world

Trump's tough talk on Iran prompts Senate vote on war powers

41 Comments
By LISA MASCARO and DEB RIECHMANN

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

41 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

The president should be able to respond to direct attacks on us, he should not have a blank check to wage war.

12 ( +13 / -1 )

The president should be able to respond to direct attacks on us, he should not have a blank check to wage war.

Well said.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

The democrats should have done something about this when they held both chambers of congress and the White House. Passing along such powers to a deranged fool was never a good idea.

This from November of 2016 predicted this moment:

Liberals are understandably panicked about what Donald Trump can carry out. “We have a president-elect with authoritarian tendencies assuming a presidency that has never been more powerful,” Franklin Foer wrote this past week in Slate. Trump will command not only a massive nuclear arsenal and the most robust military in history, but also the ability to wage numerous wars in secret and without congressional authorization; a ubiquitous system of electronic surveillance that can reach most forms of human communication and activity; and countless methods for shielding himself from judicial accountability, congressional oversight and the rule of law — exactly what the Constitution was created to prevent. Trump assumes the presidency “at the peak of its imperial powers,” as Foer put it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/11/glenn-greenwald-trump-will-have-vast-powers-he-can-thank-democrats-for-them/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.96f7c116a5d3

5 ( +7 / -2 )

as whatever the president's for "they seem to be against."

McConnell?

You really have to admire the hypocrisy the bubble gets away with. Kudos to them for creating such a void.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

You really have to admire the hypocrisy the bubble gets away with. Kudos to them for creating such a void.

Right. We're talking about a party that tries to pretend they are for immigration control, except for the fact that they actively blocked it from even being voted upon during the Obama administration.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

You really have to admire the hypocrisy the bubble gets away with. Kudos to them for creating such a void.

They have great message discipline. When you don't think deeply enough to care about consistency, you'll do a screeching 180 without batting an eye.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

"ping-pong diplomacy"

Ping-pong is an actual game, one that makes sense.

I think Trump's playing 4D chess, a game imagined by only a handful of his most faithful supporters, especially those with limited understandings of reality beyond 'Trump's my guy and I will follow him regardless how corrupt and inept he is'. In other words, Trump's playing a game imagined by those hearing voices. And those believing what's reported by Qanon, infowars, RT, etc.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

It’s ironic that Trump is motivating Congress to take back their rightful authority after all these years of unilateral executive actions.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Schumer also said that the American people are worried that U.S. and Iran are on a dangerous collision course and that even though Trump campaigned on not wanting to get the U.S. embroiled in wars he "may bumble us into one."

It's been two and a half years. So far so good, though we did have a scare last week when the Iranians shot down that drone. Trump showed once again he does not want war. He's going to continue the economic pressure.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Most representatives from both parties secretly like the president circumventing the congress on war and foreign policy decisions, because they are FOR war, and they get paid by the war lobbyists, but they know their constituents are AGAINST war, and if they have to vote on it, they would have to vote against, because otherwise they won't get re-elected. By not having to vote on wars and foreign interventions, they get to pretend they are against wars to get re-elected, while at the same time supporting war bills.

For this, and similar other reasons, many people have proposed term limits on congress. If you know you can't get re-elected more than twice, you won't be concerned with getting re-elected, but with doing what you believe is right. There are also loopholes that allows the president to circumvent the congress, those loopholes need to be removed, so every foreign intervention gets voted by the congress.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

It’s ironic that Trump is motivating Congress to take back their rightful authority after all these years of unilateral executive actions.

Why is it ironic. It seems to me to be prudent.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Trump showed once again he does not want war.

Remind me of the contents of the tweet about obliterating parts of Iran.

He's going to continue the economic pressure.

And when that ability runs out, what's the plan?

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Why is it ironic. It seems to me to be prudent.

Your bias is truely outstanding!

So the senate is worried about extreme powers available to a president, but has not done anything about it for years...

BTW, I do believe checks and balances are good, and this newfound concern is well overdue, but the irony couldn't be more 'in your face'...unless you're affected by a severe case of bias.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Ordering a specific or strategic strike on a Target militarily is very different to take a unilateral action over making a declaration of war which would indeed need the approval of Congress. I think a lot of people get the two conflated. I have no doubt that the president would without a doubt seek the approval of Congress if he were going to commit to a full scale war.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

One side always blaming the other. Doesn't matter which party is in power.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

And when that ability runs out, what's the plan?

Economic pressures ratchet up on its own, that's the nature of it. The country subjected to it will eventually loose all resources to be a threat, or they take their head out of the sand before too much damage is done. The perpetrator of the pressure doesn't have to do anything other than sitback and wait. You don't have a plan B when you apply the brakes in your car, you apply the pressure until the car stops or relieve it when the risk of collision is no longer there.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Economic pressures ratchet up on its own, that's the nature of it. The country subjected to it will eventually loose all resources to be a threat, or they take their head out of the sand before too much damage is done. The perpetrator of the pressure doesn't have to do anything other than sitback and wait. You don't have a plan B when you apply the brakes in your car, you apply the pressure until the car stops or relieve it when the risk of collision is no longer there.

Sounds good.

Do you think Iran will start enriching again? Seems like a good item to export.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Do you think Iran will start enriching again?

When does enrichment morph into a threat?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Trump called off a military strike 10 minutes beforehand because he claims he was told at that time (10 minutes beforehand) what the plan was. Something seriously effed up here. Either he's lying again or seriously incompetent and forgot what he had been told. And then tweets about it?

Still no Secretary of Defense.

This will not end well.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Remind me of the contents of the tweet about obliterating parts of Iran.

Did he say he wants to obliterate Iran? On the contrary he said he wants to make Iran great again.

He's going to continue the economic pressure.

And when that ability runs out, what's the plan?

That ability is not gonna run out, what makes you think it will?

Still no Secretary of Defense.

This is due to dumb congressional rules and a complicated situation. Shanahan is filling in until we get the permanent Sec. of Defense.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

This is due to dumb congressional rules and a complicated situation.

No it's not.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Mattis resigned/was fired 6 months ago.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

There is also no permanent chief of staff.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

SerranoToday  09:50 am JST

"Still no Secretary of Defense."

This is due to dumb congressional rules and a complicated situation.

It shouldn't be a problem for the greatest president in the history of the USA and a 34D chess master though, should it?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I guess Congress has begun to think that laying down on the job might no longer in their best interest.

If they actually decided to take their war powers back, it will be the best thing Trump ever did...albeit unintentionally. But I did say "if".

3 ( +3 / -0 )

It shouldn't be a problem for the greatest president in the history of the USA and a 34D chess master though, should it?

Maybe Al Sharpton would be up for the job, as long as he can’t get something out of it. Lol

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Remind me of the contents of the tweet about obliterating parts of Iran.

Did he say he wants to obliterate Iran? On the contrary he said he wants to make Iran great again.

Iran reacted furiously on Tuesday to a new set of sanctions imposed by Washington, including on Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, by accusing the US of suffering a "mental disability."

In response, Trump fired off an inflammatory swipe on Twitter, warning that some Iranian forces would face "obliteration" if it attacked any Americans.

He's going to continue the economic pressure.

And when that ability runs out, what's the plan?

That ability is not gonna run out, what makes you think it will?

Everything runs out with Trump - that's why he has six bankruptcies...

Still no Secretary of Defense.

This is due to dumb congressional rules and a complicated situation. Shanahan is filling in until we get the permanent Sec. of Defense.

Wrong and inaccurate on all levels. 1) The President has to appoint someone and that person is confirmed by the Senate - Congress can't do anything until that nomination. 2) Shanahan still Acting SECDEF? Someone doesn't keep with with events much, do they...

https://news.yahoo.com/shanahan-resigns-acting-defense-secretary-221806490.html

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It shouldn't be a problem for the greatest president in the history of the USA and a 34D chess master though, should it?

Maybe Al Sharpton would be up for the job, as long as he can’t get something out of it. Lol

I think you stumbled upon the truth - Trump likes him and he's an entertainment personality - and they have a long history of being NY buddies. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he nominates him. Good call.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/09/trumps-pal-al-sharpton/

1 ( +2 / -1 )

 "Trump Derangement Syndrome," which he explained as whatever the president's for "they seem to be against."

yes many do suffer from it, firstly Trump himself and all the minions that blindly follow his lead no matter how deranged , immoral , dangerous his decisions become. self proclaimed grim reaper McConnell the #1 Trump fanboy you suffers the most from this syndrome.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Remember when the democrats proposed this same legislation to prevent 44 from getting into war in Libya, Syria, etc.?

Yeah, me, neither.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Trump has no respect or care for the three pillars of government.

Democrats have zero respect for government period.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Iran reacted furiously on Tuesday to a new set of sanctions imposed by Washington, including on Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, by accusing the US of suffering a "mental disability."

I like what Pompeo said, no one cares what the Ayatollah thinks. Lol

Everything runs out with Trump - that's why he has six bankruptcies...

Hmmmm..don’t know what his bankruptcies have to do with anything, it’s like Obama saying, if you like your doctor you can keep him? Huh? So anyway....the Ayatollah....Yeah...lol

Wrong and inaccurate on all levels. 1) The President has to appoint someone and that person is confirmed by the Senate -

I think Sharpton would be good, he can shake people down.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Democrats have zero respect for government period.

bit rich coming from a supporter of a man who thinks an executive order should circumvent the government altogether. Mugabe , Hussein, Gadafi were good at that also, irony is they are no longer in power.

Hmmmm..don’t know what his bankruptcies have to do with anything, 

has everthing to do with it when your crow on how good of a business man and dealmaker you are

it’s like Obama saying, if you like your doctor you can keep him? Huh?

at least they had medical insurance under Obama, life saving medicine is a basic human right no just reserved for the wealthy.

the Ayatollah....Yeah...lol

unfortunealty the Ayatollah has the missiles to speak for him, how many US planes/drones have been flying over Iran recently!? Uranium enrichment is increasing not decreasing, sanctions not working , what next war!?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Iran reacted furiously on Tuesday to a new set of sanctions imposed by Washington, including on Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, by accusing the US of suffering a "mental disability."

I like what Pompeo said, no one cares what the Ayatollah thinks. Lol

Sometimes even despots stumble upon the truth...

Everything runs out with Trump - that's why he has six bankruptcies...

Hmmmm..don’t know what his bankruptcies have to do with anything, it’s like Obama saying, if you like your doctor you can keep him? Huh? So anyway....the Ayatollah....Yeah...lol

Says the guy who says Trump is a business genius...see the original comment "run out"...

Wrong and inaccurate on all levels. 1) The President has to appoint someone and that person is confirmed by the Senate -

I think Sharpton would be good, he can shake people down.

Hey, they're old best bids and he is a "TV Personality" - I think you called it right, Trump may select him. He just needs to promise to lie under oath and start practicing his Russian...

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Still no Secretary of Defense.

This is due to dumb congressional rules and a complicated situation. Shanahan is filling in until we get the permanent Sec. of Defense.

No it's not

Yes it is.

It shouldn't be a problem for the greatest president in the history of the USA and a 34D chess master though, should it?

Trump's not a dictator. Now don't you worry, he's going to get his permanent Sec. of Defense. In the meantime he'll keep building up the military which has fallen into disrepair under Obama.

Trump has no respect or care for the three pillars of government.

That statement has no basis in reality.

Trump has serious problems holding onto people. Even his press secretary has decided the job isn't worth it.

Sarah Sanders never said that, in fact she said the opposite. You need to walk that one back, zichi.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

War makes money for trump and his supporters. We can see u trump. Look , trump does not care abt anybody's life , only his own & his wealth.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Many different issues covered here. The primary was the war powers.

We are all aware that actual war power stayed with and is with congress.

The "military strike" response has been with the President. That is because he is the person that must "execute", take action and carry out, actually institute, put into practice what the mandates and the laws are within the authority given his Executive branch and position.

The President as with Congress and the Supreme Court has the primary mandate to "protect" the country which all 3 branches must uphold. (A country cannot exist unless protected.)

Congress can indeed "change" the authority and abilities of the President by many ways. But all 3 branches of government are for the "people" based upon the Constitution.

Congress can be as idealistic and be as biased as they want and wish, provided it is the actual mandate and will of the "citizens" they represent. However they must consider all such wishes not from the legal perspective only but from what the Constitution says as read and interpreted by the Supreme Court and act according to the Constitution and not according to their own beliefs or their own interpretation of the Constitution.

Congress also has the ability to make and change any laws, provided that it is Constitutional. The President have the ability to give orders, make policies and procedures appropriate to effectively carry out and execute the laws.

The President must be practical and pragmatic in order to "execute" his mandate to "run" the country on behalf of the Congress in line with the Constitution as is being read and interpreted by the Supreme Court.

So far all military action has been in response, except for some man hunt of terrorists which was based upon the declared "War on Terror" and preemptive strikes, supposedly to prevent an attack based upon the high degree of threat.

Trump has used both economic as well as military threat but has only used economic methods so far.

However when the threat from another is military or potentially physically devastating for the country, what tool or defense does he have?

Call it bullying, but history and even our own personal lives have proven that when appeasing fails, the only way to prevent any military threat is to be stronger and to threaten back. But that is meaningless and useless, unless that can be actually executed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites