Since American forces killed general Soleimani of Iran, the critics among Democrats and the media have all come out in droves.
At first, the talking point was that President Trump didn't have authority to launch this attack without Congressional approval. Democrats like Senator Murphy from my state of Connecticut said that the president needed to have a vote in Congress before he could proceed. Others parroted that view. That attack, however, lasted only a few hours. It became pretty clear almost immediately that this was a totally bogus criticism. The 2001 authorization for the use of military force that the Obama administration cited repeatedly as allowing the fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria and which the Bush Administration cited to fight militias in Iraq certainly covers a drone attack on the group with which Soleiman iwas meeting. The Iranian general was in Baghdad meeting with the leadership of the Shiite militias controlled by Iran in order to plan attacks in the near future on American targets. The whole group was taken out by the drones. In fact, the argument that the Dems were making was so flawed that they abandoned it quickly.
Of course, just because their first attack failed, it didn't stop the Dems from moving on to their next talking point. The big thing then became that the White House did not brief the congressional leadership before carrying out the attack. Senator Schumer even said in a speech on the senate floor that such a briefing was required by the Constitution. It was just another Schumer exaggeration (okay, a lie) because there is nothing in the Constitution about briefings or notice or anything of the sort. Schumer knows that, but he apparently can't help himself; he said it anyway. Meanwhile, Speaker Pelosi is also complaining about not being briefed. Other Dems are parroting the point and the media is pushing it again and again.
So is there any validity to this point? The simple answer is no for a variety of reasons.
First, there just wasn't time to do the briefing. American intelligence sources learned that there would be a planning meeting held by Soleimani and the militia leaders at the airport when these men were already on their way to the meeting. That gave the USA just a few hours to brief the White House, gt a decision on what to do and then to carry out the orders. Briefing congressional leaders would have caused a delay which would have made it impossible to carry out the attack. While it is a nicety to brief Congress, it is not something that is required by law before action is taken.
Second, there is no guarantee that were the congressional leaders told, the information would not have leaked out. Indeed, we know that John Kerry has been consulting with the Iranians on how to deal with the Trump administration. Might Schumer have called Kerry who would then have called the Iranians? It's far from a given, but it's also not outside the realm of possibility. The Dems clearly are upset at the success of Trump's order to take out Soleimani. Given their hatred for the President, nothing they would do to prevent Trump from having a success would surprise me.
Let's be fair. It was a remarkable feat by our military to take out the mass murderer and terrorist general Soleimani. It was a difficult decision to launch this attack, and President Trump acted quickly and wisely. Let's take a while to savor the success of US forces and this major defeat for the terrorists and Iran. The criticisms from the Dems is like dogs barking. No one is or should be listening to them.
At first, the talking point was that President Trump didn't have authority to launch this attack without Congressional approval. Democrats like Senator Murphy from my state of Connecticut said that the president needed to have a vote in Congress before he could proceed. Others parroted that view. That attack, however, lasted only a few hours. It became pretty clear almost immediately that this was a totally bogus criticism. The 2001 authorization for the use of military force that the Obama administration cited repeatedly as allowing the fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria and which the Bush Administration cited to fight militias in Iraq certainly covers a drone attack on the group with which Soleiman iwas meeting. The Iranian general was in Baghdad meeting with the leadership of the Shiite militias controlled by Iran in order to plan attacks in the near future on American targets. The whole group was taken out by the drones. In fact, the argument that the Dems were making was so flawed that they abandoned it quickly.
Of course, just because their first attack failed, it didn't stop the Dems from moving on to their next talking point. The big thing then became that the White House did not brief the congressional leadership before carrying out the attack. Senator Schumer even said in a speech on the senate floor that such a briefing was required by the Constitution. It was just another Schumer exaggeration (okay, a lie) because there is nothing in the Constitution about briefings or notice or anything of the sort. Schumer knows that, but he apparently can't help himself; he said it anyway. Meanwhile, Speaker Pelosi is also complaining about not being briefed. Other Dems are parroting the point and the media is pushing it again and again.
So is there any validity to this point? The simple answer is no for a variety of reasons.
First, there just wasn't time to do the briefing. American intelligence sources learned that there would be a planning meeting held by Soleimani and the militia leaders at the airport when these men were already on their way to the meeting. That gave the USA just a few hours to brief the White House, gt a decision on what to do and then to carry out the orders. Briefing congressional leaders would have caused a delay which would have made it impossible to carry out the attack. While it is a nicety to brief Congress, it is not something that is required by law before action is taken.
Second, there is no guarantee that were the congressional leaders told, the information would not have leaked out. Indeed, we know that John Kerry has been consulting with the Iranians on how to deal with the Trump administration. Might Schumer have called Kerry who would then have called the Iranians? It's far from a given, but it's also not outside the realm of possibility. The Dems clearly are upset at the success of Trump's order to take out Soleimani. Given their hatred for the President, nothing they would do to prevent Trump from having a success would surprise me.
Let's be fair. It was a remarkable feat by our military to take out the mass murderer and terrorist general Soleimani. It was a difficult decision to launch this attack, and President Trump acted quickly and wisely. Let's take a while to savor the success of US forces and this major defeat for the terrorists and Iran. The criticisms from the Dems is like dogs barking. No one is or should be listening to them.
No comments:
Post a Comment