Nancy Pelosi Wants to Limit President Trump on Iran
Many among the left behaved as if the general that was killed was “the victim” and that President Trump was the villain. (r/The_Donald)
President Trump took a series of actions that needed to be taken last week. This included the drone strike that killed Gen. Qassem Soleimani and a militia commander. The Iranians appointed a replacement and declared that they would retaliate. President Trump reminded them of what could happen if they do decide to retaliate.
However, Democrats in Congress are introducing bills that would limit the president’s ability to pursue his strategic policies relative to Iran. Nancy Pelosi announced that she would start the process in the house. There is a parallel effort in the Senate.
From Fox News:
“This week, the House will introduce and vote on a War Powers Resolution to limit the President’s military actions regarding Iran,” Pelosi wrote in a letter to fellow Democrats, referring to a similar Senate resolution to be introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va. “It reasserts Congress’s long-established oversight responsibilities by mandating that if no further Congressional action is taken, the Administration’s military hostilities with regard to Iran cease within 30 days.”
The first War Powers Resolution was passed in 1973 in an effort to prevent presidents from using the military without congressional approval. Since then, questions of presidential compliance have become common, with controversy stemming from President Bill Clinton’s actions in Kosovo and President Barack Obama’s operations in Libya.
On Saturday, the White House sent Congress formal notification of the drone strike under the War Powers Act, a senior administration official told The Associated Press. The notification, required by law within 48 hours of the introduction of American forces into an armed conflict or a situation that could lead to war, had to be signed and sent to Congress.
Leave it to the Democrats to try to pull defeat out of the jaws of victory. In the last decade, they tried to scuttle resources and efforts needed for the Iraq War.
In 1973, after combat troops pulled out of Vietnam, there were provisions in the treaty that allowed the US to take certain courses of action in case the Communists renewed their attacks. The Democrats chose to defund the effort and prevent the US side from providing the support that South Vietnam needed.
During the Cold War, voices from the left argued for the United States to engage in “one-sided nuclear disarmament”. The common trend? When it comes to strategic matters, the Democrats seem to work towards America’s defeat.
Fox News has more on this article.
Category: Politics
Oddly enough when Obama was killing kindergarten age children and their pregnant moms in Yemen drone strikes she remained rather supportive of his efforts to aid our good friends in the Kingdom.
I wonder why she would object to killing an actual enemy general if she were silent previously? Clearly she’s not against using drones to kill non combatants as an acceptable collateral damage component of executing foreign policy initiatives on behalf of an ally who supplied the majority of 9-11 murderers to our nation. So we know it’s not an actual moral issue for her.
I’m sure it has nothing at all to with politics, maybe she has a Constitutional issue with…I’m sure that’s it.
I would say my definition of “being political” is when you oppose something good just because the other side does it. (Conversely, everything is good if my side does it.) Since leftists have painted the world in “we are goodness and rainbows” and everyone outside that circle of happiness is “literally HITLER!!”, they have to oppose anything done by those that are not leftists. So now they are defending Iranian terror leaders. I only hope the middle of the country is paying attention to this. I am unfortunately not sure that is the case.
Those on the right (conservatives and even squish “Republicans” alike) tend to take a measured approach to life (i.e. not everything we do is wonderful and not everything done by the opposition is “literally HITLER!!!”). That is why we (I’m lumping myself in with this group) don’t run around in masks and hit people with clubs. It would be nice if everyone was like that.
Has anyone told this wackadoodle that she is not the CiC? She sure does act like she is running the show.
She has been a part of the powers that be for so long that she is obsessed with her own supposed queenship. “…against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” You can literally see the evil oozing out of her. President Trump IS the CiC, and the Constitution gives him the power to do as needed to protect the US. The pure stupidity of this bitch seems to have no limit. We won’t even talk about the sheer stupidity of the useful idiots that keep re-electing her.
I’m not sure if you’re seeing evil oozing out of her, or scotch…
Cheap Scotch-Evil… same thing
War powers are granted by congress. They are not inherent to the office of the president.
So the question is not whether Pelosi knows she is not the CiC but whether the CiC knows he is not the Supreme Leader.
And whether his cult knows he is not the Supreme Leader.
Look who quit huffing glue long enough to fart on his keyboard
There is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the power grant the president war powers. Congress has the power to declare war on a foreign state, but the president is commander in chief of the armed forces; the president can make war. This power is important in instances where the president determines immediate action is necessary. Since the president has actionable Intel in his hands, he chose to act on it. And I glad he did.
Better read the Constitution again, Lars.
And, stop dreaming about suckling on Nancy’s silicon infused funbags…
She should meet with an Iranian General without
notifying Trump beforehand.
Remote airstrip would be ideal.
Fine….just use “America’s Mercs”
Send…in….the….Marines. Last time I checked, the President doesn’t NEED Lord Nancy’s permission to unleash the hounds of hell.
Just like the impeachment issue – Nancy continues to struggle with the limitations of her power.
She always puts forth her maximum effort to ignore the United States Constitution!
I’m still wondering why Cocaine Mitch hasn’t told her to shit or get off the pot.
During the Nuremberg War Crimes trials, Goehring testified that the Nazi Party goal was to stay in power no matter what once they got there, and it’s obvious that “Madame Botox” Nanny Lugosi is hell bent on staying in Office until she drops dead. Liberals are only concerned about accumulating and keeping power, wealth, control over everyone and everything by whatever means they can and keeping it once acquired, damn the consequences.
It’s no secret that Nanny Lugosi loves to spend exorbitant amounts of our tax dollars for booze, and it’s quite obvious that she has pickled far more of her brain cells than Ted *HICCUP!* Kennedy ever did his! Once she kicks the bucket, if they decide to cremate her it’ll likely take at least three days for the fire to burn out.
I too remember the Judicial Watch reports on the thousands the Air Force spent on liquor for her frequent flights back to her district the last time she was Speaker of the House:
“According to the documents, obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the Speaker’s military travel cost the United States Air Force $2,100,744.59 over a two-year period — $101,429.14 of which was for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol. ”
When she eventually passes if they don’t cremate her, her final resting place will be well “watered and fertilized” in the “new” San Francisco tradition. Nobody will want to set up their tent there.
When she passes they won’t need a fancy crematorium; all they’ll need do is bring a flame near her and she’ll self-combust. She’s already embalmed.
I’m going to express an unpopular and surprisingly almost Larsish opinion.
As a strict Constitutionalist, I absolutely believe that President Trump overstepped his authority. As did President Obama. As did President Bush. As did President Clinton. As did the first President Bush. As did President Reagan…hell, I’ll go all the way to the First Barbary War and President Jefferson’s actions.
Absent a Declaration of War, or treaty obligations that clearly spell out our duty to spend blood, spirit, and treasure and has the Consent of the Senate, our national might (be it military or economic) should only be used to defend our nation against direct threats.
The latter case should only exist until Congress gets off its ass and either makes a formal declaration of war or says no, it’s not worth fighting over.
I also believe I should be allowed to own a GAU-8/A Avenger.
Sadly, neither of the above cases is true. Congress rarely has the testicular fortitude to actually declare war, and the Feds tell me I can’t own a machine gun unless it’s older than I am.
So we have Presidents who take action and spend our blood and treasure in pursuit of their causes and congress wrings their hands or jumps on the bandwagon.
And I have to make do with a 300 blackout suppressed AR-15 pistol. Because fuck spending another $200 on another stamp so I can have an adjustable stock.
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
Ref: Wiki
So there’s that.
The post 9-11 AUMF is not limited to Iraq, as I recall. Congress kinda wrote a not-quite blank check with that one.
Probably unwise. But otherwise Congress has to recognize that Iran declared war in 1979. And a bunch of fellow-travelers have likewise done so.
And respond accordingly.
I think Trump is trying to clarify that weasel-turd-mess.
One big problem with the direct threat interpretation is that our founders didn’t envision that our buffer zone would be gone and that we’d face asymmetrical warfare in the 21st Century… That not only would we find the barbarians at our gate, but among us. This is unrestricted warfare, where means not seen as war now become acts of war. Where methods “outside of war” become methods of war. We don’t need to see an enemy fleet, or army, moving towards us to be “under direct or imminent threat”. I’ve argued this for 16 years… The tactics that are being used, not just with roadside bombings, terrorist attacks, but with illegal immigration, uncontrolled mass immigration, hacking, economic warfare, etc. are being utilized. What we’re seeing with regards to the global threats facing us, from a specific radical religion, are not isolated events but joint events meant to achieve one ultimate objective… The entire world under the banner of radical Islam. President Trump didn’t declare war with Iran, nor did he take action that amounted to us being in a sustained hot war with Iran. This falls under the umbrella that the Quasi-War with France set… That wasn’t declared. This also falls under the War Powers Act. Congress back in the 18th Century, and again in the 20th Century, recognized that there were going to be military-related emergencies that were not going to require the declaration of war. Unlike the 18th Century or the Vietnam War, we’re dealing with an enemy with a global presence, including within our own borders, with a global reach, with the ability and willingness to use their definition of methods of war that fall outside our method of war. Both in the symmetrical warfare and in the unrestricted warfare sense, this action against one of the biggest threats to the region and the world, as well as to us, didn’t amount to him going outside the Constitution. He has a constitutional duty to defend us from threats… Especially from an enemy that sees us as needing to be replaced with an Islamic Republic. A good book… Read more »
Actually, the Founders rather brilliantly covered use of force other than declared war. The Constitution explicitly authorizes both Letters or Marque and Letters of Reprisal. These enable Military and/or private actions, depending on how written and to whom given.
But still requires the paperwork, and congresscritters with the stones to write them.
Trump may very well ask them to write such Letters, at some point. War Powers Act gives him quite a bit of leeway in the meanwhile.
A Letter of Marque is a letter provided to a nongovernment agent, to act in a military capacity, on behalf of the US government. The original intent for reprisal was “eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, limb for limb” in nature. These are short-term in nature and do not effectively address unrestricted warfare, unless one of these is prepared consistently throughout the year, throughout the decades, etc.
There is nothing in the constitution that limits them to “short term”, or non-Military personnel.
“Declare War” isn’t defined much, either.
Nothing prevents the US Government from “loaning” a destroyer and crew to a “Gulf Hunting Club” that receives a Letter of Marque, even if that club is essentially the officers and crew. We also have plenty of Privateer precedent from our Revolution.
It hasn’t been done if a very long time. That is not the same as “cant”.
The Letter of Marque was intended for private citizens using private assets not tied to the government. At the time they drafted the Constitution, they weren’t expecting to keep much of a standing military. They had to make up for this lack of military resources by hiring nongovernment personnel who had their own resources to carry out the intent of the Letter of Marque.
The privateers were a sort of “maritime militia” compared to the Navy being the regulars. But, when they weren’t pressed into service a la citizen militia, they were pretty much independent.
The Founders understood, from their time as colonials, that we would have to deal with major issues… Like what some of them experienced with the French and Indian Wars and more recently the American Revolution, and things that were short term in nature, like the conflicts they had with Native American tribes. The major wars they addressed with a declaration of war, the minor security issues they left up to the President as Commander in Chief able to call on a military and militia to address security-related issues.
A part of the reason to why they didn’t go into the weeds is that they left it up to Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court to work the details and clarification. They also understood that things would change… Which they did within the lifetime of some of the founders.
Any enemy of America is a friend to Democrats.
“It reasserts Congress’s long-established oversight responsibilities by mandating that if no further Congressional action is taken, the Administration’s military hostilities with regard to Iran cease within 30 days.”
Nice looking oil refineries you have there. Be a shame if anything happened to them.
LOTS of very nasty things can happen to Iran in 30 days.
How much money is filtering into Pelosi’s pockets to persuade her to do this?
Where was the outrage?????
Anyone remember when under the previous Administration the US targeted and killed three US citizens in Yemen via drone strike. These occurred in Sept-Oct 2011.
The lawsuit brought by the ACLU in 2012 (Al-Awlaki v. Panetta) was dismissed by the Federal court in 2014.
Again I ask where was the outrage amongst, Democrats, the liberal media, and the Hollywood elite? Or is it strictly partisan politics?
That wasn’t a case of someone who had been declared a terrorist eight years prior to the event. It was three US citizens including a sixteen year old boy. Where was the outrage then?
Yes, I don’t recall any media pieces about that revered, austere muslim cleric after 0bama had him droned along with his son.
Ole Plastic Woman needs to focus on her own backyard and clean up the mess in San Fran.
11 more months. I’m patient.
The People Will Speak.
The mess in Nanny Lugosi’s backyard is what D-rats and the left want to inflict on the rest of the USA!
Wonder if the reason she has not retired is because she does NOT want to return to San Fran.
Bet when she does retire, she will move OUT of California.
😉