hotair--2020-01-06--SecDef contradicts Trump on targeting Iranian cultural sites: We'll follow the laws of armed conflic

SecDef contradicts Trump on targeting Iranian cultural sites: We'll follow the laws of armed conflict

An especially weird reminder that the president should be taken seriously , not literally , and usually not all that seriously .
Even according to his own advisors .
How did we end up in a situation where the U.S. secretary of defense is being asked if he ’ d commit war crimes ?
The problem started Saturday on Twitter , as most American political problems tend to do these days : Mike Pompeo was asked about that last tweet during his TV interviews on Sunday morning .
Are you really going to target Iranian cultural sites like Persepolis ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ insisted .
Trump didn ’ t really mean he ’ d bomb cultural sites .
A few hours later , the president clarified that of course he meant every word : “ They ’ re allowed to kill our people , they ’ re allowed to torture and maim our people , they ’ re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people – and we ’ re not allowed to touch their cultural site ?
It doesn ’ t work that way.
” Now here ’ s Esper having to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ despite what Trump might want , we won ’ t target Iranian cultural sites .
It ’ s a “ seriously , not literally ” moment in that I don ’ t think he really cares about hitting Iranian ruins and monuments , certainly not enough to insist upon it once Pompeo and Esper make a fuss and his lawyers start giving him the usual “ no , we can ’ t do that sir , it ’ s illegal ” talk .
It ’ s not the cultural sites per se that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s wanting to communicate to Iran that he ’ s willing to hit them so hard if they retaliate for Soleimani ’ s killing that he ’ ll cross red lines to do it .
It ’ s a scare tactic .
Partially .
But Trump has also always instinctively believed that problems , particularly in matters of war , could be solved much more easily with a little more “ toughness , ” a little more intimidation , a little more cruelty if necessary .
This goes all the way back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that he ’ d target the families of terrorists .
He supported waterboarding at the time too , although James Mattis appeared to have talked him out of trying to bring that back .
( That ’ s another “ seriously , not literally ” moment , as I ’ m unaware of any meaningful attempt by Trump to reinstate that policy as president . )
Two months ago he sprung a soldier from Leavenworth who ’ d been convicted of second-degree murder for ordering his troops to shoot at unarmed men @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The idea that we need to be much , much harsher with people who cause problems for us shows up in other contexts too .
He makes no secret of admiring displays of ruthlessness by foreign regimes either .
Tiananmen Square was “ vicious ” and “ horrible , ” he said in an interview in the early 1990s , but it restored order .
“ That shows you the power of strength .
Our country is right now perceived as weak , ” he added .
The most revealing thing I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tough with the enemy , though , was when he talked about waterboarding terrorists as a candidate in 2015 and started riffing on whether it actually works to produce reliable intelligence or not .
Hey , he concluded — even if it doesn ’ t work , they deserved it anyway .
That ’ s the Trumpist worldview in a nutshell .
Your enemies in any given situation are heinous people who can only be deterred by behaving as badly as they do , but even if they end up not being deterred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with them anyway because it feels good to give them what they deserve .
It ’ s feelgood ruthlessness with deterrence as the fig leaf .
Same with targeting Iran ’ s cultural sites .
Maybe the threat will deter them and maybe it won ’ t , but given all the misery that regime has visited upon the world , wouldn ’ t it feel good to lay waste to some Persian ruin and watch Iranians weep over the loss of their cultural treasure ?
There ’ s no logical strategic reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ targeting a munitions factory .
It ’ s simply a way to convey to the population that you hold them and their culture in contempt and would be content with seeing all traces of them wiped away .
( It ’ s no coincidence that the Taliban favors this tactic . )
It would naturally wound the average Iranian ’ s pride and galvanize them to fight on , which is especially stupid in this case given that U.S. officials ( including Trump ) usually take care to distinguish their respect for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governing regime .
“ Nothing rallies people like the deliberate destruction of beloved cultural sites .
Whether ISIS ’ s destruction of religious monuments or the burning of the Leuven Library in WWI , history shows targeting locations giving civilization meaning is not only immoral but self-defeating , ” said a senior U.S. official to CNN , criticizing Trump ’ s proposal , and he ’ s right .
It would be self-sabotaging , prolonging a war and ensuring bitter feelings afterward that would make rapprochement with Iran harder .
And it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that prides itself on behaving honorably and lawfully , with gratuitous cruelty .
But it would feel good , so of course Trump likes the idea .
Here ’ s Pete Hegseth , a key influence on Trump in pardoning accused war criminals , insisting that he doesn ’ t care about bombing Iranian cultural sites because they ’ d happily do the same to American cultural sites .
That ’ s true , a barbarian like Soleimani would .
Whether most Iranians would is a separate question , especially after months of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Hitler would have gassed every last Jew but you won ’ t find many Jews eager to gas every last German in response .
You can be better than your enemy and still win .

An especially weird reminder that the president should be taken seriously, not literally, and usually not all that seriously. Even according to his own advisors.
.@barbarastarrcnn: “Could you both say whether you are willing to target cultural sites?” .@EsperDoD: “We will follow the laws of armed conflict.” Starr: “And that means no, because targeting a cultural site is a war crime?” Esper: “That’s the laws of armed conflict.” — Ryan Struyk (@ryanstruyk) January 6, 2020
How did we end up in a situation where the U.S. secretary of defense is being asked if he’d commit war crimes? The problem started Saturday on Twitter, as most American political problems tend to do these days:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213593965838163968
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213593975732527112
Mike Pompeo was asked about that last tweet during his TV interviews on Sunday morning. Are you really going to target Iranian cultural sites like Persepolis? No, no, no, Pompeo insisted. Trump didn’t really mean he’d bomb cultural sites. A few hours later, the president clarified that of course he meant every word: “They’re allowed to kill our people, they’re allowed to torture and maim our people, they’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people – and we’re not allowed to touch their cultural site? It doesn’t work that way.”
Now here’s Esper having to clarify that, no, really, despite what Trump might want, we won’t target Iranian cultural sites.
It’s a “seriously, not literally” moment in that I don’t think he really cares about hitting Iranian ruins and monuments, certainly not enough to insist upon it once Pompeo and Esper make a fuss and his lawyers start giving him the usual “no, we can’t do that sir, it’s illegal” talk. It’s not the cultural sites per se that he’s interested in, it’s wanting to communicate to Iran that he’s willing to hit them so hard if they retaliate for Soleimani’s killing that he’ll cross red lines to do it. It’s a scare tactic. Partially.
But Trump has also always instinctively believed that problems, particularly in matters of war, could be solved much more easily with a little more “toughness,” a little more intimidation, a little more cruelty if necessary. This goes all the way back to the campaign trail, when he said that he’d target the families of terrorists. He supported waterboarding at the time too, although James Mattis appeared to have talked him out of trying to bring that back. (That’s another “seriously, not literally” moment, as I’m unaware of any meaningful attempt by Trump to reinstate that policy as president.) Two months ago he sprung a soldier from Leavenworth who’d been convicted of second-degree murder for ordering his troops to shoot at unarmed men riding on a motorcycle in Afghanistan. The idea that we need to be much, much harsher with people who cause problems for us shows up in other contexts too.
Privately, the president had often talked about fortifying a border wall with a water-filled trench, stocked with snakes or alligators, prompting aides to seek a cost estimate. He wanted the wall electrified, with spikes on top that could pierce human flesh. After publicly suggesting that soldiers shoot migrants if they threw rocks, the president backed off when his staff told him that was illegal. But later in a meeting, aides recalled, he suggested that they shoot migrants in the legs to slow them down. That’s not allowed either, they told him.
He makes no secret of admiring displays of ruthlessness by foreign regimes either. Tiananmen Square was “vicious” and “horrible,” he said in an interview in the early 1990s, but it restored order. “That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak,” he added. The most revealing thing I’ve ever heard him say about getting tough with the enemy, though, was when he talked about waterboarding terrorists as a candidate in 2015 and started riffing on whether it actually works to produce reliable intelligence or not. Hey, he concluded — even if it doesn’t work, they deserved it anyway. That’s the Trumpist worldview in a nutshell. Your enemies in any given situation are heinous people who can only be deterred by behaving as badly as they do, but even if they end up not being deterred, it’s worth being harsh with them anyway because it feels good to give them what they deserve. It’s feelgood ruthlessness with deterrence as the fig leaf.
Same with targeting Iran’s cultural sites. Maybe the threat will deter them and maybe it won’t, but given all the misery that regime has visited upon the world, wouldn’t it feel good to lay waste to some Persian ruin and watch Iranians weep over the loss of their cultural treasure? There’s no logical strategic reason to do something like, as with targeting a munitions factory. It’s simply a way to convey to the population that you hold them and their culture in contempt and would be content with seeing all traces of them wiped away. (It’s no coincidence that the Taliban favors this tactic.) It would naturally wound the average Iranian’s pride and galvanize them to fight on, which is especially stupid in this case given that U.S. officials (including Trump) usually take care to distinguish their respect for the Iranian people from their disgust at the governing regime. “Nothing rallies people like the deliberate destruction of beloved cultural sites. Whether ISIS’s destruction of religious monuments or the burning of the Leuven Library in WWI, history shows targeting locations giving civilization meaning is not only immoral but self-defeating,” said a senior U.S. official to CNN, criticizing Trump’s proposal, and he’s right. It would be self-sabotaging, prolonging a war and ensuring bitter feelings afterward that would make rapprochement with Iran harder. And it would task the U.S. military, a force that prides itself on behaving honorably and lawfully, with gratuitous cruelty.
But it would feel good, so of course Trump likes the idea.
Here’s Pete Hegseth, a key influence on Trump in pardoning accused war criminals, insisting that he doesn’t care about bombing Iranian cultural sites because they’d happily do the same to American cultural sites. That’s true, a barbarian like Soleimani would. Whether most Iranians would is a separate question, especially after months of mass protests against the regime last year. Hitler would have gassed every last Jew but you won’t find many Jews eager to gas every last German in response. You can be better than your enemy and still win.


hotair--2020-01-06--Kennedy wife announces challenge against Van Drew for NJ seat

The wife of former Rep. Patrick Kennedy ( son of Ted ) has jumped into the Democrat primary for the 2nd district in New Jersey .
If that district sounds familiar , it is because it was in the news a lot at the end of 2019 .
Rep. Jeff Van Drew currently represents the district .
He switched from the Democrat Party to the GOP in December .
Van Drew has drawn several challengers on the Democrat side .
Now the Kennedy dynasty is entering the race with one of their own .
Amy Kennedy released a video announcing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in that video is a candidate who knows exactly who she needs to win over to get elected – other women .
She goes straight to our “ moral compass ” with a photo of Van Drew and Trump .
She includes the soccer mom lingo of showing kindness , treat others with respect , and show compassion .
All of this is heard in every household with kids every day .
Then she pivots to the economy .
She says people in south Jersey can ’ t find jobs .
According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ south New Jersey than the northern part of the state where it is more industrialized .
The ‘ richest corporations ” she references are located further north .
South New Jersey is more rural and always has been .
Back in my college days , my first roommate was from Bridgeton .
Her family owned a farm and her parents were active Republicans .
In other words , it is traditionally a conservative part of New Jersey .
Apparently , Kennedy thinks that inserting some far-left class warfare into the race is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the deregulation of the energy industry and mentions climate change .
She ’ s really checking off all the boxes , isn ’ t she ?
She goes on to mention the mental health and addiction epidemic , too .
“ We continue to ignore the biggest public health emergency of our time — the mental health and addiction crisis that affects virtually every family.
” Well , at least she didn ’ t succumb to the opinion of the most woke among us and say that climate change is the biggest emergency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come later .
The video overall will certainly appeal to the audience for which she strives .
She ’ s a former teacher and the mother of five .
She ’ s the mom next door .
She can fight the patriarchy and the bad Orange Man without breaking a sweat .
Liberal voters are not prone to hold Kennedys morally accountable as they do conservatives .
Conservatives see the irony of a Kennedy lecturing about the loss of morality in public life but liberals do not .
We only have to look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see that .
Mrs. Kennedy faces some competition in the Democrat primary , though none have the advantage of the Kennedy name , so there ’ s that .
Brigid Callahan Harrison , a professor who teaches political science at Montclair State University , announced her candidacy the same week Mr. Van Drew said he would join the Republicans , a shift that prompted most of his staff members to quit .
Professor Harrison was quickly endorsed by many of the Democratic Party leaders in the district who hold sway over whose name @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coveted ballot line .
Ashley Bennett , a freeholder representing Atlantic County who appeared on the cover of Time magazine with other progressive women , also has announced she would run for the Democratic nomination for the congressional seat .
Ms. Bennett has said she intends to focus on issues affecting New Jersey ’ s working class , and is likely to draw support from the state ’ s increasingly active grass-roots organizations .
John Francis III , a commissioner in West Cape May , and Robert Turkavage , a former F.B.I .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican Party to the Democratic Party , have also announced they will run in the Democratic primary .
We ’ ll see if the voters in New Jersey wish to continue on with the Kennedy dynasty with one of their own representatives in Congress .
Trump won the district by 5 points in 2016 .
No doubt he will campaign for Van Drew if necessary .
NOTE : A previous version of this article incorrectly identified the candidate as the ex-wife of former Rep. Patrick Kennedy .
This has been corrected .

The wife of former Rep. Patrick Kennedy (son of Ted) has jumped into the Democrat primary for the 2nd district in New Jersey. If that district sounds familiar, it is because it was in the news a lot at the end of 2019. Rep. Jeff Van Drew currently represents the district. He switched from the Democrat Party to the GOP in December.
Van Drew has drawn several challengers on the Democrat side. Now the Kennedy dynasty is entering the race with one of their own. Amy Kennedy released a video announcing her candidacy Monday.
What I see in that video is a candidate who knows exactly who she needs to win over to get elected – other women. She goes straight to our “moral compass” with a photo of Van Drew and Trump. She includes the soccer mom lingo of showing kindness, treat others with respect, and show compassion. All of this is heard in every household with kids every day. Then she pivots to the economy. She says people in south Jersey can’t find jobs. According to this chart, unemployment is higher in south New Jersey than the northern part of the state where it is more industrialized. The ‘richest corporations” she references are located further north. South New Jersey is more rural and always has been. Back in my college days, my first roommate was from Bridgeton. Her family owned a farm and her parents were active Republicans. In other words, it is traditionally a conservative part of New Jersey. Apparently, Kennedy thinks that inserting some far-left class warfare into the race is the way to go.
She speaks to the deregulation of the energy industry and mentions climate change. She’s really checking off all the boxes, isn’t she? She goes on to mention the mental health and addiction epidemic, too. “We continue to ignore the biggest public health emergency of our time — the mental health and addiction crisis that affects virtually every family.” Well, at least she didn’t succumb to the opinion of the most woke among us and say that climate change is the biggest emergency of our time. That will probably come later.
The video overall will certainly appeal to the audience for which she strives. She’s a former teacher and the mother of five. She’s the mom next door. She can fight the patriarchy and the bad Orange Man without breaking a sweat. Liberal voters are not prone to hold Kennedys morally accountable as they do conservatives. Conservatives see the irony of a Kennedy lecturing about the loss of morality in public life but liberals do not. We only have to look to the career of her father-in-law to see that.
“Too many of our leaders have lost their moral compass,” Kennedy said in the video. “Trump and Van Drew are symptoms of a bigger sickness affecting our country and our politics. Doing what’s right shouldn’t be complicated. Treat one another with respect, show some compassion, look out for others.”
Mrs. Kennedy faces some competition in the Democrat primary, though none have the advantage of the Kennedy name, so there’s that.
Brigid Callahan Harrison, a professor who teaches political science at Montclair State University, announced her candidacy the same week Mr. Van Drew said he would join the Republicans, a shift that prompted most of his staff members to quit. Professor Harrison was quickly endorsed by many of the Democratic Party leaders in the district who hold sway over whose name will appear on the party’s coveted ballot line. Ashley Bennett, a freeholder representing Atlantic County who appeared on the cover of Time magazine with other progressive women, also has announced she would run for the Democratic nomination for the congressional seat. Ms. Bennett has said she intends to focus on issues affecting New Jersey’s working class, and is likely to draw support from the state’s increasingly active grass-roots organizations. John Francis III, a commissioner in West Cape May, and Robert Turkavage, a former F.B.I. agent who last month switched from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party, have also announced they will run in the Democratic primary.
We’ll see if the voters in New Jersey wish to continue on with the Kennedy dynasty with one of their own representatives in Congress. Trump won the district by 5 points in 2016. No doubt he will campaign for Van Drew if necessary.
When I watched Jeff Van Drew abandon the Democratic Party and become a Trump apologist, I had to act. This morning I announced my campaign to challenge Van Drew here in South Jersey because our leaders have lost their moral compass. https://t.co/Rkh53kBbN3 — Amy Kennedy (@AmyKennedy715) January 6, 2020
NOTE: A previous version of this article incorrectly identified the candidate as the ex-wife of former Rep. Patrick Kennedy. This has been corrected.


hotair--2020-01-06--Dems pounce: If Senate Republicans don't call Bolton to testify now, they're participating in a "cov

Dems pounce: If Senate Republicans don't call Bolton to testify now, they're participating in a "cover up"

Wasting no time with the new talking point inspired by this morning ’ s bombshell .
“ Momentum for uncovering the truth in a Senate trial continues .
John Bolton correctly acknowledged that he needs to comply with a Senate subpoena to compel his testimony , if issued .
It is now up to four Senate Republicans to support bringing in Mr. Bolton , and the other three witnesses , as well as the key documents we have requested to ensure all the evidence is presented at the onset of a Senate trial , ” [ Chuck ] Schumer said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mr. Bolton ’ s lawyers have stated he has new relevant information to share , if any Senate Republican opposes issuing subpoenas to the four witnesses and documents we have requested they would make absolutely clear they are participating in a cover up , ” Schumer added .
A fun possibility : What if Bolton wants to testify because he fully intends to exonerate Trump ?
Ross Douthat floated the idea that maybe he had kept quiet until now because he was grumpy at Trump ’ s dovishness and didn ’ t want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his claims of innocence .
But with Qassem Soleimani now reduced to bite-sized pieces , maybe Bolton ’ s finally ready to do his old friend Donald a solid .
Then again , how likely is it that the guy who allegedly described Gordon Sondland ’ s and Mick Mulvaney ’ s interactions with Ukraine as a “ drug deal ” is going to show up on the stand with nothing incriminating to say ?
That reaction was foreseeable when Bolton made his announcement this morning , which deepens the mystery of why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s strengthened Democrats ’ hands by announcing his willingness to testify .
Maybe not a lot… …but at a minimum he ’ s handed them the “ cover up ” spin after Trump is acquitted if in fact McConnell and the GOP end up declining to call Bolton as a witness .
Why didn ’ t he just keep quiet about whether he ’ d testify or not and wait to see if Senate Republicans — or House Democrats — tried to call him ?
He could have announced his intentions then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other Republicans a political headache .
Did he do it to make life harder for Trump ?
ABC is reporting that Bolton had the courtesy to call McConnell beforehand and let him know that this was coming .
He did not extend the same courtesy to the White House .
Gabe Malor makes an interesting point about the prospect of Schiff seizing on Bolton ’ s announcement as a reason to call him before the House Intelligence Committee .
If Bolton ’ s willing to testify at the Senate trial , does that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to testify before the House ?
Maybe not : Americans expect a speedy trial but impeachment itself is on no timeline .
If Pelosi holds the articles of impeachment so that Schiff can try to get Bolton to testify , Bolton may revert to his previous posture of deferring to the courts to decide the matter .
Although that would seem strange to much of the public : If his testimony is urgent enough that he ’ ll provide it to the Senate , why wouldn ’ t he also provide it to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spent the past two months insisting that time is of the essence in proceeding ?
And if , for whatever weird reason , he ’ s adamant about testifying *only* before the Senate , many voters will simply shrug and say fine , we should do it that way then .
Average people aren ’ t sticklers for legal procedure .
If there ’ s a key witness who ’ s willing to talk and half the Senate wants him to talk and it ’ s within the Senate ’ s power to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talk .
Everything else is nicety .
Although that won ’ t stop Marco Rubio from grasping for reasons to keep Bolton out of the trial : That comes off as too cute .
If there ’ s a witness whom everyone agrees is material and who ’ s willing to testify , it ’ s goofy for the ultimate finder of fact to decide that he ’ s not worth hearing because the prosecution hasn ’ t deposed him yet .
The point of the trial ( ostensibly ) is to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with that , maybe to Trump ’ s detriment but possibly to his benefit too .
Now that Bolton ’ s said publicly that he ’ ll talk , Rubio ’ s position risks playing into the Democrats ’ “ cover up ” talking point , that the Senate GOP doesn ’ t want to call him precisely because he has incriminating information about the defendant .
Regardless , Rubio ’ s vote doesn ’ t matter .
The Collins faction will decide this issue , not senators to their right .
Speaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who ’ s keen to hear from Bolton : In lieu of an exit question , read this Law & Crime piece in which law nerds try to tease out the coming fight over Bolton ’ s testimony .
Could Trump sue to quash the Senate ’ s subpoena if one is issued ?
What if Bolton shows up and testifies anyway — could Trump ’ s lawyers assert executive privilege to particular questions to prevent Bolton from answering them ?
Would John Roberts have the power to overrule them on the spot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them , could the Senate vote to force Bolton to answer each question ?

Wasting no time with the new talking point inspired by this morning’s bombshell.
“Momentum for uncovering the truth in a Senate trial continues. John Bolton correctly acknowledged that he needs to comply with a Senate subpoena to compel his testimony, if issued. It is now up to four Senate Republicans to support bringing in Mr. Bolton, and the other three witnesses, as well as the key documents we have requested to ensure all the evidence is presented at the onset of a Senate trial,” [Chuck] Schumer said in a statement. “Given that Mr. Bolton’s lawyers have stated he has new relevant information to share, if any Senate Republican opposes issuing subpoenas to the four witnesses and documents we have requested they would make absolutely clear they are participating in a cover up,” Schumer added.
A fun possibility: What if Bolton wants to testify because he fully intends to exonerate Trump? Ross Douthat floated the idea that maybe he had kept quiet until now because he was grumpy at Trump’s dovishness and didn’t want to do him any favors by supporting his claims of innocence. But with Qassem Soleimani now reduced to bite-sized pieces, maybe Bolton’s finally ready to do his old friend Donald a solid.
Then again, how likely is it that the guy who allegedly described Gordon Sondland’s and Mick Mulvaney’s interactions with Ukraine as a “drug deal” is going to show up on the stand with nothing incriminating to say?
Pelosi chipped in today too:
The President & Sen. McConnell have run out of excuses. They must allow key witnesses to testify, and produce the documents Trump has blocked, so Americans can see the facts for themselves. The Senate cannot be complicit in the President's cover-up. #DefendOurDemocracy https://t.co/TQLJsfn0f5 — Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) January 6, 2020
That reaction was foreseeable when Bolton made his announcement this morning, which deepens the mystery of why he made it. Unquestionably, he’s strengthened Democrats’ hands by announcing his willingness to testify. Maybe not a lot…
The news that Bolton is willing to testify is unlikely to change McConnell’s strategy over Trump’s trial, according to multiple GOP sources familiar with the matter. “Not at all,” one source said. McConnell expected to address his view at GOP lunch tomorrow. w/@Phil_Mattingly — Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 6, 2020
…but at a minimum he’s handed them the “cover up” spin after Trump is acquitted if in fact McConnell and the GOP end up declining to call Bolton as a witness. Why didn’t he just keep quiet about whether he’d testify or not and wait to see if Senate Republicans — or House Democrats — tried to call him? He could have announced his intentions then. He would have spared McConnell and other Republicans a political headache.
Did he do it to make life harder for Trump? ABC is reporting that Bolton had the courtesy to call McConnell beforehand and let him know that this was coming. He did not extend the same courtesy to the White House.
Gabe Malor makes an interesting point about the prospect of Schiff seizing on Bolton’s announcement as a reason to call him before the House Intelligence Committee. If Bolton’s willing to testify at the Senate trial, does that necessarily mean he’s also willing to testify before the House? Maybe not:
Per his statement, his preference was for a judicial resolution of the constitutional questions. Presumably, if a House committee were to subpoena him now, he could distinguish this statement by pointing out that there is time for a judicial resolution for a House subpoena. https://t.co/rWTO7eJiva — Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) January 6, 2020
Americans expect a speedy trial but impeachment itself is on no timeline. If Pelosi holds the articles of impeachment so that Schiff can try to get Bolton to testify, Bolton may revert to his previous posture of deferring to the courts to decide the matter. Although that would seem strange to much of the public: If his testimony is urgent enough that he’ll provide it to the Senate, why wouldn’t he also provide it to the House — especially when Democrats have spent the past two months insisting that time is of the essence in proceeding?
And if, for whatever weird reason, he’s adamant about testifying *only* before the Senate, many voters will simply shrug and say fine, we should do it that way then. Average people aren’t sticklers for legal procedure. If there’s a key witness who’s willing to talk and half the Senate wants him to talk and it’s within the Senate’s power to make him talk, then he should talk. Everything else is nicety.
Although that won’t stop Marco Rubio from grasping for reasons to keep Bolton out of the trial:
Rubio on why he would vote against a subpoena of Bolton: "I think in my view our inquiry should be based on the testimony that they took, we are acting on articles of impeachment. We should be constrained by the information that those articles are based on." pic.twitter.com/IOyCkw6ZxU — Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 6, 2020
That comes off as too cute. If there’s a witness whom everyone agrees is material and who’s willing to testify, it’s goofy for the ultimate finder of fact to decide that he’s not worth hearing because the prosecution hasn’t deposed him yet. The point of the trial (ostensibly) is to get to the truth. Bolton can help with that, maybe to Trump’s detriment but possibly to his benefit too. Now that Bolton’s said publicly that he’ll talk, Rubio’s position risks playing into the Democrats’ “cover up” talking point, that the Senate GOP doesn’t want to call him precisely because he has incriminating information about the defendant.
Regardless, Rubio’s vote doesn’t matter. The Collins faction will decide this issue, not senators to their right. Speaking of which, I know one guy who’s keen to hear from Bolton:
Romney, leaving a briefing with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Iran, told reporters that he wants to hear from Bolton and find out “what he knows” about Trump’s dealings with Ukraine. “I would like to be able to hear from John Bolton, what the process is to make that happen, I don’t have an answer for you,” Romney added.
In lieu of an exit question, read this Law & Crime piece in which law nerds try to tease out the coming fight over Bolton’s testimony. Could Trump sue to quash the Senate’s subpoena if one is issued? What if Bolton shows up and testifies anyway — could Trump’s lawyers assert executive privilege to particular questions to prevent Bolton from answering them? Would John Roberts have the power to overrule them on the spot? If he doesn’t overrule them, could the Senate vote to force Bolton to answer each question?


hotair--2020-01-06--Bari Weiss: 'We're not hearing the kind of moral clarity that we hear when the attacker is a white s

Bari Weiss: 'We're not hearing the kind of moral clarity that we hear when the attacker is a white supremacist'

This is a pretty stirring summary of a position Weiss had made before in print .
Over the weekend she expounded on the idea that media just doesn ’ t seem interested in covering anti-Semitism unless white supremacists are involved .
She not only made the case but named some names during this interview on Brian Stelter ’ s Reliable Sources : Louis Farrakhan , Mayor de Blasio and Al Sharpton .
Asked if the press had been slow to respond to the anti-Semitic attacks in New York , Weiss replied , “ Absolutely , yes.
” She pointed out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cause of the deadly anti-Semitic attack in Pittsburgh last year .
“ Everyone recognized that for what it was , which is that he was motivated by hatred of Jews , plain and simple.
” She continued , “ For some reason , people can not seem to get their heads around the fact that when someone machetes their neighbors , when someone is breaking people ’ s noses , when someone is punching people in the street , when someone is rippng off someone ’ s kippah , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of simply saying that , the media ran stories in the wake of the Jersey City attack and the machete attack in Monsey about racial tensions caused by Jews moving to black neighborhoods .
“ We ’ re not hearing the kind of moral clarity that we hear when the attacker is a white supremacist , ” Weiss said .
She added , “ And the question is why .
And that is a question the press needs to answer for itself.
” A bit later , both Stelter and Weiss cited the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which I wrote about last week .
Coaston made a simple argument that many of the recent attacks seem to have some ideological connections to anti-Semitic conspiracy theories promoted by the Nation of Islam .
Weiss agreed with this and then asked why Farrakhan ’ s influence didn ’ t seem to generate much interest from the media .
“ It took two years for the mainstream press to cover the fact that the leaders of the women ’ s march , one of whom is now a surrogate for presidential candidate Bernie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] close relationship with Louis Farrakhan , ” Weiss said .
“ The mayor of this city has compared Al Sharpton to Martin Luther King .
That is a scandal .
Al Sharpton incited the violence against Jews in the borough that I am now walking toward in 1991.
” She ’ s referring to the now-former members of the women ’ s march , three of whom were apparent fans of Farrakhan .
At least one of those leaders , Tamika Mallory , was thanked by name during Farrakhan ’ s largest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ GOAT , ” i.e .
the greatest of all time .
As for Al Sharpton , she ’ s referring to the 1991 Crown Heights riots in which Jews were attacked on the street and one man , Yankel Rosenbaum , was murdered after a car accident that killed a child .
Here ’ s the full clip via the Washington Free Beacon :

This is a pretty stirring summary of a position Weiss had made before in print. Over the weekend she expounded on the idea that media just doesn’t seem interested in covering anti-Semitism unless white supremacists are involved. She not only made the case but named some names during this interview on Brian Stelter’s Reliable Sources: Louis Farrakhan, Mayor de Blasio and Al Sharpton.
Asked if the press had been slow to respond to the anti-Semitic attacks in New York, Weiss replied, “Absolutely, yes.” She pointed out that the media had not trouble identifying the cause of the deadly anti-Semitic attack in Pittsburgh last year. “Everyone recognized that for what it was, which is that he was motivated by hatred of Jews, plain and simple.” She continued, “For some reason, people cannot seem to get their heads around the fact that when someone machetes their neighbors, when someone is breaking people’s noses, when someone is punching people in the street, when someone is rippng off someone’s kippah, it’s motivated by the same thing.”
Instead of simply saying that, the media ran stories in the wake of the Jersey City attack and the machete attack in Monsey about racial tensions caused by Jews moving to black neighborhoods. “We’re not hearing the kind of moral clarity that we hear when the attacker is a white supremacist,” Weiss said. She added, “And the question is why. And that is a question the press needs to answer for itself.”
A bit later, both Stelter and Weiss cited the piece by Vox’s Jane Coaston which I wrote about last week. Coaston made a simple argument that many of the recent attacks seem to have some ideological connections to anti-Semitic conspiracy theories promoted by the Nation of Islam. Weiss agreed with this and then asked why Farrakhan’s influence didn’t seem to generate much interest from the media.
“It took two years for the mainstream press to cover the fact that the leaders of the women’s march, one of whom is now a surrogate for presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, that she has [a] close relationship with Louis Farrakhan,” Weiss said. “The mayor of this city has compared Al Sharpton to Martin Luther King. That is a scandal. Al Sharpton incited the violence against Jews in the borough that I am now walking toward in 1991.”
She’s referring to the now-former members of the women’s march, three of whom were apparent fans of Farrakhan. At least one of those leaders, Tamika Mallory, was thanked by name during Farrakhan’s largest annual speech and referred to him as the “GOAT,” i.e. the greatest of all time.
As for Al Sharpton, she’s referring to the 1991 Crown Heights riots in which Jews were attacked on the street and one man, Yankel Rosenbaum, was murdered after a car accident that killed a child. Here’s the full clip via the Washington Free Beacon:


hotair--2020-01-06--NYC mayor intervened in case of antisemitic attacker

You are likely already familiar with the case of Tiffany Harris .
The 30-year-old New York City native made plenty of the wrong sort of headlines over the holiday season , eventually going viral .
She was arrested and charged with slapping three Jewish women and screaming vulgar antisemitic slurs at them .
For some people in the Big Apple these days , that might have been just another day at the office .
But the legend of Ms. Harris quickly grew when she was almost immediately released without bail .
The very next day she was arrested on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a week had passed she was arrested a third time .
Here ’ s where the story takes a strange turn .
The New York Post has learned that on New Year ’ s Eve , Mayor Bill de Blasio ’ s office intervened in the case , having a special court hearing ordered which resulted in a psychiatric hold and evaluation on the suspect .
But it sounds like it had far less to do with solving the crimes or seeing to her welfare than protecting City Hall ’ s image at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Blasio intervened in the prosecution of an accused anti-Semitic attacker — leading to her lock-up in a psych ward — because she was generating negative publicity for his administration , The Post has learned .
Brooklyn ’ s supervising judge was forced to hold an unscheduled hearing late on the afternoon of New Year ’ s Eve after City Hall contacted the state Office of Court Administration about Tiffany Harris , 30 .
Harris ’ repeated release from custody after back-to-back arrests late last month — including for allegedly slapping three Orthodox Jewish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
” on Dec. 27 — had made her a symbol of revolving-door justice amid the state ’ s new bail reform law and de Blasio ’ s gift programs for newly released jail inmates .
It would be easy for some people reading the headlines in the Post to jump to the conclusion that the Mayor was somehow intervening to let Harris off the hook and not taking the recent raft of antisemitic attacks seriously , but that doesn ’ t seem to be what ’ s going on here .
Or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem was that all of this was going down and blowing up both on social media and in the New York newspapers within 24 hours of when the new set of New York laws dealing with bail reform was about to officially go into effect .
The new rules would see everyone let out of jail without bail for all misdemeanors and a host of other , more serious crimes , up to and including manslaughter and selling narcotics in a school zone .
Some judges appeared to be applying the new rules @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the spirit of things .
At the same time , the papers were having a field day with de Blasio ’ s personally endorsed laws giving ex-prisoners all sorts of free goodies upon their release as a supposed incentive to stop breaking the law and show up for probation meetings and such .
Harris was an obvious pain in their side because these soft-on-crime rules aren ’ t terribly popular and Harris was being used as an example of how the city was quickly returning to the bad old days of rampant crime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that with the national attention being drawn to all of the attacks on Jews in New York City and elsewhere and it was an obvious headache for de Blasio .
So he allegedly pressured the court to hold an unscheduled session for Harris and have her remanded for psychiatric evaluation .
Give how quickly she wound up back in jail every time they let her out , this probably seemed like the quickest way to get her off the streets and keep her name out of any future , New Year ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out some more Jewish women .
Personally , I can ’ t complain all that much about seeing Harris locked up for mental evaluation .
She certainly seems crazy from everything we ’ ve seen thus far and is probably in need of some help , along with some serious jail time for attacking Jews on the streets .
But the point of this story isn ’ t really Harris ’ future prospects .
It ’ s how de Blasio handled the affair , using the muscle of City Hall to pressure the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before the ball dropped at midnight .
Not exactly the Mayor ’ s most shining hour in an administration where positive moments have been few and far between .

You are likely already familiar with the case of Tiffany Harris. The 30-year-old New York City native made plenty of the wrong sort of headlines over the holiday season, eventually going viral. She was arrested and charged with slapping three Jewish women and screaming vulgar antisemitic slurs at them. For some people in the Big Apple these days, that might have been just another day at the office. But the legend of Ms. Harris quickly grew when she was almost immediately released without bail. The very next day she was arrested on a fresh charge of related activities. Before a week had passed she was arrested a third time.
Here’s where the story takes a strange turn. The New York Post has learned that on New Year’s Eve, Mayor Bill de Blasio’s office intervened in the case, having a special court hearing ordered which resulted in a psychiatric hold and evaluation on the suspect. But it sounds like it had far less to do with solving the crimes or seeing to her welfare than protecting City Hall’s image at a critical time.
Mayor Bill de Blasio intervened in the prosecution of an accused anti-Semitic attacker — leading to her lock-up in a psych ward — because she was generating negative publicity for his administration, The Post has learned. Brooklyn’s supervising judge was forced to hold an unscheduled hearing late on the afternoon of New Year’s Eve after City Hall contacted the state Office of Court Administration about Tiffany Harris, 30. Harris’ repeated release from custody after back-to-back arrests late last month — including for allegedly slapping three Orthodox Jewish women and shouting “F-U, Jews!” on Dec. 27 — had made her a symbol of revolving-door justice amid the state’s new bail reform law and de Blasio’s gift programs for newly released jail inmates.
It would be easy for some people reading the headlines in the Post to jump to the conclusion that the Mayor was somehow intervening to let Harris off the hook and not taking the recent raft of antisemitic attacks seriously, but that doesn’t seem to be what’s going on here. Or at least… not entirely.
The real problem was that all of this was going down and blowing up both on social media and in the New York newspapers within 24 hours of when the new set of New York laws dealing with bail reform was about to officially go into effect. The new rules would see everyone let out of jail without bail for all misdemeanors and a host of other, more serious crimes, up to and including manslaughter and selling narcotics in a school zone. Some judges appeared to be applying the new rules a bit early just to get in the spirit of things.
At the same time, the papers were having a field day with de Blasio’s personally endorsed laws giving ex-prisoners all sorts of free goodies upon their release as a supposed incentive to stop breaking the law and show up for probation meetings and such. Harris was an obvious pain in their side because these soft-on-crime rules aren’t terribly popular and Harris was being used as an example of how the city was quickly returning to the bad old days of rampant crime and dangerous streets.
Combine all of that with the national attention being drawn to all of the attacks on Jews in New York City and elsewhere and it was an obvious headache for de Blasio. So he allegedly pressured the court to hold an unscheduled session for Harris and have her remanded for psychiatric evaluation. Give how quickly she wound up back in jail every time they let her out, this probably seemed like the quickest way to get her off the streets and keep her name out of any future, New Year’s Day headline if she decided to punch out some more Jewish women.
Personally, I can’t complain all that much about seeing Harris locked up for mental evaluation. She certainly seems crazy from everything we’ve seen thus far and is probably in need of some help, along with some serious jail time for attacking Jews on the streets. But the point of this story isn’t really Harris’ future prospects. It’s how de Blasio handled the affair, using the muscle of City Hall to pressure the courts into making this problem go away before the ball dropped at midnight. Not exactly the Mayor’s most shining hour in an administration where positive moments have been few and far between.


hotair--2020-01-06--Biden: Come on man, "no one did understand ObamaCare"

Least of all the people that pushed it , but that ’ s what makes Joe Biden ’ s latest gaffe mostly Kinsleyan .
At a rally in Iowa over the weekend , a voter angry over the impact of ObamaCare on his father ’ s finances demanded and explanation from the then-VP .
Did Biden know that it would double his premiums and send deductibles skyrocketing and lie about it ?
Or was Biden just an idiot , so to speak ?
Biden took the obvious choice ( via Twitchy ) : VOTER : During the run-up to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my father that if he likes his plan he could keep his plan , and that his insurance would be cheaper .
After passage his plan was no longer allowed and his insurance costs doubled .
Since you supported the plan , were you lying to my dad , or did you not understand the bill you supported ?
BIDEN : Lying don ’ t face [ unintelligible ] .
No , look , there ’ s two ways people know when something is important .
One , when it ’ s so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
But no one did understand ObamaCare , including the way it was rolled out .
And the gentleman ’ s right , we said you could keep your doctor if you wanted to , and you couldn ’ t keep your doctor if you wanted to , necessarily .
He ’ s dead right about that .
Of course “ he ’ s dead right about that ” !
PolitiFact called that the Lie of the Year for 2013 , so obvious was the falsity of its claim .
At the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden were propagating this lie , the bill explicitly outlawed lower-cost coverages that were quite popular with consumers , forcing them into much more expensive one-size-fits-all comprehensive plans .
Biden ’ s still lying here about that impact , in fact .
Forcing healthier people to pay more for comprehensive insurance to cover the added costs of adding in sick people wasn ’ t an unintended consequence ; it was a key part of the ObamaCare plan .
That ’ s why PolitiFact called it a “ lie ” in the first place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Biden ’ s explanation doesn ’ t make much more sense in its broad strokes , either .
Obama and Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act on the premise that government had the aptitude to run health-care markets better than the markets themselves .
Now he ’ s admitting that the bureaucrats they entrusted to perform that task had no comprehension of how to do so , plus he ’ s arguing that the best way to fix that problem is to add a government-managed plan to the markets as an option @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposals from his competitors to simply nationalize health care through Medicare for All , but only slightly .
Anyway , the young man never did get an answer to his question .
Is Biden still lying , or does he not comprehend health-care systems ?
The final answer is … yes .

Least of all the people that pushed it, but that’s what makes Joe Biden’s latest gaffe mostly Kinsleyan. At a rally in Iowa over the weekend, a voter angry over the impact of ObamaCare on his father’s finances demanded and explanation from the then-VP. Did Biden know that it would double his premiums and send deductibles skyrocketing and lie about it? Or was Biden just an idiot, so to speak?
Biden took the obvious choice (via Twitchy):
https://twitter.com/BetaODork/status/1213603561222869004
VOTER: During the run-up to the passage of ObamaCare, President Obama promised my father that if he likes his plan he could keep his plan, and that his insurance would be cheaper. After passage his plan was no longer allowed and his insurance costs doubled. Since you supported the plan, were you lying to my dad, or did you not understand the bill you supported? BIDEN: Lying don’t face [unintelligible]. No, look, there’s two ways people know when something is important. One, when it’s so clear that when it passes everyone understands it. But no one did understand ObamaCare, including the way it was rolled out. And the gentleman’s right, we said you could keep your doctor if you wanted to, and you couldn’t keep your doctor if you wanted to, necessarily. He’s dead right about that.
Of course “he’s dead right about that”! PolitiFact called that the Lie of the Year for 2013, so obvious was the falsity of its claim. At the very same time that Barack Obama and Biden were propagating this lie, the bill explicitly outlawed lower-cost coverages that were quite popular with consumers, forcing them into much more expensive one-size-fits-all comprehensive plans. Biden’s still lying here about that impact, in fact. Forcing healthier people to pay more for comprehensive insurance to cover the added costs of adding in sick people wasn’t an unintended consequence; it was a key part of the ObamaCare plan. That’s why PolitiFact called it a “lie” in the first place rather than the Misunderstanding of the Year.
Biden’s explanation doesn’t make much more sense in its broad strokes, either. Obama and Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act on the premise that government had the aptitude to run health-care markets better than the markets themselves. Now he’s admitting that the bureaucrats they entrusted to perform that task had no comprehension of how to do so, plus he’s arguing that the best way to fix that problem is to add a government-managed plan to the markets as an option. That may be better than the proposals from his competitors to simply nationalize health care through Medicare for All, but only slightly.
Anyway, the young man never did get an answer to his question. Is Biden still lying, or does he not comprehend health-care systems? The final answer is … yes.


hotair--2020-01-06--Did the U.S. just pledge to withdraw from Iraq? Or from Baghdad? Or, er, was it all a mistake?

I joked yesterday that trying to threaten Trump by kicking U.S. troops out of a Middle Eastern country is like trying to threaten him by approving development of a new Trump hotel .
Iraq is throwing him right into the briar patch by insisting on American withdrawal .
In theory .
In practice it ’ s more complicated .
You know how he is about strength .
Being told “ get the hell out of our country ” and dutifully complying does not scream “ strength.
” Particularly knowing that that order is being given on behalf of Iraq by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the response to that order by the Pentagon : “ Sir , in deference to the sovereignty of the Republic of Iraq , and as requested by the Iraqi Parliament and the Prime Minister , CJTF-OIR will be repositioning forces over the course of the coming days and weeks to prepare for onward movement , ” read a letter from United States Marine Corps Brigadier General William H. Seely III , the commanding general of Task Force Iraq .
The authenticity of the letter , which was addressed to the Iraqi defense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , was confirmed to Reuters independently by an Iraqi military source .
“ We respect your sovereign decision to order our departure , ” it said .
Did I hallucinate or wasn ’ t America ’ s posture as of this morning that we might sanction Iraq if they dared to rescind the invitation they extended to us to station troops there — or at least if they did so in an “ unfriendly ” way ?
Speaking to reporters on Air Force One , the U.S. president said : “ If they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we don ’ t do it in a very friendly basis , we will charge them sanctions like they ’ ve never seen before ever .
It ’ ll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame.
” “ We have a very extraordinarily expensive air base that ’ s there .
It cost billions of dollars to build .
Long before my time .
We ’ re not leaving unless they pay us back for it , ” Trump said .
The president added that “ If there ’ s any hostility , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we are going to put sanctions on Iraq , very big sanctions on Iraq.
” President “ End Endless Wars ” is going to occupy Iraq indefinitely until they compensate us for our bases ?
What ?
Tucker Carlson might commit seppuku live on the air tonight .
Trump is all over the map on this subject even by his usual standards but I think it ’ s because there are contradictory impulses at work .
One , as I say , is the imperative to project strength .
He does want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m sure , particularly after spending the last two years insisting that ISIS is utterly defeated .
( If there ’ s no more threat , why haven ’ t American troops redeployed already ? )
He does not want to withdraw under threat , however , particularly when that threat is effectively being made by Iran .
Soleimani wanted American troops out of Iraq in order to make it easier to extend Iranian hegemony over the country .
If killing him ends up producing the strategic outcome he wanted , that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” My read on the letter is that we ’ re calling their bluff .
As others have noted on social media , there ’ s no timetable specified .
American troops will begin “ repositioning ” and then , at some point , withdrawal will occur .
In that sense , it ’ s a mirror image of the resolution that the Iraqi parliament passed yesterday .
The resolution formally withdrew Iraq from the anti-ISIS coalition , potentially ending the country ’ s role as a staging ground for anti-ISIS forces , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the current caretaker government has the power to enforce that resolution .
The resolution was also less aggressive than it could have been , allowing the Strategic Framework Agreement between the U.S. and Iraq that authorizes an American troop presence to stand .
It smelled like a symbolic gesture , a half-measure taken by the Shiite members of parliament ( the Sunnis and Kurds boycotted ) to appease Iran by formally punishing the United States for Soleimani ’ s killing .
Today ’ s response from the U.S. smells like a symbolic gesture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll withdraw … eventually , if that ’ s reeeeeeeally what you want us to do after this Soleimani thing has blown over and you ’ ve calmed down and had time to think about it .
Does the Iraqi government really want to see American money dry up ?
Do Shiite nationalists in Iraq , not to mention Kurds and Sunnis , really want a country with no counterweight to Iranian dominion , especially so soon after Iraq saw mass protests against Iran ’ s influence over the government ?
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over Iraq have on sectarian harmony within the country ?
Read the fine print on the letter , in fact , and you ’ ll realize that we ’ re not actually threatening full withdrawal from Iraq .
We ’ re threatening withdrawal from Baghdad : There are thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq .
This appears to refer to a fraction of the total force .
I think the Pentagon ’ s just being conciliatory here , conceding that Iraq has the sovereign right to make us leave in the belief that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this will blow over .
Although that makes a potential Iranian attack on U.S. troops in Iraq that much more dangerous : America , starting with Trump , will not want to feel like it ’ s been chased out of Baghdad under fire .
What happens then ?
Do we turn around and insist that we need to stay and defend ourselves over the Iraqi government ’ s wishes ?
What legal position would that leave us in with respect to U.S. troops on Iraqi soil ?
But wait .
Maybe … @ @ @ @ @ @ @ withdraw from Iraq at all : Uh , what ?
What ’ s going on ?

I joked yesterday that trying to threaten Trump by kicking U.S. troops out of a Middle Eastern country is like trying to threaten him by approving development of a new Trump hotel. Iraq is throwing him right into the briar patch by insisting on American withdrawal.
In theory. In practice it’s more complicated. You know how he is about strength. Being told “get the hell out of our country” and dutifully complying does not scream “strength.”
Particularly knowing that that order is being given on behalf of Iraq by Iran. Reuters has seen a copy of the response to that order by the Pentagon:
“Sir, in deference to the sovereignty of the Republic of Iraq, and as requested by the Iraqi Parliament and the Prime Minister, CJTF-OIR will be repositioning forces over the course of the coming days and weeks to prepare for onward movement,” read a letter from United States Marine Corps Brigadier General William H. Seely III, the commanding general of Task Force Iraq. The authenticity of the letter, which was addressed to the Iraqi defense ministry’s Combined Joint Operations Baghdad, was confirmed to Reuters independently by an Iraqi military source. “We respect your sovereign decision to order our departure,” it said.
Did I hallucinate or wasn’t America’s posture as of this morning that we might sanction Iraq if they dared to rescind the invitation they extended to us to station troops there — or at least if they did so in an “unfriendly” way?
Speaking to reporters on Air Force One, the U.S. president said: “If they do ask us to leave, if we don’t do it in a very friendly basis, we will charge them sanctions like they’ve never seen before ever. It’ll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame.” “We have a very extraordinarily expensive air base that’s there. It cost billions of dollars to build. Long before my time. We’re not leaving unless they pay us back for it,” Trump said. The president added that “If there’s any hostility, that they do anything we think is inappropriate, we are going to put sanctions on Iraq, very big sanctions on Iraq.”
President “End Endless Wars” is going to occupy Iraq indefinitely until they compensate us for our bases? What?
Tucker Carlson might commit seppuku live on the air tonight.
Trump is all over the map on this subject even by his usual standards but I think it’s because there are contradictory impulses at work. One, as I say, is the imperative to project strength. He does want to withdraw from Iraq, I’m sure, particularly after spending the last two years insisting that ISIS is utterly defeated. (If there’s no more threat, why haven’t American troops redeployed already?) He does not want to withdraw under threat, however, particularly when that threat is effectively being made by Iran. Soleimani wanted American troops out of Iraq in order to make it easier to extend Iranian hegemony over the country. If killing him ends up producing the strategic outcome he wanted, that’d be a highly compromised “victory.”
My read on the letter is that we’re calling their bluff. As others have noted on social media, there’s no timetable specified. American troops will begin “repositioning” and then, at some point, withdrawal will occur. In that sense, it’s a mirror image of the resolution that the Iraqi parliament passed yesterday. The resolution formally withdrew Iraq from the anti-ISIS coalition, potentially ending the country’s role as a staging ground for anti-ISIS forces, but it’s not clear that the current caretaker government has the power to enforce that resolution. The resolution was also less aggressive than it could have been, allowing the Strategic Framework Agreement between the U.S. and Iraq that authorizes an American troop presence to stand. It smelled like a symbolic gesture, a half-measure taken by the Shiite members of parliament (the Sunnis and Kurds boycotted) to appease Iran by formally punishing the United States for Soleimani’s killing. Today’s response from the U.S. smells like a symbolic gesture too: Sure, fine, we’ll withdraw … eventually, if that’s reeeeeeeally what you want us to do after this Soleimani thing has blown over and you’ve calmed down and had time to think about it.
Does the Iraqi government really want to see American money dry up? Do Shiite nationalists in Iraq, not to mention Kurds and Sunnis, really want a country with no counterweight to Iranian dominion, especially so soon after Iraq saw mass protests against Iran’s influence over the government? What effect might a growing Shiite fundamentalist influence over Iraq have on sectarian harmony within the country?
Read the fine print on the letter, in fact, and you’ll realize that we’re not actually threatening full withdrawal from Iraq. We’re threatening withdrawal from Baghdad:
NEW: 100s of US-led forces are being moved out of a base in Baghdad’s Green Zone to elsewhere in Iraq, such as Taji base, & to Kuwait (but still in theatre of ops), a coalition source says, explaining letter below👇. It’s to “thin out” troops in Baghdad. “We’re not leaving Iraq” pic.twitter.com/dZiguFwL2G — Deborah Haynes (@haynesdeborah) January 6, 2020
There are thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq. This appears to refer to a fraction of the total force.
I think the Pentagon’s just being conciliatory here, conceding that Iraq has the sovereign right to make us leave in the belief that everyone will chill out soon enough and this will blow over. Although that makes a potential Iranian attack on U.S. troops in Iraq that much more dangerous: America, starting with Trump, will not want to feel like it’s been chased out of Baghdad under fire. What happens then? Do we turn around and insist that we need to stay and defend ourselves over the Iraqi government’s wishes? What legal position would that leave us in with respect to U.S. troops on Iraqi soil?
But wait. Maybe … there’s been no threat to withdraw from Iraq at all:
Joint Chiefs Chair GEN Milley: “That letter is a draft it was a mistake, it was unsigned, it should not have been released…poorly worded, implies withdrawal, that is not what’s happening” pic.twitter.com/is0AsU1Ksx — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) January 6, 2020
#DEVELOPING: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley says a letter that has circulated stating the Defense Dept. was preparing to withdrawal U.S. troops from Iraq was just a draft and releasing it was a "mistake." Iraqi military did receive the letter, though. — Jennifer Franco (@jennfranconews) January 6, 2020
Uh, what? What’s going on?


hotair--2020-01-06--Tears for a terrorist: How Iran is stage-managing public grief over Soleimani's death

Ayatollah Khamenei made news today when he broke into tears during a speech at the public funeral for Gen. Qassem Soleimani .
You can see a bit of it in this AP news clip : Of course it makes sense that the Ayatollah would cry .
He ’ s a dictator and Soleimani was his number one enforcer .
But CNN reported today that the size and demeanor of the crowd demonstrated that Iranians had been unified against the US by Soleimani ’ s death , just weeks after anti-government protests : The mourners clutched photographs of Soleimani , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps elite Quds Force and led Iran ’ s overseas operations .
Posters with his image , and a black backdrop , were plastered across the capital .
Many of those on the streets of the Iranian capital were visibly upset and angry ; others shouted “ down with the USA ” and “ death to the USA.
” Iranian state television said millions of people attended , although this figure has yet to be verified… Just weeks before , thousands of anti-government protesters had filled the streets to voice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as well as the crippling economic sanctions imposed on the country by the Trump administration .
But widespread reverence for Soleimani , who commands a cult-like status in the country , has seemingly united Iranians of all political stripes in anger at the US .
Over at the Washington Post , Iranian journalist Masih Alinejad frames the story somewhat differently .
She points out that the mourning in Iran is being heavily orchestrated by the regime , right down to school children being encouraged to cry over Soleimani ’ s death : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flag-waving mourners streaming across TV screens ?
Without doubt , Soleimani had support among hard-liners and regime loyalists .
The regime is not taking any chances , though .
In the city of Ahvaz , where large numbers of people turned out to mourn Soleimani , the government has forced students and officials to attend .
It provided free transport and ordered shops to shut down .
According to videos sent to me by people inside the country , the authorities are making little kids write essays praising the fallen commander .
First-graders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ write were encouraged to cry for Soleimani… The media in the Islamic Republic is heavily controlled .
Public gatherings are allowed only if they are pro-regime .
Critics are jailed or shot .
( Even I , living outside the country , have received a death threat on Iranian national TV for my coverage of Soleimani ’ s killing . )
So it ’ s not hard to use all the tools and resources of the state to stage a funeral procession… Ironically , the Western media is more skeptical of such state-organized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia or North Korea , but seems to leave its critical sense at the border when it comes to the Islamic Republic… Remember all the articles that predicted how Iranians were going to unite in resistance to President Trump ’ s sanctions ?
The same analysts who missed November ’ s protests are now predicting Iranians will rally around the flag .
Western media outlets which fail to look critically at the orchestrated response to Soleimani ’ s death are acting as amplifiers for Iranian propaganda .
In reality , a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regime .
That ’ s why so many protesters took to the streets in November .
As I wrote at the time , the regime ’ s response was to shut down the internet and begin murdering protesters .
Reuters reported last month that leaked information from Iranian sources indicated 1500 people had been killed over the course of 2 weeks .
About 1,500 people were killed during less than two weeks of unrest that started on Nov. 15 .
The toll , provided to Reuters by three Iranian interior ministry officials , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 400 women as well as some members of the security forces and police… At the meeting , described to Reuters by the three sources close to his inner circle , the 80-year-old leader , who has final say over all state matters in the country , raised his voice and expressed criticism of the handling of the unrest .
He was also angered by the burning of his image and the destruction of a statue of the republic ’ s late founder , Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini .
“ The Islamic Republic is in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end it .
You have my order , ” the supreme leader told the group , one of the sources said .
The Ayatollah may issued the order but it was Soleimani who helped carry it out .
Would that recent action be likely to make him more or less popular with Iranians ?
Mass murder may make people more compliant for a while , but it certainly won ’ t make them love the person responsible .
You can bet there are a lot of Iranians who aren ’ t crying over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spectacle the regime whips up for the cameras .
Last word from the author of the Washington Post piece critical of the media ’ s coverage :

Ayatollah Khamenei made news today when he broke into tears during a speech at the public funeral for Gen. Qassem Soleimani. You can see a bit of it in this AP news clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSjayy-M7UQ
Of course it makes sense that the Ayatollah would cry. He’s a dictator and Soleimani was his number one enforcer. But CNN reported today that the size and demeanor of the crowd demonstrated that Iranians had been unified against the US by Soleimani’s death, just weeks after anti-government protests:
The mourners clutched photographs of Soleimani, a revered and powerful figure who headed the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps elite Quds Force and led Iran’s overseas operations. Posters with his image, and a black backdrop, were plastered across the capital. Many of those on the streets of the Iranian capital were visibly upset and angry; others shouted “down with the USA” and “death to the USA.” Iranian state television said millions of people attended, although this figure has yet to be verified… Just weeks before, thousands of anti-government protesters had filled the streets to voice their frustration with Iran’s leaders, as well as the crippling economic sanctions imposed on the country by the Trump administration. But widespread reverence for Soleimani, who commands a cult-like status in the country, has seemingly united Iranians of all political stripes in anger at the US.
Over at the Washington Post, Iranian journalist Masih Alinejad frames the story somewhat differently. She points out that the mourning in Iran is being heavily orchestrated by the regime, right down to school children being encouraged to cry over Soleimani’s death:
What to make of the crowds of flag-waving mourners streaming across TV screens? Without doubt, Soleimani had support among hard-liners and regime loyalists. The regime is not taking any chances, though. In the city of Ahvaz, where large numbers of people turned out to mourn Soleimani, the government has forced students and officials to attend. It provided free transport and ordered shops to shut down. According to videos sent to me by people inside the country, the authorities are making little kids write essays praising the fallen commander. First-graders who didn’t know how to write were encouraged to cry for Soleimani… The media in the Islamic Republic is heavily controlled. Public gatherings are allowed only if they are pro-regime. Critics are jailed or shot. (Even I, living outside the country, have received a death threat on Iranian national TV for my coverage of Soleimani’s killing.) So it’s not hard to use all the tools and resources of the state to stage a funeral procession… Ironically, the Western media is more skeptical of such state-organized events in other countries, such as Russia or North Korea, but seems to leave its critical sense at the border when it comes to the Islamic Republic… Remember all the articles that predicted how Iranians were going to unite in resistance to President Trump’s sanctions? The same analysts who missed November’s protests are now predicting Iranians will rally around the flag.
Western media outlets which fail to look critically at the orchestrated response to Soleimani’s death are acting as amplifiers for Iranian propaganda. In reality, a lot of Iranians are clearly fed up with the regime. That’s why so many protesters took to the streets in November. As I wrote at the time, the regime’s response was to shut down the internet and begin murdering protesters. Reuters reported last month that leaked information from Iranian sources indicated 1500 people had been killed over the course of 2 weeks.
About 1,500 people were killed during less than two weeks of unrest that started on Nov. 15. The toll, provided to Reuters by three Iranian interior ministry officials, included at least 17 teenagers and about 400 women as well as some members of the security forces and police… At the meeting, described to Reuters by the three sources close to his inner circle, the 80-year-old leader, who has final say over all state matters in the country, raised his voice and expressed criticism of the handling of the unrest. He was also angered by the burning of his image and the destruction of a statue of the republic’s late founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. “The Islamic Republic is in danger. Do whatever it takes to end it. You have my order,” the supreme leader told the group, one of the sources said.
The Ayatollah may issued the order but it was Soleimani who helped carry it out. Would that recent action be likely to make him more or less popular with Iranians? Mass murder may make people more compliant for a while, but it certainly won’t make them love the person responsible. You can bet there are a lot of Iranians who aren’t crying over Soleimani’s death no matter what spectacle the regime whips up for the cameras.
Last word from the author of the Washington Post piece critical of the media’s coverage:


hotair--2020-01-06--Boom: Los Angeles charges Weinstein with multiple counts of sexual assault

Is Harvey Weinstein toast from coast to coast ?
His long-awaited trial in New York City on charges of sexual assault began today , with the disgraced film mogul using a walker to enter the courtroom .
Just as those proceedings got underway , prosecutors on the other side of the country formally charged Weinstein with charges relating to two victims after a lengthy investigation : Harvey Weinstein will be charged with two counts of sexual assault in Los Angeles , deepening the legal peril faced by the fallen Hollywood mogul as his trial on similar charges in New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Los Angeles County district attorney ’ s office has filed charges of forcible rape , forcible oral copulation , sexual penetration by use of force and sexual battery by restraint , according to a news release issued Monday morning .
Dist .
Atty .
Jackie Lacey is expected to hold a press conference at 11 a.m. in downtown Los Angeles .
“ We believe the evidence will show that the defendant used his power and influence to gain access to his victims and then commit crimes against them , ” Lacey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to comment the victims who have come forward and bravely recounted what happened to them.
” This might not be the end of the matter in Los Angeles , either .
District Attorney Jackie Lacey announced at a presser that they continue to investigate allegations from three more potential victims that have claims within the statutes of limitation .
Prosecutors have been working on a number of claims since launching a task force in late 2017 to investigate Weinstein .
And not just Weinstein , apparently .
The LAPD ’ s chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expanded beyond Weinstein to investigate sexual predation in the “ Hollywood entertainment industry.
” There had been some indication that Kevin Spacey might be a target of investigations , but there may be more than a few people in Tinseltown have good reason to worry — and many more who may have reason to cheer .
Lacey also announced that they would request a bail of $ 5 million for Weinstein , similar to what Weinstein has in his New York case .
That ’ s an awful lot of capital that will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hoosegow , especially for someone whose studio is basically worthless at the moment .
Don ’ t expect Weinstein to show up any time soon in LA , regardless of bail conditions .
He ’ s having a tough enough time showing up in New York City , where his trial opened today with discussion over motions and preparations for voir dire : Harvey Weinstein arrived at a Manhattan courthouse Monday for the opening of his sex crimes trial as his lawyers and prosecutors prepared to begin selecting a jury in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a criminal court .
Using a walker after back surgery two weeks ago , Weinstein , 67 , was escorted into the courthouse surrounded by his security team and his lawyers , including lead defense attorney Donna Rotunno .
He was met by a crowd of reporters and cameras as he arrived for what many consider a historic trial .
He wore a blackish-gray suit and sported some light gray stubble .
In the courtroom , he talked to his lawyers flanking him at the defense table .
When the proceeding before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the front of the courtroom to say his name .
He was almost exaggeratedly hunched over and walked slowly .
Monday ’ s proceedings adjourned before noon after arguments over pretrial publicity and discussions about jury selection , scheduled to begin Tuesday .
Weinstein left the courtroom , mostly expressionless and once again hunched over his walker .
“ Almost exaggeratedly.
” Yeah , I ’ ll bet .
Meanwhile , as not much of consequence happened inside the courtroom , Rose McGowan and Rosanna Arquette led a demonstration outside : Everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big event after a jury gets seated .
That is , if they can find a jury of twelve people plus a few alternates that haven ’ t already made up their minds about Big Harv .
Good luck with that .

Is Harvey Weinstein toast from coast to coast? His long-awaited trial in New York City on charges of sexual assault began today, with the disgraced film mogul using a walker to enter the courtroom. Just as those proceedings got underway, prosecutors on the other side of the country formally charged Weinstein with charges relating to two victims after a lengthy investigation:
Harvey Weinstein will be charged with two counts of sexual assault in Los Angeles, deepening the legal peril faced by the fallen Hollywood mogul as his trial on similar charges in New York City was expected to begin this month. The Los Angeles County district attorney’s office has filed charges of forcible rape, forcible oral copulation, sexual penetration by use of force and sexual battery by restraint, according to a news release issued Monday morning. Dist. Atty. Jackie Lacey is expected to hold a press conference at 11 a.m. in downtown Los Angeles. “We believe the evidence will show that the defendant used his power and influence to gain access to his victims and then commit crimes against them,” Lacey said in a statement. “I want to comment the victims who have come forward and bravely recounted what happened to them.”
This might not be the end of the matter in Los Angeles, either. District Attorney Jackie Lacey announced at a presser that they continue to investigate allegations from three more potential victims that have claims within the statutes of limitation. Prosecutors have been working on a number of claims since launching a task force in late 2017 to investigate Weinstein.
And not just Weinstein, apparently. The LAPD’s chief told the presser that the probe has expanded beyond Weinstein to investigate sexual predation in the “Hollywood entertainment industry.” There had been some indication that Kevin Spacey might be a target of investigations, but there may be more than a few people in Tinseltown have good reason to worry — and many more who may have reason to cheer.
Lacey also announced that they would request a bail of $5 million for Weinstein, similar to what Weinstein has in his New York case. That’s an awful lot of capital that will get tied up in staying out of the hoosegow, especially for someone whose studio is basically worthless at the moment.
Don’t expect Weinstein to show up any time soon in LA, regardless of bail conditions. He’s having a tough enough time showing up in New York City, where his trial opened today with discussion over motions and preparations for voir dire:
Harvey Weinstein arrived at a Manhattan courthouse Monday for the opening of his sex crimes trial as his lawyers and prosecutors prepared to begin selecting a jury in the first celebrity #MeToo case to open in a criminal court. Using a walker after back surgery two weeks ago, Weinstein, 67, was escorted into the courthouse surrounded by his security team and his lawyers, including lead defense attorney Donna Rotunno. He was met by a crowd of reporters and cameras as he arrived for what many consider a historic trial. He wore a blackish-gray suit and sported some light gray stubble. In the courtroom, he talked to his lawyers flanking him at the defense table. When the proceeding before Judge James Burke began, he walked to the front of the courtroom to say his name. He was almost exaggeratedly hunched over and walked slowly. Monday’s proceedings adjourned before noon after arguments over pretrial publicity and discussions about jury selection, scheduled to begin Tuesday. Weinstein left the courtroom, mostly expressionless and once again hunched over his walker.
“Almost exaggeratedly.” Yeah, I’ll bet. Meanwhile, as not much of consequence happened inside the courtroom, Rose McGowan and Rosanna Arquette led a demonstration outside:
Everyone’s just warming up for the big event after a jury gets seated. That is, if they can find a jury of twelve people plus a few alternates that haven’t already made up their minds about Big Harv. Good luck with that.


hotair--2020-01-06--Pelosi: The House will vote to limit Trump's power to wage war against Iran to 30 days

Pitiful .
Not the impulse behind the idea — that ’ s virtuous , wanting to reassert Congress ’ s warmaking authority by imposing limits on the president ’ s power to strike unilaterally .
Clearly America shouldn ’ t be dragged into conflict , especially major conflict , by a single elected official if the people ’ s representatives oppose it .
What ’ s pitiful is that each party ’ s interest in reasserting that authority waxes and wanes depending upon which party the president belongs to .
One would hope that a subject as momentous as which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might escape the immense gravitational pull of partisanship , but nope .
The War Powers Resolution orbits Team Blue/Team Red inanity just like every other topic in Washington does .
“ Last week , the Trump administration conducted a provocative and disproportionate military airstrike targeting high-level Iranian military officials , ” Pelosi said in a letter to colleagues Sunday .
“ This action endangered our servicemembers , diplomats and others by risking a serious escalation of tensions with Iran.
” “ As members of Congress , our first responsibility is to keep the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ For this reason , we are concerned that the administration took this action without the consultation of Congress and without respect for Congress ’ s war powers granted to it by the Constitution.
” … “ It reasserts Congress ’ s long-established oversight responsibilities by mandating that if no further Congressional action is taken , the Administration ’ s military hostilities with regard to Iran cease within 30 days , ” she said .
The War Powers Resolution was passed in 1973 over Richard Nixon ’ s veto and seeks to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can go to war on his own .
Specifically , it says , only if Congress has formally authorized some sort of military action *or* if there ’ s a national emergency caused by an attack on the United States is the commander-in-chief empowered to act .
That ’ s not what we had with the Soleimani killing , although some hawks would argue that the 2002 AUMF greenlighting the Iraq war and the subsequent 2014 deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq to fight ISIS kinda sorta provide the necessary authorization .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.
” We didn ’ t have that either in the Soleimani case .
In fact , the latest word from WaPo is that Mike Pompeo started chatting with Trump about targeting Soleimani months ago .
That doesn ’ t mean that last week ’ s strike wasn ’ t in response to an imminent threat — maybe Soleimani was on the cusp of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the question of why the administration didn ’ t seek broad authority sooner to target Iran ’ s military under certain circumstances .
So , no , it ’ s not off-base for Pelosi to demand a congressional role in decisionmaking at a moment when the U.S. is at risk of war with the region ’ s foremost Islamic military power .
What makes it pitiful is how short her memory is .
Come with me on a trip back in time to June 2011 .
Headline : “ Pelosi backs Obama on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress ’ s approval to launch attacks in Libya , nor does he need congressional authorization to keep U.S. forces there , the top House Democrat said Thursday .
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) said the White House violated neither the Constitution nor the War Powers Resolution when it launched military operations in the war-torn African nation in March without Congress ’ s endorsement .
“ The limited nature of this engagement allows the president to go forward , ” Pelosi told reporters at the Capitol .
“ I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he needs to go ahead .
You will be shocked to learn that at the time it was Republicans , the out-party , who were demanding greater executive consultation with Congress before the White House attacked Qaddafi in Libya .
Pelosi would defend her hypocrisy by insisting that the two situations , then and now , are materially different .
There are American troops on the ground in Iraq who are directly in harm ’ s way if Iran retaliates whereas there were none in Libya .
The Libya intervention was aimed at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mass slaughter of Libyan rebels , whereas Soleimani wasn ’ t threatening anyone on quite that level .
( The hundreds of thousands killed in Syria as part of Iran ’ s proxy war are already dead . )
And Qaddafi ’ s regime was a pipsqueak power capable of menacing its own people and virtually no one else , very much unlike Iran .
The potential repercussions from killing Soleimani are an order of magnitude greater for U.S. national security .
But none of that has anything to do with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which is to demand coordination with Congress on military action whenever feasible .
Coordination was eminently feasible before the first bombs fell in Libya .
There were UN debates about intervention ; a multinational coalition was formed ; a lot of planning went into it .
It wasn ’ t a matter of acting immediately on perishable intelligence about a single official ’ s whereabouts , as was the case with Soleimani .
Siding with the rebels against Qaddafi was also far more aggressive an act in furtherance of regime change than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If the United States is going to take military action that leads to the fall of a government somewhere , you would think that ’ d be a paradigm case for involving Congress .
Most damning of all , though , is the fact that Obama ’ s own lawyers at the Pentagon and DOJ thought he was bound by the War Powers Resolution .
O decided to ignore them for reasons of convenience and side with members of his own staff who concluded that bombing a foreign regime knowing that it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regime somehow doesn ’ t amount to “ hostilities ” for purposes of the Resolution .
Pelosi could have struck a blow for her branch of government by making a big deal of that revelation at the time and insisting that the president come to Congress for authorization of further action in Libya .
Instead she went into the tank like a good partisan hack .
She ’ s doing the same thing now with Trump , pandering to a lefty base that would have been quiescent if Obama had liquidated Soleimani in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drone strikes .
And of course Republicans in the House and Senate won ’ t dare complicate Trump ’ s life by joining her in this futile exercise to demand executive accountability .
They ’ ll vote against the resolution like good party hacks too , ensuring that it fails to attract the two-thirds majorities in both chambers that it would need to overcome a Trump veto .
In lieu of an exit question , go read this Timothy Carney piece about another embarrassing hypocrite in Pelosi ’ s caucus on this subject @

Pitiful. Not the impulse behind the idea — that’s virtuous, wanting to reassert Congress’s warmaking authority by imposing limits on the president’s power to strike unilaterally. Clearly America shouldn’t be dragged into conflict, especially major conflict, by a single elected official if the people’s representatives oppose it. What’s pitiful is that each party’s interest in reasserting that authority waxes and wanes depending upon which party the president belongs to. One would hope that a subject as momentous as which branch has the final say over war might escape the immense gravitational pull of partisanship, but nope. The War Powers Resolution orbits Team Blue/Team Red inanity just like every other topic in Washington does.
“Last week, the Trump administration conducted a provocative and disproportionate military airstrike targeting high-level Iranian military officials,” Pelosi said in a letter to colleagues Sunday. “This action endangered our servicemembers, diplomats and others by risking a serious escalation of tensions with Iran.” “As members of Congress, our first responsibility is to keep the American people safe,” she continued. “For this reason, we are concerned that the administration took this action without the consultation of Congress and without respect for Congress’s war powers granted to it by the Constitution.”… “It reasserts Congress’s long-established oversight responsibilities by mandating that if no further Congressional action is taken, the Administration’s military hostilities with regard to Iran cease within 30 days,” she said.
The War Powers Resolution was passed in 1973 over Richard Nixon’s veto and seeks to limit the circumstances in which the president can go to war on his own. Specifically, it says, only if Congress has formally authorized some sort of military action *or* if there’s a national emergency caused by an attack on the United States is the commander-in-chief empowered to act. That’s not what we had with the Soleimani killing, although some hawks would argue that the 2002 AUMF greenlighting the Iraq war and the subsequent 2014 deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq to fight ISIS kinda sorta provide the necessary authorization. The Resolution also says that “The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.” We didn’t have that either in the Soleimani case. In fact, the latest word from WaPo is that Mike Pompeo started chatting with Trump about targeting Soleimani months ago. That doesn’t mean that last week’s strike wasn’t in response to an imminent threat — maybe Soleimani was on the cusp of ordering something big — but it raises the question of why the administration didn’t seek broad authority sooner to target Iran’s military under certain circumstances.
So, no, it’s not off-base for Pelosi to demand a congressional role in decisionmaking at a moment when the U.S. is at risk of war with the region’s foremost Islamic military power. What makes it pitiful is how short her memory is. Come with me on a trip back in time to June 2011. Headline: “Pelosi backs Obama on Libya.”
President Obama did not require Congress’s approval to launch attacks in Libya, nor does he need congressional authorization to keep U.S. forces there, the top House Democrat said Thursday. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the White House violated neither the Constitution nor the War Powers Resolution when it launched military operations in the war-torn African nation in March without Congress’s endorsement. “The limited nature of this engagement allows the president to go forward,” Pelosi told reporters at the Capitol. “I’m satisfied that the president has the authority he needs to go ahead.
You will be shocked to learn that at the time it was Republicans, the out-party, who were demanding greater executive consultation with Congress before the White House attacked Qaddafi in Libya. Pelosi would defend her hypocrisy by insisting that the two situations, then and now, are materially different. There are American troops on the ground in Iraq who are directly in harm’s way if Iran retaliates whereas there were none in Libya. The Libya intervention was aimed at preventing a humanitarian disaster by Qaddafi, the mass slaughter of Libyan rebels, whereas Soleimani wasn’t threatening anyone on quite that level. (The hundreds of thousands killed in Syria as part of Iran’s proxy war are already dead.) And Qaddafi’s regime was a pipsqueak power capable of menacing its own people and virtually no one else, very much unlike Iran. The potential repercussions from killing Soleimani are an order of magnitude greater for U.S. national security.
But none of that has anything to do with the basic point of the War Powers Resolution, which is to demand coordination with Congress on military action whenever feasible. Coordination was eminently feasible before the first bombs fell in Libya. There were UN debates about intervention; a multinational coalition was formed; a lot of planning went into it. It wasn’t a matter of acting immediately on perishable intelligence about a single official’s whereabouts, as was the case with Soleimani. Siding with the rebels against Qaddafi was also far more aggressive an act in furtherance of regime change than taking out Soleimani was vis-a-vis Iran. If the United States is going to take military action that leads to the fall of a government somewhere, you would think that’d be a paradigm case for involving Congress. Most damning of all, though, is the fact that Obama’s own lawyers at the Pentagon and DOJ thought he was bound by the War Powers Resolution. O decided to ignore them for reasons of convenience and side with members of his own staff who concluded that bombing a foreign regime knowing that it would likely lead to the downfall of that regime somehow doesn’t amount to “hostilities” for purposes of the Resolution.
Pelosi could have struck a blow for her branch of government by making a big deal of that revelation at the time and insisting that the president come to Congress for authorization of further action in Libya. Instead she went into the tank like a good partisan hack. She’s doing the same thing now with Trump, pandering to a lefty base that would have been quiescent if Obama had liquidated Soleimani in one of his own many, many drone strikes. And of course Republicans in the House and Senate won’t dare complicate Trump’s life by joining her in this futile exercise to demand executive accountability. They’ll vote against the resolution like good party hacks too, ensuring that it fails to attract the two-thirds majorities in both chambers that it would need to overcome a Trump veto.
In lieu of an exit question, go read this Timothy Carney piece about another embarrassing hypocrite in Pelosi’s caucus on this subject.