congress through the war powers resolution tried to wrest that ceded power back from the President, though, again to little effect. But the Constitution is clear, only Congress can declare war, the President, as Commander and Chief, can direct it once declared.

My bad. I momentarily confused you with someone who might have the interest to actually read the article, or the intelligence to comprehend it.

[rogue06]

And the amazing thing is that they don't even realize they're doing it!

Blinded by hatred.