Steve - what your thoughts on the munitions we're using to wage this war and what those depleted stocks might signal about our ability to defend Taiwan from a Chinese incursion?
Is there something there, or is it a nothingburger?
Neither. It’s not a nothingburger. But it’s not critical either. We are burning maybe .5 to 1% of operational missile stocks per day for Tomahawk and Patriot-3. Standard SM-3 missiles are being shot at a much higher rate so we have maybe 2 weeks of sustained naval operations in the high threat environment before we have to rearm. We either have to suppress all the launchers or move the assets. The SM-3 is the short wick.
I'm done with arguing about Presidential authority other than to repeat what my government class professor said 65 years ago: "He can do whatever he wishes until someone stops him".
I just hope we are learning a lesson on the danger of drone swarms and how to neutralize them.
Reading the comments below i see the window to our future...dueling AI's. Cool; kind of.
With that out of the way, let me look backward to that old standby line: "All politician's lie." Some more than others, but realistically, most twisted, tweaked and turned the truth on a more minimal basis. George Santos aside.
All of that changed with trump. He refined and defined the art of the lie. It wasn't hard, he had spent his entire life spewing BS with little or no push back. Of course, back in the day, he wasn't seated in the most powerful/prestigious position in the world.
He was just a way above grade grifter, con artist and philanderer that coincidentally was exceptional at marketing himself. The rubes loved him and he told them, he loved them back.
Which brings us full circle to the header; "gaslighting." It begs the question, who is gaslighting whom? Based on the article, it appears everyone. But, are they? When i open the Racket News or The Bulwark, am i being "lied" to? I don't think so, because what i read are opinions, not lies.
Which brings me even to a deeper thought process: I see sites like this one and The Bulwark becoming even larger forums (dare i say critical) where real arguments, legitimate debates and even the "news" is more fairly presented.
Here's why; after the Ellison debacle, CNN will become FOX-lite. Truth will matter little as MSM tries to curry favor with the guy in the White House. Even i have grown weary of MSNOW and am searching for more realistic options where gaslighting isn't the norm, where i am not being lied to and where we can openly question one another.
I used to be a fan of The Dispatch[1] as a source of people providing opinions in honest and good faith. I unsubscribed as I ran out of newsletter-reading-time, but I still hold them in high regard.
As for the AI wars, I'm just sitting back and watching them, and wondering how the JusticeRobertsGPT will end up eventually interpreting the War Powers Resolution, and I can see that going any of six different ways.
I hate to begin to consider the Roberts/SCOTUS options Chris, it makes my head hurt. Never followed The Dispatch, as my goal was to leave it all behind after retiring (23 years ago). Damn, i am a miserable failure in that regard.
That said, i do limit my choices with the The Racket News and The Bulwark my primaries. I catch about an hour of MS NOW, but by then i am tired of the same old talking heads and the same disclosure on being unbiased.
I originally found Steve and David when they were hanging with EE. I still get Erick's free morning email blast and most often just delete it. What is fascinating is how far those three have drifted from their early writings.
Clearly The Bulwark has found a way to monetize their project and frankly i am delighted to support it. Their comment section is worth the price of admission. I see David and Steve toying with the idea, and some day soon i suspect that will be a choice i will have to make.
You're wrong about the War Powers Act, and considering you saw this yesterday one has to wonder if it's intentional lying at this point. Again, from section 1541 of the act (the very first part of it:
"(c)Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
Note that it specifically says "only pursuant to" three specific scenarios, and does not give any other power to commit forces. The 60-day threshold is about when forces are committed outside the first two scenarios, which are Congress declaring war or providing an AUMF - AKA "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
I am not wrong and not lying. Section 1541 is functionally a preamble. It creates no requirements. Those are created in section 1542 creates a “duty to consult Congress” and 1543 has the 48-hour rule. Section 1544 is the 60-day clock with a 30-day withdrawal extension.
What the heck are you talking about? 1541 is explicit in spelling out the three scenarios in which POTUS can commit forces: everything else follows from there.
You can just state you don't care if it's illegal.
Steve, you know you're wrong and refuse to admit it. Why don't you go query your favorite AI with "does section 1541 of the war powers resolution of 1973 limit when the president may deploy forces"?
The fact remains that it constrains the president's ability to commit forces to three specific scenarios, and requires reporting and places time limits if those forces are committed due to an emergency from attack on the US.
While common summaries often say the President has "60 days of free war," a strict reading of the law supports your point: the 60-day clock is not a general grant of power for any deployment.
The Legal Conflict
Section 1541(c) (The Restriction): This section explicitly states that the President's constitutional powers as Commander-in-Chief to introduce forces into hostilities are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency created by an attack.
Section 1544(b) (The Clock): This section mandates that the President terminate any use of forces within 60 days unless Congress authorizes them.
Why this matters
If a President deploys forces for a "war of choice" (one not triggered by an attack on the U.S.), they are technically acting outside the authority defined in Section 1541(c) from day one. In this view:
The deployment is unauthorized immediately because it doesn't meet the "emergency" or "prior authorization" criteria.
The 60-day clock in Section 1544(b) acts as a secondary backstop—an "automatic termination" clause designed to force an end to any unauthorized hostilities, whether they were originally "legal" under the emergency provision or not.
Executive Branch Interpretation
In practice, Presidents often bypass your strict reading by arguing that Article II of the Constitution gives them inherent authority to deploy forces for "national interests" (like the 2011 intervention in Libya or various airstrikes). They then use the 60-day window in Section 1544 as a "safe harbor" period, arguing that as long as they stop before 60 days, they have complied with the Resolution's procedural requirements, even if the deployment wasn't triggered by a direct attack.
I am not going to engage in AI wars with you. Find a real breathing lawyer. Are there any reading on the site who care to comment on the War Powers Resolution?
Why does OAN have a pedophile druggie hosting a show?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0mvpmnm9gno
They tolerate it. And for money. I don’t watch that network. Ever.
Steve - what your thoughts on the munitions we're using to wage this war and what those depleted stocks might signal about our ability to defend Taiwan from a Chinese incursion?
Is there something there, or is it a nothingburger?
Neither. It’s not a nothingburger. But it’s not critical either. We are burning maybe .5 to 1% of operational missile stocks per day for Tomahawk and Patriot-3. Standard SM-3 missiles are being shot at a much higher rate so we have maybe 2 weeks of sustained naval operations in the high threat environment before we have to rearm. We either have to suppress all the launchers or move the assets. The SM-3 is the short wick.
I'm done with arguing about Presidential authority other than to repeat what my government class professor said 65 years ago: "He can do whatever he wishes until someone stops him".
I just hope we are learning a lesson on the danger of drone swarms and how to neutralize them.
True
Reading the comments below i see the window to our future...dueling AI's. Cool; kind of.
With that out of the way, let me look backward to that old standby line: "All politician's lie." Some more than others, but realistically, most twisted, tweaked and turned the truth on a more minimal basis. George Santos aside.
All of that changed with trump. He refined and defined the art of the lie. It wasn't hard, he had spent his entire life spewing BS with little or no push back. Of course, back in the day, he wasn't seated in the most powerful/prestigious position in the world.
He was just a way above grade grifter, con artist and philanderer that coincidentally was exceptional at marketing himself. The rubes loved him and he told them, he loved them back.
Which brings us full circle to the header; "gaslighting." It begs the question, who is gaslighting whom? Based on the article, it appears everyone. But, are they? When i open the Racket News or The Bulwark, am i being "lied" to? I don't think so, because what i read are opinions, not lies.
Which brings me even to a deeper thought process: I see sites like this one and The Bulwark becoming even larger forums (dare i say critical) where real arguments, legitimate debates and even the "news" is more fairly presented.
Here's why; after the Ellison debacle, CNN will become FOX-lite. Truth will matter little as MSM tries to curry favor with the guy in the White House. Even i have grown weary of MSNOW and am searching for more realistic options where gaslighting isn't the norm, where i am not being lied to and where we can openly question one another.
Sorry for the length, now back to AI wars.
I used to be a fan of The Dispatch[1] as a source of people providing opinions in honest and good faith. I unsubscribed as I ran out of newsletter-reading-time, but I still hold them in high regard.
As for the AI wars, I'm just sitting back and watching them, and wondering how the JusticeRobertsGPT will end up eventually interpreting the War Powers Resolution, and I can see that going any of six different ways.
[1] https://thedispatch.com/
I hate to begin to consider the Roberts/SCOTUS options Chris, it makes my head hurt. Never followed The Dispatch, as my goal was to leave it all behind after retiring (23 years ago). Damn, i am a miserable failure in that regard.
That said, i do limit my choices with the The Racket News and The Bulwark my primaries. I catch about an hour of MS NOW, but by then i am tired of the same old talking heads and the same disclosure on being unbiased.
I originally found Steve and David when they were hanging with EE. I still get Erick's free morning email blast and most often just delete it. What is fascinating is how far those three have drifted from their early writings.
Clearly The Bulwark has found a way to monetize their project and frankly i am delighted to support it. Their comment section is worth the price of admission. I see David and Steve toying with the idea, and some day soon i suspect that will be a choice i will have to make.
I'll click on your link; thanks....i think.
You're wrong about the War Powers Act, and considering you saw this yesterday one has to wonder if it's intentional lying at this point. Again, from section 1541 of the act (the very first part of it:
"(c)Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
Note that it specifically says "only pursuant to" three specific scenarios, and does not give any other power to commit forces. The 60-day threshold is about when forces are committed outside the first two scenarios, which are Congress declaring war or providing an AUMF - AKA "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
For those that want to read the War Powers Resolution in context, go to https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-33.
I am not wrong and not lying. Section 1541 is functionally a preamble. It creates no requirements. Those are created in section 1542 creates a “duty to consult Congress” and 1543 has the 48-hour rule. Section 1544 is the 60-day clock with a 30-day withdrawal extension.
What the heck are you talking about? 1541 is explicit in spelling out the three scenarios in which POTUS can commit forces: everything else follows from there.
You can just state you don't care if it's illegal.
Check your legal sources. That’s all I can tell you. Find a lawyer and ask.
Steve, you know you're wrong and refuse to admit it. Why don't you go query your favorite AI with "does section 1541 of the war powers resolution of 1973 limit when the president may deploy forces"?
The fact remains that it constrains the president's ability to commit forces to three specific scenarios, and requires reporting and places time limits if those forces are committed due to an emergency from attack on the US.
For funsies, here's Gemini:
While common summaries often say the President has "60 days of free war," a strict reading of the law supports your point: the 60-day clock is not a general grant of power for any deployment.
The Legal Conflict
Section 1541(c) (The Restriction): This section explicitly states that the President's constitutional powers as Commander-in-Chief to introduce forces into hostilities are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency created by an attack.
Section 1544(b) (The Clock): This section mandates that the President terminate any use of forces within 60 days unless Congress authorizes them.
Why this matters
If a President deploys forces for a "war of choice" (one not triggered by an attack on the U.S.), they are technically acting outside the authority defined in Section 1541(c) from day one. In this view:
The deployment is unauthorized immediately because it doesn't meet the "emergency" or "prior authorization" criteria.
The 60-day clock in Section 1544(b) acts as a secondary backstop—an "automatic termination" clause designed to force an end to any unauthorized hostilities, whether they were originally "legal" under the emergency provision or not.
Executive Branch Interpretation
In practice, Presidents often bypass your strict reading by arguing that Article II of the Constitution gives them inherent authority to deploy forces for "national interests" (like the 2011 intervention in Libya or various airstrikes). They then use the 60-day window in Section 1544 as a "safe harbor" period, arguing that as long as they stop before 60 days, they have complied with the Resolution's procedural requirements, even if the deployment wasn't triggered by a direct attack.
I am not going to engage in AI wars with you. Find a real breathing lawyer. Are there any reading on the site who care to comment on the War Powers Resolution?