Marco Rubio -- Secretary of Many Things -- briefed the "Gang of 8" Congresscritters about the war on Iran the same day that the President gave his State of the Union address. After that, Chuck Schumer made only this statement to the press: "This is very serious. The President will have to make his case to the American people."
This is in accord with his unstated but clear theory that, having won the election in a landslide, he has a popular mandate to govern however he sees fit for the four years of the term. He sees no need to check in even about major decisions like overthrowing a longstanding enemy government (in fairness: one that has been at war with us, at least, since 1979; one that killed hundreds of Marines at the barracks bombing in Lebanon, and thousands of Americans in the Iraq war via its proxy networks).
Most or all of you are old enough to remember the alternative approach used to start the Iraq War. There was a long period of time in which George W. Bush and his administration sold America on the war, and sought Congressional authorization. Bush also claimed to believe in the 'unitary executive' theory, but he recognized limits on presidential power that Trump simply isn't interested in recognizing.
Of course, the Bush administration lied to us to sell that war. I can’t decide if this is better or worse than selling us, but with lies. No lies here! Trump just doesn’t care what anyone else thinks.
5 comments:
I get where you are coming from but I think it is important to note that there's nothing new about Trump's attitude towards Iran.
In a 1987 speech in New Hampshire, Trump suggested, in the words of The New York Times, that the United States should “attack Iran and seize some of its oil fields in retaliation for … Iran’s bullying of America.”
In 1988, Trump told The Guardian, “I’d be harsh on Iran. They’ve been beating us psychologically, making us look a bunch of fools. One bullet shot at one of our men or ships and I’d do a number on Kharg Island,” an Iranian oil hub.
In 2000, Trump complained again about how Jimmy Carter had handled Iran and said that as president he would “believe very strongly in extreme military strength.”
In 2007, Trump said, after being asked what he’d do if he were president, “First, I’d try and solve the problems in the Middle East.”
In 2011, Trump told Bill O’Reilly, “I wouldn’t let them have a nuke”—referring to Iran. He then dismissed Barack Obama as a “weak president that kisses everybody’s ass.”
In 2020, after killing General Qasem Soleimani, Trump warned that any retaliation from Iran would result in his hitting Iranian cultural sites “very fast and very hard.”
In 2024, after intelligence officials told Trump that Iran was attempting to assassinate him, Trump declared, “An attack on a former President is a Death Wish for the attacker!” (link to article at Compact)
Since the recent protests started in Iran Trump has been vocal in his assurances that support would be supplied to the protestors. I don't know that it is fair to pick one specific speech that didn't include direct comments that an operation focused on Iran was imminent and then claim he hasn't made his position well known.
I think there's also a significant difference between the operations ongoing in Iran (so far) and the invasion of Iraq beyond the consistency of Trump's rhetoric. The Iraq operation almost demanded justification because of the much wider scope contemplated, specifically the actual occupation of the country by American and coalition ground forces, and that Saddam had been much less belligerent towards the US and Israel prior to commencement of hostilities. While he was obviously a sponsor of terrorist actions, my understanding is there was no specific Iraqi involvement in the 9/11 attacks even if there were other justifications for the operation.
I'm not quite sure where you are going with the reference to a unitary executive. As I understand it, the main point of disagreement regarding war powers is not whether the President can command the armed forces but the extent to which Congress needs to authorize specific operations.
Why forewarn the enemy?
Trying to convince the American people ahead of time. Hmm. I imagine there would immediately be a leftist counteroffensive dominating the media.
Perhaps he is tired of seeing the US lose due to internal opposition.
Raven, if the enemy wasn't forewarned by the movement of two carrier groups and half our of B2s to the region, they weren't competent enough to be much of a threat!
Christopher, I mean that GWB would have agreed with Chuck Schumer's assumption that he needed to go to the people and seek permission -- as well as authority from the people's representatives. Trump's view of his authority as executive is much broader. His notion of what the powers of a 'unitary executive' are is essentially that he's the President, and that's that. Congress only counts when there's a clear Article I issue, which apparently doesn't mean 'declaring war.' The people have already spoken, in 2024, and needn't be consulted again until 2028.
We're meant to be a self-governing people. I don't think I like the idea of a presidency that doesn't even think it matters what the people think between elections. On the other hand, I also really didn't appreciate being lied to by Colin Powell on Bush's behalf. Neither of these approaches is fully satisfactory; I'm not sure which one is worse.
Remember Congress declaring war on the Barbary pirates? Me neither, because they didn't.
And holding another nation's diplomats hostage for over a year is already a declaration of war.
I'm with Raven. Iran had every reason to know what Trump might do, but the strike opportunity didn't necessarily include an extra few days to jawbone on TV in the hopes that the extraordinary meeting of top officials wouldn't be canceled. In any case, any Americans who weren't yet familiar with why the strike made sense weren't likely to come on board if the details and the exact timing were communicated one more time in advance. Now we can judge from results.
Post a Comment