'The worst briefing I've had': Senate Iran briefing gets heated

No, deflecting to Hillary exposes the hypocrisy of going after Trump on this deal.

 

Exactly right. But who cares if you're a democrat these days... because orangeman bad rules their collective. Kind of funny really...

 

It is? So why haven't the congress then addressed this? If, as you say, it is war, then we've been it's victim for almost 50 years. Seems the War Powers act did take that into account though, and it does appear that addressing imminent threat does, in fact, lie with the president. I know, CNN or MSNBC didn't tell you this, and crafted some ambitious lie that you fell for, but it doesn't then change the fact that this is what the current law allows.

 

Why are you defending those who kill americans here? Couching your intent with language about the veracity of the decision seems entirely transparent to the real issue being that somehow you support the actions of the now dead general and his little band of terrorists. That seems unseemly when you look at it in this light. So what gives?

 

I disagree.... Obviously most Democrats will oppose most anything Trump proposes, for obvious reasons.... he's demented.

Here, I feel the administration only needed to have a reasonable presentation of "imminent threat" and some reasonable amount of D's would have probably backed the CIA at least.

Was one of the lowest bars set so far and they couldn't hit it...

 

Do you have anything of substance to add or should we continue with semantics?

 

Based on the dissatisfaction represented by a story by CNN. Hmm.. You can see just how concerned I am...

 

Oh boy, you sure got'em. There will never be another terrorist attack, right? Do you even believe what you're shoveling?

 

Taking out the general showed the Iranians that we are not timid, and we will take action. The intent is to get them to stop out of their own self interest. That's how taking out the general stops them - by getting them to decide not to poke the grizzly.

 

Republicans are independent, critical thinkers who do not all glom together for the benefit of the collective. Sens. Lee and Paul are very strict Constitutionalists.

Both men expressed support for Trump's admirable restraint in terms of minimizing foreign aggression. Their disagreement is not with Trump, but with the people from the administration who briefed them on Iran. Lee is particularly ired by having the briefers tell them "Do no debate or discuss future aggression in Iran." Telling Congress, which has the power to declare war, not to debate future aggression is an insult and an affront to the Constitution. Normally, only Democrats demand groupthink and squelching individual thought for the "good of the [partisan] group".

Lee said he plans to talk to President Trump to find out if he was aware of the briefers' statements telling Senators not to debate.

Lee and Paul don't particularly care which party is in power if legislation is necessary to stop the current, or any future, President from going around Congress on future war acts. They aren't working "against Trump"; they are working "for the Constitution".

As @Seth Bullock mentioned, we don't want some total nutcase/warmonger, like Hillary, in office without having clear legislation that Congress needs to approve major escalations in war actions. We're fortunate that Trump has been a restrained President. Good time to "fix" what's broken, before some totalitarian jerk is in office.

What they really said, versus the crazy spin.

 

GT&OH, you can't possibly believe that. According to you, the iranians are crazy religious fanatical barbarians, right? So we take out a revered military leader and NOW they'll stand down? C'mon man!

 

I just again watched the clip of Mike Lee speaking after his briefing.... that was one dissatisfied dude...

Since I'm not getting a briefing here, I have to rely on the reactions of those that did... especially those that generally support this administration....

With me, it's not so much what was done as how it was decided... I know that sounds petty, but it all adds up in the end...

I think we are damn lucky not being at war this AM...

 

They were clearly working in the interest of Iran and not Iraq which is nothing but a puppet state of Iran. Thanks Obama.

 

So what. Libertarians always are upset by what they define as foreign entanglements. Tens shocked by a libertarian voicing this opinion.

BTW the US and Iran had behind the scenes communication. The Iranian missile attack was an orchestrated response to show retaliation with no loss of life.

 

I suppose Mike can rant and for that matter so can Rand. If they are dissatisfied, it's a choice. So, let's talk about what they might be dissatisfied with then. Are you suggesting that you believe that their reaction was solely based on your characterization of the justification used? Are you suggesting you have knowledge beyond having watched a snip of video that leads you to a conclusion that there is something significantly wrong with the intel that was disclosed to them, and not you, but by proxy through a video snippet.. This seems unlikely that you would be able to derive any of that, but let's go with the idea that perhaps you simply don't have sufficient information to make an informed decision. Then go from there.

 

True, but not remotely on topic or the point now, is it?

The Iranian's have also announced they are now full-tilt on a nuclear development program...

I was hoping the next D president in 2021 would get us back in the deal, but that's now gone...

Permanent damage...

 

I'm 99.9% sure that Obama went into another sovereign nation and killed OBL when there was NO imminent attack present using the war powers act and without notifying congress.

The only difference between yesterday and today, however, is that the democrats do not see Soleimani as a terrorist, even after ALL of his terrorist activities.

Point being, when your team does something, it's justified. When it's the other team doing the exact same thing, it's impeachable. I mean, it's beyond blatantly obvious that there is no good that can come from this president in your eyes. Only "can we find a way to impeach him for this?"!

 

~ I think Lee overreacted - almost reminded me of a Democrat ! `´ The Paul family also seem to be going too far with accusations - but they often do.
I don't recall Democrats making a fuss about Saint Obama when Congress was not notified before Bin Laden was assassinated.
Remember the "intervention" in Libya lasted almost 9 months to get Qaddafi.
Almost everyone wants the U.S. out of the middle east , but that will obviously take time.
Trump only did what should have been done years ago. I say "Congratulations."

~ There seems to be no problem. I have not heard of any Republicans moving over to the Democrats. Republicans are actually more unified than they have been in decades. Amazing as that is ...

 

In all this political hubris, we are taking our eyes off the main goal of being in that region, and that is to tackle Al Qaeda and ISIS. The attack on the Iranian general is done and can't be undone, that was Trump's choice, fine.

The real concern here, I have already stated this, is our continued operations against the fore mentioned groups. Trump needs to have a plan to ensure that is not lost, because if it is, then that strike against the Iranian general will cause more hard than good.

We cannot lose focus of that !!!!

 

Permanent damage to Soleimani and the Iranian global terrorism mission statement.

 

No worries. President Trump will have a solid new deal done in his second term.

 

That I will bet on... name the terms.....

 

Celebratory steak dinner because I do love a good steak?

 

I don't know. Probably, who doesn't love a good steak?

 

Look back two posts ago. I posted a link that will give you all the context you need.