I asked the question "why?" the other day and Rubio just told us all: ""The president made the very wise decision—we knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties."
So the correct answer was: a). Body bags for Bibi.
But wait, it gets worse, because trump can't help himself when he said this: “And sadly, there will likely be more before it ends. That’s the way it is.”
Sure, he expressed his grief for the fallen soldiers, but then he stuffed it all in the summary: "That's the way it is." Meh.
War and death aside (sounding trump-like), thanks for the history lesson Steve, you amaze me with your knowledge and one of the reasons i continue to follow The Racket.
If Trump could have made a good case then Congress may well have done so - but then he'd have to have decided on the reason(s) why this war was necessary now, and have had a real plan to execute it.
Instead we get conflicting reasons: we want the people to rise up, but we're willing to let the regime stay in place; knows who he wants to have take power, but they were killed at the onset. It does not generate confidence in the administration, along with their very glib statements about dead servicemembers.
We've got the Secretary of Defense saying that servicemembers killed by a missile were in a fortified location, but they were really in a trailer.
And now we're finding out that the FBI agents that Kash Patel fired for being involved in the Trump documents case were also tasked with Iranian counter-intelligence. That's yet more evidence of lack of coordination and planning on the part of the administration.
Let’s not be Pollyanna about Congress. There’s no chance they’d approve striking Iran with a massive operation no matter what Trump argued. Or any other recent president but especially Trump.
A persuasive argument about how the window for taking action is closing, and "here's the evidence that supports that determination" would be a good starting place for most people.
Check it out. We did not declare war against Iraq in 2003! We have not declared war since WWII, largely because Congress does not wish to give the President war powers. The Gang of Eight was notified as required by law.
And you are wrong in implying the trailer office space where the soldiers were killed as unfortified.
Sure, from a pedantic standpoint we "didn't declare war" - Congress did authorize the use of military force against Iraq, because GWB could not do so unilateraly.
The Gang of Eight is for oversight, not authorization.
Again, you should do some research. The President does not need congressional approval to take military action. Congress can vote for measures to stop the action and withhold funding.
The trailer is surrounded by concrete walls. There are almost zero military buildings designed to take a direct hit from above. I have actually worked in one of them. It had a very thick concrete roof and wall structure with an equally resistant second structure containing emergency diesel generators. The entire ventilation system was filtered using the best technology available.
Non-assimilation becomes a problem when the system is overwhelmed by millions of unvetted immigrants. The sheer numbers prevent them from assimilating in two or three generations. They concentrate in common locations; form voting blocs and become a pain in the rear. If only they were all like the Amish who vote only in limited numbers.
I asked the question "why?" the other day and Rubio just told us all: ""The president made the very wise decision—we knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties."
So the correct answer was: a). Body bags for Bibi.
But wait, it gets worse, because trump can't help himself when he said this: “And sadly, there will likely be more before it ends. That’s the way it is.”
Sure, he expressed his grief for the fallen soldiers, but then he stuffed it all in the summary: "That's the way it is." Meh.
War and death aside (sounding trump-like), thanks for the history lesson Steve, you amaze me with your knowledge and one of the reasons i continue to follow The Racket.
If Trump could have made a good case then Congress may well have done so - but then he'd have to have decided on the reason(s) why this war was necessary now, and have had a real plan to execute it.
Instead we get conflicting reasons: we want the people to rise up, but we're willing to let the regime stay in place; knows who he wants to have take power, but they were killed at the onset. It does not generate confidence in the administration, along with their very glib statements about dead servicemembers.
We've got the Secretary of Defense saying that servicemembers killed by a missile were in a fortified location, but they were really in a trailer.
And now we're finding out that the FBI agents that Kash Patel fired for being involved in the Trump documents case were also tasked with Iranian counter-intelligence. That's yet more evidence of lack of coordination and planning on the part of the administration.
Let’s not be Pollyanna about Congress. There’s no chance they’d approve striking Iran with a massive operation no matter what Trump argued. Or any other recent president but especially Trump.
That's not a good reason to ignore Congress, the people or the law Steve.
If a good case cannot be made, then we don't go into an offensive war.
I said that some are going to let the ends justify the means: will you be one of them?
What would you consider a good reason?
A persuasive argument about how the window for taking action is closing, and "here's the evidence that supports that determination" would be a good starting place for most people.
But that is not in the category of “a good reason to ignore Congress, the people or the law” as you commented. What would be a good reason to do that?
There isn't one.
Here you go...
https://x.com/Osint613/status/2028586674804973822
This changes things how, exactly? They didn't go to Congress to get approval for an offensive war, making the whole thing illegal.
It's illegal only because Trump did it. The last time we declared war was when we entered WWII.
Huh? We declared war on Iraq in 2003, with Congressional approval.
The old "two wrongs don't make a right" applies, Curtis. It's not wrong because Trump did it: it's wrong because it's wrong.
Check it out. We did not declare war against Iraq in 2003! We have not declared war since WWII, largely because Congress does not wish to give the President war powers. The Gang of Eight was notified as required by law.
And you are wrong in implying the trailer office space where the soldiers were killed as unfortified.
Sure, from a pedantic standpoint we "didn't declare war" - Congress did authorize the use of military force against Iraq, because GWB could not do so unilateraly.
The Gang of Eight is for oversight, not authorization.
A trailer is not fortified.
Again, you should do some research. The President does not need congressional approval to take military action. Congress can vote for measures to stop the action and withhold funding.
The trailer is surrounded by concrete walls. There are almost zero military buildings designed to take a direct hit from above. I have actually worked in one of them. It had a very thick concrete roof and wall structure with an equally resistant second structure containing emergency diesel generators. The entire ventilation system was filtered using the best technology available.
Non-assimilation becomes a problem when the system is overwhelmed by millions of unvetted immigrants. The sheer numbers prevent them from assimilating in two or three generations. They concentrate in common locations; form voting blocs and become a pain in the rear. If only they were all like the Amish who vote only in limited numbers.