theamericanconservative--2020-01-09--A Trump Voter’s Lament

A Trump Voter’s Lament

Fifteen months ago I had a private conversation with President Trump about Iran .
It wasn ’ t long .
It was , frankly , casual .
It took place in the locker room of my golf club , which Trump had purchased during the Great Recession .
( And improved considerably , without raising dues substantially , as he promised the members he would not . )
We had both played that morning , and at one of the points where the two courses adjoin , I had watched his group hit tee shots .
Trump had hit a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , after wanding by Secret Service , I entered the locker room and was walking towards the urinal when I passed the president , by himself in front of the mirror , dabbling with his sunscreen .
“ How are you doing ?
” he called out as I walked by .
I had a ready conversation opener .
“ Very well thanks , sir .
I saw you hit a great drive on 4.
” “ 220 or so , probably in the top one percent for our age group , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t really do better than that , ” Trump answered .
I continued on to the urinal .
When I walked back , he was still there , and I thought , golf can ’ t be our only topic of conversation here .
“ And otherwise , you ’ re doing a great job , ” I offered .
Trump nodded .
“ But no war with Iran though.
” I admonished .
“ No , no war with Iran , ” he replied .
As I walked out , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wait a minute , you don ’ t want there to be a war with Iran , right ?
” I then realized the ambiguity in my words .
“ No , ” I said .
“ Besides Israel , Iran is the most sane country in the Middle East.
” Trump didn ’ t respond directly .
He paused .
“ No , there won ’ t be a war .
It ’ s just talk , ” he said .
The president then made the classic childhood gesture for babble , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his forefinger .
Obviously war with Iran did seem a possibility then , in the fall of 2018—the president had recently scuttled the non-proliferation agreement that President Obama and six major powers had negotiated to constrain Iran ’ s nuclear activities , and had appointed longtime Iran hawk Mike Pompeo secretary of state .
Yet there were rumors of possible diplomatic contacts—Rouhani was coming to the UN General Assembly .
Like much about Trump ’ s Iran policy the situation seemed full of ambiguity , but I went away heartened by the conversation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters , I had supported Trump in great part because he challenged the Bush , Cheneyite Republican conventional foreign policy wisdom .
Trump wasn ’ t an active Iraq war opponent , and his social milieu in New York was hawkish , but he was clearly lukewarm when prompted by Howard Stern in 2002 to tout the pending invasion of Iraq .
In a 2008 interview with Wolf Blitzer , he wondered why Nancy Pelosi hadn ’ t sought to impeach George W. Bush for lying the country into war with Iraq .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ big fat mistake , most notably in a debate before the 2016 South Carolina primary , perhaps the nation ’ s most hawkish state .
He won that primary , and later the nomination , establishing that pro-war views were no longer necessarily majoritarian in the GOP .
His messaging was mixed , ambiguous , perhaps intentionally , perhaps instinctively .
“ Wouldn ’ t it be nice if we could get along with Russia ?
” he said , a sentiment I shared .
He seemed implicitly to acknowledge that the bipartisan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Russia ’ s borders and fomenting pro-Western coups in Russia ’ s neighbors was perilous and self-defeating .
But he came across as tough and hawkish too .
He praised tough generals and said he would “ bomb the shit out of ISIS.
” But since ISIS was a genuine enemy , then actively recruiting and training terrorists to kill civilians inside Western countries , hawkishness seemed altogether appropriate .
A certain Jacksonian bluster about killing America ’ s enemies seemed an appropriate way to steer the Republican foreign policy away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In any case , I wrote several pro-Trump pieces , the first pushing back in early 2016 against National Review ’ s attempt to bury his campaign , a second touting the legitimacy of the nationalist and pro-border sentiments to which Trump was appealing .
Of course I voted for him .
And nothing , until now , has really made me question the correctness of that vote .
Naturally there were worries .
Trump seemed never to have expected actually to win the presidency , and was oblivious to the exigencies of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people with brains and administrative experience and Trumpian views willing to work for his administration , but if any of them got hired , it was largely an accident .
So apart from one trade hawk and Jeff Sessions ’ contribution of Stephen Miller , one sometimes had the impression that the only real Trumpian in the new administration was Trump himself .
Of course the infusion of standard GOP types was not necessarily bad—they were political people and realized that an earthquake size rejection of the legacy of George W. Bush had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most were willing to make adjustment .
But the personnel deficit meant that a lot of initial energy would be dissipated on standard GOP partisan initiatives , lowering taxes for the rich , abolishing Obamacare .
And then there were the neoconservatives .
Many had signed petitions during the campaign denigrating Trump but many had not , and the Trump administration was open to hiring them .
Neoconservatives had always played an inside game in Washington .
The faction had survived the political collapse of its favored candidates ( Marco Rubio , Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stories for comfort about the comings and goings of FDD types around the White House .
( The Foundation for Defense of Democracies , a major promoter of the Iraq war , was created to promote hawkish “ pro-Israel ” foreign policy positions in Washington . )
It couldn ’ t be ignored that Sheldon Adelson , a passionate Israel supporter and advocate of nuking Iran , was Trump ’ s biggest donor .
Equally important were the Saudis and other wealthy gulf states , who lavishly irrigated Washington foreign policy think tanks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the defense industries .
Their views , grounded in a fundamentalist Sunni Islam vigorously opposed to Shi ’ ite Iran , were always treated respectfully in Washington .
But countering this at least partially was Trump himself , who seemed to realize what a major Mideast War would do to his reelection chances , So he pushed back , sometimes mockingly , against warmongering advisers like John Bolton .
( But why was Bolton hired in the first place ? )
Six months ago Trump called off strikes against Iranian forces because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fired Bolton .
He seemed inclined to talk to adversaries and one hoped he would realize that Iran could be talked to as well .
His seeming disregard for the beltway conventional wisdom might lead to new initiatives .
It ’ s a nearly ineffable mystery how it is decided that Saudi Arabia , womb of the 9/11 hijackers , a backwards and oppressive theocracy , which funds radical Islamist educations institutions the world over , gets to be designated as America ’ s great ally in the Muslim Middle East .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but partially democratic regime , its large and at least latently pro-Western middle class , its cinema , literature , scientists , chess grandmasters , should be an implacable enemy .
That power to decide who are friends and enemies is perhaps the most important one , but no one has ever satisfactorily explained who wields it and why .
But Donald Trump , an unconventional and disrespectful Washington outsider , once seemed more likely than any other politician to at least ask fresh questions about it .
Of course one realized this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on hope and more than a dollop of wishful thinking .
What brings this home , and perhaps the main factor which distinguishes Trump of today from the Trump of six months ago , is the impeachment drive .
Based on essentially trivial and inconsequential charges , it is the Democratic Party ’ s and deep state ’ s attempted revenge on a man who unexpectedly defeated them and then refused them the deference to which they feel entitled .
But however unjustified , the impeachment effort clearly threatens Trump ’ s presidency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It may be that Trump now realizes that war with Iran might be popular with the electorate , at least in the short run—in 2011 he accused Obama of preparing to ignite a war with Iran for domestic political reasons .
And to the extent that the impeachment drive overshadows all else , at least for the president , war becomes a much more attractive option .
Whatever threatening or waging war might do for Trump politically , the reality of it would be a disaster .
No one knows where we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Perhaps Iran will not respond with more than Tuesday ’ s errant rockets to the assassination of one of its leaders .
But one already sees flourishing on the Right all the chest-beating rhetoric which one hoped a Trump presidency dampen ; with the critical and important exception of Tucker Carlson , Fox News , the important conservative mass media platform , is in its 2002 mode all over again , as if nothing has been learned from the Iraq war .
Once again patriotic Americans are rallying to the absurd notion that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ traced to one evil man or evil regime , that a regime change war will solve the problem .
Vaporized from public memory is the fact that Iran , including the leaders now most robustly demonized , played a critical role in organizing the paramilitary militias who defeated ISIS .
And if Trump somehow remains aware that occupying Iran with troops—overwhelmingly the sons and daughters of his red state voters—wouldn ’ t go well , his proposed alternative to occupation of Iran is apparently to commit war crimes against the archaeological legacy of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treasures which are less the property of the Iranian regime than they are of all humanity .
Some of his cheerleaders advocate turning Tehran into 1945 Dresden .
It is simply obscene .
There was an argument during the last campaign , expressed most notably by Michael Brendan Dougherty , that the worst possible thing for those who wanted a different kind of American conservatism—an end to stupid wars in the Mideast , a more controlled immigration flow , an industrial policy that valued something other than cheap goods and “ free trade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump , who campaigned for all of these things .
Whether he believed in them or not , Trump recognized that this is what many voters wanted , that this was an open political lane to run in , an untapped yearning .
I think , to an extent , he did believe in them , but had no idea , no real plan how to bring them about .
Faced with unrelenting hostility from the Democrats , the media and the permanent class of Beltway bureaucrats which began before he took office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organized Republican Party , he floundered .
No wall was built .
No immigration legislation was passed .
No grand and necessary Rockefellian infrastructure initiatives were initiated .
He has hired to key positions Beltway types who had nothing but contempt for him , and they have led him down well worn paths .
One of those paths leads to a major war with Iran , an obsessively pursued project of the neoconservatives since long before 9/11 .
Impeachment makes taking that path more plausible .
Indeed , Trump could reasonably see it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s now hard to see how a Hillary Clinton presidency could have turned out worse .
Scott McConnell is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of Ex-Neocon : Dispatches From the Post-9/11 Ideological Wars .
Follow him on Twitter @ ScottMcConnell9 .

Fifteen months ago I had a private conversation with President Trump about Iran.
It wasn’t long. It was, frankly, casual. It took place in the locker room of my golf club, which Trump had purchased during the Great Recession. (And improved considerably, without raising dues substantially, as he promised the members he would not.) We had both played that morning, and at one of the points where the two courses adjoin, I had watched his group hit tee shots. Trump had hit a solid drive. A few hours later, after wanding by Secret Service, I entered the locker room and was walking towards the urinal when I passed the president, by himself in front of the mirror, dabbling with his sunscreen. “How are you doing?” he called out as I walked by.
I had a ready conversation opener. “Very well thanks, sir. I saw you hit a great drive on 4.”
“Well pretty good,” he replied.
“220 or so, probably in the top one percent for our age group,” I added.
“One percent, can’t really do better than that,” Trump answered.
I continued on to the urinal. When I walked back, he was still there, and I thought, golf can’t be our only topic of conversation here. “And otherwise, you’re doing a great job,” I offered. Trump nodded. “But no war with Iran though.” I admonished.
“No, no war with Iran,” he replied. As I walked out, he called out behind me. “Wait a minute, you don’t want there to be a war with Iran, right? ” I then realized the ambiguity in my words . “No,” I said. “Besides Israel, Iran is the most sane country in the Middle East.”
Trump didn’t respond directly. He paused. “No, there won’t be a war. It’s just talk,” he said. The president then made the classic childhood gesture for babble, flicking his lower lip several times with his forefinger.
Obviously war with Iran did seem a possibility then, in the fall of 2018—the president had recently scuttled the non-proliferation agreement that President Obama and six major powers had negotiated to constrain Iran’s nuclear activities, and had appointed longtime Iran hawk Mike Pompeo secretary of state. Yet there were rumors of possible diplomatic contacts—Rouhani was coming to the UN General Assembly. Like much about Trump’s Iran policy the situation seemed full of ambiguity, but I went away heartened by the conversation.
Like a certain percentage of his voters, I had supported Trump in great part because he challenged the Bush, Cheneyite Republican conventional foreign policy wisdom. Trump wasn’t an active Iraq war opponent, and his social milieu in New York was hawkish, but he was clearly lukewarm when prompted by Howard Stern in 2002 to tout the pending invasion of Iraq. In a 2008 interview with Wolf Blitzer, he wondered why Nancy Pelosi hadn’t sought to impeach George W. Bush for lying the country into war with Iraq. He began calling the Iraq war a big fat mistake, most notably in a debate before the 2016 South Carolina primary, perhaps the nation’s most hawkish state. He won that primary, and later the nomination, establishing that pro-war views were no longer necessarily majoritarian in the GOP. His messaging was mixed, ambiguous, perhaps intentionally, perhaps instinctively.
“Wouldn’t it be nice if we could get along with Russia?” he said, a sentiment I shared. He seemed implicitly to acknowledge that the bipartisan policy of trying to expand NATO up to the Russia’s borders and fomenting pro-Western coups in Russia’s neighbors was perilous and self-defeating. But he came across as tough and hawkish too. He praised tough generals and said he would “bomb the shit out of ISIS.” But since ISIS was a genuine enemy, then actively recruiting and training terrorists to kill civilians inside Western countries, hawkishness seemed altogether appropriate. A certain Jacksonian bluster about killing America’s enemies seemed an appropriate way to steer the Republican foreign policy away from neoconservatism and back towards realism.
In any case, I wrote several pro-Trump pieces, the first pushing back in early 2016 against National Review’s attempt to bury his campaign, a second touting the legitimacy of the nationalist and pro-border sentiments to which Trump was appealing. Of course I voted for him. And nothing, until now, has really made me question the correctness of that vote.
Naturally there were worries. Trump seemed never to have expected actually to win the presidency, and was oblivious to the exigencies of staffing. There were quite a few people with brains and administrative experience and Trumpian views willing to work for his administration, but if any of them got hired, it was largely an accident. So apart from one trade hawk and Jeff Sessions’ contribution of Stephen Miller, one sometimes had the impression that the only real Trumpian in the new administration was Trump himself. Of course the infusion of standard GOP types was not necessarily bad—they were political people and realized that an earthquake size rejection of the legacy of George W. Bush had taken place amongst their voters, and most were willing to make adjustment. But the personnel deficit meant that a lot of initial energy would be dissipated on standard GOP partisan initiatives, lowering taxes for the rich, abolishing Obamacare.
And then there were the neoconservatives. Many had signed petitions during the campaign denigrating Trump but many had not, and the Trump administration was open to hiring them. Neoconservatives had always played an inside game in Washington. The faction had survived the political collapse of its favored candidates (Marco Rubio, Joe Lieberman). One heard too many stories for comfort about the comings and goings of FDD types around the White House. (The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a major promoter of the Iraq war, was created to promote hawkish “pro-Israel” foreign policy positions in Washington.) It couldn’t be ignored that Sheldon Adelson, a passionate Israel supporter and advocate of nuking Iran, was Trump’s biggest donor. Equally important were the Saudis and other wealthy gulf states, who lavishly irrigated Washington foreign policy think tanks with oil money and were major customers of the defense industries. Their views, grounded in a fundamentalist Sunni Islam vigorously opposed to Shi’ite Iran, were always treated respectfully in Washington.
But countering this at least partially was Trump himself, who seemed to realize what a major Mideast War would do to his reelection chances, So he pushed back, sometimes mockingly, against warmongering advisers like John Bolton. (But why was Bolton hired in the first place?) Six months ago Trump called off strikes against Iranian forces because he worried about civilian casualties. He fired Bolton. He seemed inclined to talk to adversaries and one hoped he would realize that Iran could be talked to as well. His seeming disregard for the beltway conventional wisdom might lead to new initiatives.
It’s a nearly ineffable mystery how it is decided that Saudi Arabia, womb of the 9/11 hijackers, a backwards and oppressive theocracy, which funds radical Islamist educational institutions the world over, gets to be designated as America’s great ally in the Muslim Middle East. And that Iran—with its prickly, hostile, but partially democratic regime, its large and at least latently pro-Western middle class, its cinema, literature, scientists, chess grandmasters, should be an implacable enemy. That power to decide who are friends and who are enemies is perhaps the most important one, but no one has ever satisfactorily explained who wields it and why. But Donald Trump, an unconventional and disrespectful Washington outsider, once seemed more likely than any other politician to at least ask fresh questions about it.
Of course one realized this way of thinking about Trump was based on hope and more than a dollop of wishful thinking. What brings this home, and perhaps the main factor which distinguishes Trump of today from the Trump of six months ago, is the impeachment drive.
Based on essentially trivial and inconsequential charges, it is the Democratic Party’s and deep state’s attempted revenge on a man who unexpectedly defeated them and then refused them the deference to which they feel entitled. But however unjustified, the impeachment effort clearly threatens Trump’s presidency, and perhaps has him feeling cornered. It may be that Trump now realizes that war with Iran might be popular with the electorate, at least in the short run—in 2011 he accused Obama of preparing to ignite a war with Iran for domestic political reasons. And to the extent that the impeachment drive overshadows all else, at least for the president, war becomes a much more attractive option.
Whatever threatening or waging war might do for Trump politically, the reality of it would be a disaster. No one knows where we are precisely on the escalation escalator. Perhaps Iran will not respond with more than Tuesday’s errant rockets to the assassination of one of its leaders. But one already sees flourishing on the Right all the chest-beating rhetoric which one hoped a Trump presidency dampen; with the critical and important exception of Tucker Carlson, Fox News, the important conservative mass media platform, is in its 2002 mode all over again, as if nothing has been learned from the Iraq war. Once again patriotic Americans are rallying to the absurd notion that the turmoils of the Mideast can be traced to one evil man or evil regime, that a regime change war will solve the problem.
Vaporized from public memory is the fact that Iran, including the leaders now most robustly demonized, played a critical role in organizing the paramilitary militias who defeated ISIS. And if Trump somehow remains aware that occupying Iran with troops—overwhelmingly the sons and daughters of his red state voters—wouldn’t go well, his proposed alternative to occupation of Iran is apparently to commit war crimes against the archaeological legacy of ancient Persia, smashing with drones cultural treasures which are less the property of the Iranian regime than they are of all humanity. Some of his cheerleaders advocate turning Tehran into 1945 Dresden. It is simply obscene.
There was an argument during the last campaign, expressed most notably by Michael Brendan Dougherty, that the worst possible thing for those who wanted a different kind of American conservatism—an end to stupid wars in the Mideast, a more controlled immigration flow, an industrial policy that valued something other than cheap goods and “free trade”—might be a victory for Donald Trump, who campaigned for all of these things. Whether he believed in them or not, Trump recognized that this is what many voters wanted, that this was an open political lane to run in, an untapped yearning. I think, to an extent, he did believe in them, but had no idea, no real plan how to bring them about.
Faced with unrelenting hostility from the Democrats, the media and the permanent class of Beltway bureaucrats which began before he took office, and no real base in the organized Republican Party, he floundered. No wall was built. No immigration legislation was passed. No grand and necessary Rockefellian infrastructure initiatives were initiated. He has hired to key positions Beltway types who had nothing but contempt for him, and they have led him down well worn paths. One of those paths leads to a major war with Iran, an obsessively pursued project of the neoconservatives since long before 9/11.
Impeachment makes taking that path more plausible. Indeed, Trump could reasonably see it as the best possible way out. It’s now hard to see how a Hillary Clinton presidency could have turned out worse.


theamericanconservative--2020-01-10--Virginia Readies for a Major Confrontation, With Itself

Second Amendment sanctuaries , replacing George Washington in the Rotunda -- Old Dominion is splitting before our very eyes .
Virginia State Police guard the statue of Confederate Robert E. Lee on August 12 , 2018 in downtown Charlottesville , Virginia , on the one-year anniversary of the Unite the Right rally that left one person dead and dozens injured .
( LOGAN CYRUS/AFP via Getty Images ) Since 1969 , “ Virginia Is for Lovers ” has been the tourism and travel slogan of the Commonwealth of Virginia .
Advertising Age called it “ one of the most iconic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” But the Virginia of 2020 seems to be another country than the friendly commonwealth to which this writer moved four decades ago .
Charlottesville , home to Thomas Jefferson ’ s University of Virginia , has become famous as the site of a 2017 Klan-Nazi clash with antifa over the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee from a municipal park .
During the clash , protester Heather Heyer was run over and killed .
There followed the inauguration of a new Democratic Governor , Ralph Northam , in 2018 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was learned , had masqueraded in blackface in their college days .
And two women accused their colleague , new Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax , with rape .
Resignations were demanded .
But all three hunkered down , and the crisis abated .
Now a new cultural issue has emerged .
First-term Congresswoman Jennifer Wexton , from the D.C. suburbs , has denounced Virginia ’ s representation in the U.S. Capitol by statues of George Washington in the Rotunda and Robert E. Lee in the crypt a floor below .
Both statues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ century .
Wexton wants Lee replaced by an African American hero from a list that she and Rep. A. Donald McEachin reportedly submitted .
Two names on their list are unfamiliar figures from the desegregation days of the 1950s .
The third is better known : Nat Turner .
In “ The Americans : A Social History of the United States , ” published in 1969 , author J. C. Furnas describes the deeds of the man Wexton and McEachin would be pleased to see replace Robert E. Lee : “ In August @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preacher and cunjur man , led his superstition-fuddled followers to kill fifty-five whites of all sexes and ages in an aimless terrorizing of Southhampton County in the southeastern corner of Virginia .
“ The poor twisted creature could hardly have found a worse time to sharpen Southern fears of a slave rising.
” Turner was tried and hanged and , that winter , writes Furnas , “ The Virginia legislature voted down by a narrow margin a bill for gradual extinction of slavery.
” Let me go out on a limb : If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Robert E. Lee in the U.S. Capitol with a statue of Nat Turner , it will not be the unifying event Wexton imagines .
But the Assembly will be dealing soon with measures even more volatile .
On Jan. 20 , “ Lobby Day ” at the Assembly , thousands of gun advocates , many openly armed , will be coming to Richmond to protest new gun laws Northam and his new Democratic majority campaigned on and are determined to deliver .
Already , 110 towns , cities and counties in Virginia have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new state laws that restrict gun rights will not be enforced by local authorities .
“ Virginia is a former Confederate State with strong rural traditions and lax gun laws .
Guns represent the strongest , reddest line against the demographic changes that have seen Old Dominion voters usher in a new era of Democratic leadership in recent elections .
“ A Nevada-based group called the Oath Keepers said it is sending training teams to help form posses and militia in Virginia .
The leader of a Georgia militia called Three Percent Security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arms on Facebook , urging ‘ patriots ’ to converge on Richmond.
” Still , the divisions among Virginians are not only over history , heroes and guns , they are also moral and religious .
A year ago , Northam said he supported abortion through all nine months of pregnancy , and beyond , if an abortion were unsuccessful .
Here is Northam , in his own words , on the rights of the unborn : “ ( Third trimester abortions are ) done in cases where there may be severe deformities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s nonviable .
So in this particular example , if a mother is in labor , I can tell you exactly what would happen .
… The infant would be delivered .
The infant would be kept comfortable .
The infant would be resuscitated if that ’ s what the mother and the family desired .
And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.
” Unlike the seven states of the Deep South , Virginia did not vote to secede and leave the Union until President Lincoln issued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rebellion after the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter .
Then the state of Virginia seceded from the Union as the colony of Virginia had seceded from Great Britain at Philadelphia 84 years before .
Today , it appears a new secession is underway .
Virginians are separating from each other over issues as deep and divisive — such as who can take innocent life and when — as those that divided us in 1861 .
As are the rest of their countrymen in this time of Trump .
Patrick J. Buchanan is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House Wars : The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever .

Since 1969, “Virginia Is for Lovers” has been the tourism and travel slogan of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Advertising Age called it “one of the most iconic ad campaigns in the past 50 years.”
But the Virginia of 2020 seems to be another country than the friendly commonwealth to which this writer moved four decades ago.
Charlottesville, home to Thomas Jefferson’s University of Virginia, has become famous as the site of a 2017 Klan-Nazi clash with antifa over the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee from a municipal park. During the clash, protester Heather Heyer was run over and killed.
There followed the inauguration of a new Democratic Governor, Ralph Northam, in 2018 and a new attorney general. Both, it was learned, had masqueraded in blackface in their college days. And two women accused their colleague, new Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax, with rape.
Resignations were demanded. But all three hunkered down, and the crisis abated. Now a new cultural issue has emerged.
First-term Congresswoman Jennifer Wexton, from the D.C. suburbs, has denounced Virginia’s representation in the U.S. Capitol by statues of George Washington in the Rotunda and Robert E. Lee in the crypt a floor below. Both statues have represented Virginia for more than a century.
Wexton wants Lee replaced by an African American hero from a list that she and Rep. A. Donald McEachin reportedly submitted.
Two names on their list are unfamiliar figures from the desegregation days of the 1950s. The third is better known: Nat Turner.
In “The Americans: A Social History of the United States,” published in 1969, author J. C. Furnas describes the deeds of the man Wexton and McEachin would be pleased to see replace Robert E. Lee:
“In August 1831, Nat Turner, paranoid slave preacher and cunjur man, led his superstition-fuddled followers to kill fifty-five whites of all sexes and ages in an aimless terrorizing of Southhampton County in the southeastern corner of Virginia.
“The poor twisted creature could hardly have found a worse time to sharpen Southern fears of a slave rising.” Turner was tried and hanged and, that winter, writes Furnas, “The Virginia legislature voted down by a narrow margin a bill for gradual extinction of slavery.”
Nat Turner’s terrorism had set back emancipation.
Let me go out on a limb: If the Virginia General Assembly votes to replace Robert E. Lee in the U.S. Capitol with a statue of Nat Turner, it will not be the unifying event Wexton imagines.
But the Assembly will be dealing soon with measures even more volatile.
On Jan. 20, “Lobby Day” at the Assembly, thousands of gun advocates, many openly armed, will be coming to Richmond to protest new gun laws Northam and his new Democratic majority campaigned on and are determined to deliver.
Already, 110 towns, cities and counties in Virginia have created “Second Amendment sanctuaries” where new state laws that restrict gun rights will not be enforced by local authorities.
As The Washington Post writes,
“Virginia is a former Confederate State with strong rural traditions and lax gun laws. Guns represent the strongest, reddest line against the demographic changes that have seen Old Dominion voters usher in a new era of Democratic leadership in recent elections.
“A Nevada-based group called the Oath Keepers said it is sending training teams to help form posses and militia in Virginia. The leader of a Georgia militia called Three Percent Security Force has posted videos and calls to arms on Facebook, urging ‘patriots’ to converge on Richmond.”
Still, the divisions among Virginians are not only over history, heroes and guns, they are also moral and religious.
A year ago, Northam said he supported abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, and beyond, if an abortion were unsuccessful.
Here is Northam, in his own words, on the rights of the unborn:
“(Third trimester abortions are) done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s nonviable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. … The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”
Unlike the seven states of the Deep South, Virginia did not vote to secede and leave the Union until President Lincoln issued his call to arms to put down the rebellion after the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter.
Then the state of Virginia seceded from the Union as the colony of Virginia had seceded from Great Britain at Philadelphia 84 years before.
Today, it appears a new secession is underway. Virginians are separating from each other over issues as deep and divisive — such as who can take innocent life and when — as those that divided us in 1861.
As are the rest of their countrymen in this time of Trump.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.


theamericanconservative--2020-01-13--In the Coming Crisis, Bad Bureaucrats Will be the First to Go

As recent statistics make depressingly clear , the federal government ’ s long-term financial picture continues to deteriorate .
The nation ’ s outstanding public debt , which now tops $ 23 trillion , already comes out to $ 71,875 per citizen .
And despite a 4 percent revenue boost from the Trump tax cuts , Washington is still projected to add another $ 10 trillion in red ink over the next decade .
Entitlement finances are especially unnerving .
Social Security is projected to deplete its reserves by 2034 , while Medicare , with a $ 37 trillion unfunded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little as seven years .
Sadly , many states are not doing any better .
A May 2018 report by Harvard ’ s Kennedy School of Government revealed that public pension funding in New Jersey and Kentucky is already at “ high risk of insolvency , ” with California , Connecticut , Massachusetts , Illinois , and Pennsylvania close behind .
According to Pew Charitable Trusts , at least 20 state public pension programs have no more than half the assets they need to pay promised benefits .
Gloomy numbers , to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reckoning now appears all but inevitable , it will have one unexpected compensation : the century-old trend of highly educated bureaucrats assuming ever greater control over the lives of average citizens , first encouraged by President Woodrow Wilson , will finally be subject to a long-overdue performance review .
It is not simply that the coming money crunch will put a brake on funding for new or expanded government programs .
So large is America ’ s sovereign debt , as International Monetary Fund ( IMF ) economists Fabien Gonguet and Klaus-Peter Hellwig @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Public Wealth in the United States , that even well-established public services will have to justify their continuation .
That will mean meeting criteria far more demanding than the mere academic credentialing of their managers .
Any doubt that existing government programs can escape the coming pressure for greater accountability not only underestimates the seriousness of the looming crisis but ignores its only proven solution .
As Bridgewater Associates founder Ray Dalio documents in his 2018 book Principles for Navigating Big Debt Crises , no heavily indebted government in history has ever bailed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to share equally in the sacrifice .
Yes , the wealthy and big corporations will pay higher taxes to help meet obligations .
But large federal , state , and local bureaucracies will also have to contribute in the only meaningful way they can : by getting much better results for the money they spend .
We can already glimpse this future in cities like Allentown , Pennsylvania , counties like Tuolumne , California , and states like Illinois , where the financial pressure of underfunded teacher pensions at first prompted elected officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voter reaction , this was often done under the pretext of subsidizing new public services , such as library expansions , park renovations , and new police hires , though it did not take long for most communities to see through the ruse .
As Dalio himself could have predicted , even voters in affluent areas like Marin County , California , have stopped approving further school levies without some evidence that the public sector is doing its part .
This resistance , in turn , has forced local officials to begin reevaluating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their single biggest expense : the degree-certified competence of public school teachers and administrators .
Does every school system really need a credentialed curriculum director , when any good teacher should be able to pick out the best textbooks for his or her class ?
Does every district really need its own administrative structure , or can some functions be shared among districts ?
Why are so many expensive outside consultants imported to conduct programs on gender sensitivity , environmental activism , and other non-core subjects ?
And why must every new diploma @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or administrator who earned it , regardless of its relevance to the curriculum ?
As America ’ s debt crisis intensifies , the degree-based structure of our K-12 educational system , which yields one of the poorest academic outcomes in the industrialized world , is certain to undergo an even more thorough interrogation , though it will not be alone .
In 2019 , the Government Accountability Office released what it calls its “ High Risk List ” of 34 mismanaged programs , which together take in hundreds of billions of dollars .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforcement , federal and state governments spend billions on credentialed experts to identify and eliminate the “ root causes ” of crime without the slightest indication that their efforts have ever been successful .
And whether judged by the famously bungled attempt to create an Obamacare website or the estimated $ 52 billion in annual Medicare waste , the presumed competence of the Department of Health and Human Services bureaucracy is clearly in question .
Of course , no disciplining of the administrative state will happen without a loud protest from the one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from its rise—the American university .
In return for providing federal , state , and local bureaucrats with the credentials and academic studies to justify their authority—creating what Claremont Institute Senior Fellow John Marini has called the “ nearly seamless connection ” between the academy and government—higher education has been richly rewarded with research grants , donations for capital improvements , scholarships , consultation fees , generous student loan programs , and , in the case of state schools , outright operating subsidies .
Yet the academy will find it hard to reverse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on people ’ s already growing perception of an inverse relationship between the size of the administrative state and their own well-being .
It is not simply that California , Connecticut , Massachusetts , New Jersey , New York , and other regions with relatively large government bureaucracies impose relatively high tax burdens ; it ’ s that the quality of their services ranks comparatively low in national surveys .
How does the university continue to argue for the superior wisdom of credentialed governance , in other words , when those who live @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than satisfied ?
Even many university professors have been forced to concede that much of the research supporting the administrative state has likely been compromised , consciously or unconsciously , by the primary source of its funding—the public sector .
In theory , faculty have an objective “ truth-finding ” and “ truth telling ” role in our society , writes University of California-Berkeley law professor Stephen D. Sugarman , but “ because of their own financial interests , [ they ] may be dishonest in what they say they have discovered and/or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their field.
” Musa al-Gharbi , a Paul F. Lazarsfeld fellow in sociology at Columbia and a research associate at Heterodoxy Academy , has similarly admitted that every academic paper that touches on “ how society should be best arranged ” has likely been subject to “ prejudicial design ” based on how the outcome would personally profit the author .
Such concessions have only been reinforced by the recent revelation that the findings of many university studies once considered “ settled science ” can not , in fact , be replicated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ published research findings [ especially in the social sciences ] are false , ” says John Ioannidis , co-cirector of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford University .
It ’ s an opinion he shares with The Lancet ’ s respected editor-in-chief , Richard Charles Horton .
How well those professors who currently benefit most from the administrative state—political scientists , sociologists , economists , and policy analysts—will adjust to the coming need for government to be more cost effective is an open question .
But there is some reason to be hopeful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies decades ago to continue covering psychoanalysis and other lengthy therapies forced mental health professionals to suddenly discover all kinds of effective short-term treatments , so may the coming financial crisis prompt the professorate to reevaluate its current attachment to bureaucratic credentialing .
But however the academy responds to the growing pressure for more accountable governance , the looming economic reality will inevitably produce a slimmer administrative state .
That ’ s hardly a reason to cheer the approaching debt crisis , but like every proverbial dark cloud , it at least has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was executive director of the Yankee Institute for Public Policy at Trinity College from 1999 to 2009 .
He is author of the forthcoming book Living Spiritually in the Material World ( Fidelis Press ) .

As recent statistics make depressingly clear, the federal government’s long-term financial picture continues to deteriorate. The nation’s outstanding public debt, which now tops $23 trillion, already comes out to $71,875 per citizen. And despite a 4 percent revenue boost from the Trump tax cuts, Washington is still projected to add another $10 trillion in red ink over the next decade.
Entitlement finances are especially unnerving. Social Security is projected to deplete its reserves by 2034, while Medicare, with a $37 trillion unfunded liability, could go broke in as little as seven years.
Sadly, many states are not doing any better. A May 2018 report by Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government revealed that public pension funding in New Jersey and Kentucky is already at “high risk of insolvency,” with California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Pennsylvania close behind. According to Pew Charitable Trusts, at least 20 state public pension programs have no more than half the assets they need to pay promised benefits.
Gloomy numbers, to be sure. But while a severe fiscal reckoning now appears all but inevitable, it will have one unexpected compensation: the century-old trend of highly educated bureaucrats assuming ever greater control over the lives of average citizens, first encouraged by President Woodrow Wilson, will finally be subject to a long-overdue performance review.
It is not simply that the coming money crunch will put a brake on funding for new or expanded government programs. So large is America’s sovereign debt, as International Monetary Fund (IMF) economists Fabien Gonguet and Klaus-Peter Hellwig make clear in their recent working paper Public Wealth in the United States, that even well-established public services will have to justify their continuation. That will mean meeting criteria far more demanding than the mere academic credentialing of their managers.
Any doubt that existing government programs can escape the coming pressure for greater accountability not only underestimates the seriousness of the looming crisis but ignores its only proven solution. As Bridgewater Associates founder Ray Dalio documents in his 2018 book Principles for Navigating Big Debt Crises, no heavily indebted government in history has ever bailed itself out without requiring all social factions to share equally in the sacrifice. Yes, the wealthy and big corporations will pay higher taxes to help meet obligations. But large federal, state, and local bureaucracies will also have to contribute in the only meaningful way they can: by getting much better results for the money they spend.
We can already glimpse this future in cities like Allentown, Pennsylvania, counties like Tuolumne, California, and states like Illinois, where the financial pressure of underfunded teacher pensions at first prompted elected officials to try to raise taxes. Fearing voter reaction, this was often done under the pretext of subsidizing new public services, such as library expansions, park renovations, and new police hires, though it did not take long for most communities to see through the ruse.
As Dalio himself could have predicted, even voters in affluent areas like Marin County, California, have stopped approving further school levies without some evidence that the public sector is doing its part. This resistance, in turn, has forced local officials to begin reevaluating how much their communities are getting for their single biggest expense: the degree-certified competence of public school teachers and administrators.
Does every school system really need a credentialed curriculum director, when any good teacher should be able to pick out the best textbooks for his or her class? Does every district really need its own administrative structure, or can some functions be shared among districts? Why are so many expensive outside consultants imported to conduct programs on gender sensitivity, environmental activism, and other non-core subjects? And why must every new diploma automatically boost the salary of the teacher or administrator who earned it, regardless of its relevance to the curriculum?
As America’s debt crisis intensifies, the degree-based structure of our K-12 educational system, which yields one of the poorest academic outcomes in the industrialized world, is certain to undergo an even more thorough interrogation, though it will not be alone. In 2019, the Government Accountability Office released what it calls its “High Risk List” of 34 mismanaged programs, which together take in hundreds of billions of dollars.
In the just the area of law enforcement, federal and state governments spend billions on credentialed experts to identify and eliminate the “root causes” of crime without the slightest indication that their efforts have ever been successful. And whether judged by the famously bungled attempt to create an Obamacare website or the estimated $52 billion in annual Medicare waste, the presumed competence of the Department of Health and Human Services bureaucracy is clearly in question.
Of course, no disciplining of the administrative state will happen without a loud protest from the one institution that’s benefitted the most from its rise—the American university. In return for providing federal, state, and local bureaucrats with the credentials and academic studies to justify their authority—creating what Claremont Institute Senior Fellow John Marini has called the “nearly seamless connection” between the academy and government—higher education has been richly rewarded with research grants, donations for capital improvements, scholarships, consultation fees, generous student loan programs, and, in the case of state schools, outright operating subsidies.
Yet the academy will find it hard to reverse the impact of the looming debt crisis on people’s already growing perception of an inverse relationship between the size of the administrative state and their own well-being. It is not simply that California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and other regions with relatively large government bureaucracies impose relatively high tax burdens; it’s that the quality of their services ranks comparatively low in national surveys. How does the university continue to argue for the superior wisdom of credentialed governance, in other words, when those who live under it report that they are less than satisfied?
Even many university professors have been forced to concede that much of the research supporting the administrative state has likely been compromised, consciously or unconsciously, by the primary source of its funding—the public sector. In theory, faculty have an objective “truth-finding” and “truth telling” role in our society, writes University of California-Berkeley law professor Stephen D. Sugarman, but “because of their own financial interests, [they] may be dishonest in what they say they have discovered and/or how they describe the state of knowledge in their field.” Musa al-Gharbi, a Paul F. Lazarsfeld fellow in sociology at Columbia and a research associate at Heterodoxy Academy, has similarly admitted that every academic paper that touches on “how society should be best arranged” has likely been subject to “prejudicial design” based on how the outcome would personally profit the author.
Such concessions have only been reinforced by the recent revelation that the findings of many university studies once considered “settled science” cannot, in fact, be replicated. We now know that “most published research findings [especially in the social sciences] are false,” says John Ioannidis, co-cirector of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford University. It’s an opinion he shares with The Lancet’s respected editor-in-chief, Richard Charles Horton.
How well those professors who currently benefit most from the administrative state—political scientists, sociologists, economists, and policy analysts—will adjust to the coming need for government to be more cost effective is an open question. But there is some reason to be hopeful. Just as the unwillingness of insurance companies decades ago to continue covering psychoanalysis and other lengthy therapies forced mental health professionals to suddenly discover all kinds of effective short-term treatments, so may the coming financial crisis prompt the professorate to reevaluate its current attachment to bureaucratic credentialing.
But however the academy responds to the growing pressure for more accountable governance, the looming economic reality will inevitably produce a slimmer administrative state. That’s hardly a reason to cheer the approaching debt crisis, but like every proverbial dark cloud, it at least has a silver lining.
Dr. Lewis Andrews was executive director of the Yankee Institute for Public Policy at Trinity College from 1999 to 2009. He is author of the forthcoming book Living Spiritually in the Material World (Fidelis Press).


theamericanconservative--2020-01-14--Trump’s Antagonism of Iran is a Wrapped Gift to Bernie

Sanders ' socialism might turn voters off , but his running against a war could change everything .
The directed killing of General Qassem Soleimani , Iran ’ s blood-soaked field marshal in the “ forever war ” of the Middle East , has begun to roil the politics of both the region and the USA .
A stunned and shaken Iran retaliated by firing a dozen missiles at two U.S. bases in Iraq .
Yet before launching the attack , Iran signaled that its retaliation would be strictly proportionate to avoid an escalation .
U.S. forces were warned where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ zero American casualties in the two strikes .
Hours after the Iranian missiles hit the U.S. bases , however , an apparently panicked Iranian officer at an air defense missile battery launched and shot down a Ukrainian airliner , leaving Tehran airport with 176 people aboard .
For days , the ayatollah indicated he did not know the cause of the disaster had been one of Iran ’ s own surface-to-air missiles .
Thus , while hundreds of thousands were marching last week in nationalist solidarity to honor the dead general , today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ayatollah , accusing his regime of having known the truth and lied to the nation .
In Iraq , a nonbinding vote has been taken in parliament to demand a full U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq for the execution of Soleimani .
President Donald Trump is threatening the Iraqis with sanctions if Baghdad follows through and expels the 5,200 U.S. troops still there .
NATO allies with units in Iraq are silently seething , as they received no warning we were about to take down the general .
Here , the political fallout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just begun .
Democrats , after denouncing Soleimani as a war criminal and serial killer of American soldiers , are accusing Trump of carrying out , without the consent of Congress , a premeditated act of war on a nation on which Congress hasn ’ t authorized war .
Trump ’ s claim that the general had to be taken down to abort an “ imminent ” attack on Americans , including attacks on not one but four U.S. embassies , is being derided .
The justice of killing the general seems less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the act , and a storm is brewing over whether Trump and his aides have been dissembling .
Nancy Pelosi has already pushed through the House a nonbinding resolution asserting that Trump has no authority to carry out acts of war against Iran without Congress ’ consent .
Congressman Matt Gaetz , a Trump supporter from Florida , stunned the president by voting for the Pelosi resolution .
Senator Mike Lee broke with Trump to denounce the briefing that Congress had received , about attacks on Americans being imminent , as both contemptuous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever had .
The general may have gotten the justice he deserved in that SUV departing Baghdad airport , but the unintended consequences of his execution are now coming in .
Trump has elevated the Middle East wars as a major issue in 2020 , not his strong suit .
For , as the military says , “ The enemy gets a vote !
” as to how much blood , including American blood , will be shed in 2020 .
Also , by sending the 82nd Airborne to Kuwait and Iraq , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still mired in the “ endless wars ” of the Middle East despite his promise to extricate us .
Fractures have appeared in the conservative-populist coalition that put Trump in office .
War Party interventionists , who have long sought to have the United States do to Iran what Bush 43 did to Iraq , are exhilarated by what they believe the Soleimani killing portends—an inevitable war with Iran .
Trump has also energized the anti-war majority in the Democratic Party , specifically the candidacy of Bernie Sanders , whose anti-war and anti-interventionist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is his fidelity to socialism .
Sanders voted against both the Bush II Iraq war that Senator Joe Biden voted to support , and George H.W .
Bush ’ s Desert Storm expulsion of the Iraqi army from Kuwait .
With the killing of the general and the possibility of a U.S.-Iran war rising , Bernie is the Democratic candidate whose anti-war credentials are the longest and strongest and whose position of avoiding war with Iran is most in sync with the majority of the party he seeks to lead .
Sanders could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and New Hampshire and have the wind behind him going into South Carolina and Super Tuesday .
His socialism may be a bridge too far for most Americans , and an insuperable obstacle to his ever becoming president .
But should he win the nomination , he could occupy in 2020 the space Trump occupied in 2016 , as the anti-interventionist , anti-war candidate .
And if Bernie ran a “ Come Home , America ” campaign , half a century after the slogan ’ s author , George McGovern , lost in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could change the face and future of American politics .
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon ’ s White House Wars : The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever .
To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists , visit the Creators website at www.creators.com .

The directed killing of General Qassem Soleimani, Iran’s blood-soaked field marshal in the “forever war” of the Middle East, has begun to roil the politics of both the region and the USA.
A stunned and shaken Iran retaliated by firing a dozen missiles at two U.S. bases in Iraq. Yet before launching the attack, Iran signaled that its retaliation would be strictly proportionate to avoid an escalation.
U.S. forces were warned where the missiles would hit. Result: zero American casualties in the two strikes.
Hours after the Iranian missiles hit the U.S. bases, however, an apparently panicked Iranian officer at an air defense missile battery launched and shot down a Ukrainian airliner, leaving Tehran airport with 176 people aboard.
For days, the ayatollah indicated he did not know the cause of the disaster had been one of Iran’s own surface-to-air missiles.
Thus, while hundreds of thousands were marching last week in nationalist solidarity to honor the dead general, today thousands of Iranians are marching against the ayatollah, accusing his regime of having known the truth and lied to the nation.
In Iraq, a nonbinding vote has been taken in parliament to demand a full U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq for the execution of Soleimani. President Donald Trump is threatening the Iraqis with sanctions if Baghdad follows through and expels the 5,200 U.S. troops still there.
NATO allies with units in Iraq are silently seething, as they received no warning we were about to take down the general.
Here, the political fallout from the execution of Soleimani has only just begun.
Democrats, after denouncing Soleimani as a war criminal and serial killer of American soldiers, are accusing Trump of carrying out, without the consent of Congress, a premeditated act of war on a nation on which Congress hasn’t authorized war.
Trump’s claim that the general had to be taken down to abort an “imminent” attack on Americans, including attacks on not one but four U.S. embassies, is being derided. The justice of killing the general seems less the issue now than the wisdom of the act, and a storm is brewing over whether Trump and his aides have been dissembling.
Nancy Pelosi has already pushed through the House a nonbinding resolution asserting that Trump has no authority to carry out acts of war against Iran without Congress’ consent. Congressman Matt Gaetz, a Trump supporter from Florida, stunned the president by voting for the Pelosi resolution.
Senator Mike Lee broke with Trump to denounce the briefing that Congress had received, about attacks on Americans being imminent, as both contemptuous and the worst briefing he’d ever had.
The general may have gotten the justice he deserved in that SUV departing Baghdad airport, but the unintended consequences of his execution are now coming in.
Trump has elevated the Middle East wars as a major issue in 2020, not his strong suit. For, as the military says, “The enemy gets a vote!” as to how much blood, including American blood, will be shed in 2020.
Also, by sending the 82nd Airborne to Kuwait and Iraq, Trump underscored the truth: we are still mired in the “endless wars” of the Middle East despite his promise to extricate us.
Fractures have appeared in the conservative-populist coalition that put Trump in office. War Party interventionists, who have long sought to have the United States do to Iran what Bush 43 did to Iraq, are exhilarated by what they believe the Soleimani killing portends—an inevitable war with Iran.
Trump has also energized the anti-war majority in the Democratic Party, specifically the candidacy of Bernie Sanders, whose anti-war and anti-interventionist credentials are as long-standing and solid as is his fidelity to socialism.
Sanders voted against both the Bush II Iraq war that Senator Joe Biden voted to support, and George H.W. Bush’s Desert Storm expulsion of the Iraqi army from Kuwait.
With the killing of the general and the possibility of a U.S.-Iran war rising, Bernie is the Democratic candidate whose anti-war credentials are the longest and strongest and whose position of avoiding war with Iran is most in sync with the majority of the party he seeks to lead.
Sanders could ride anti-war sentiment to victory in Iowa and New Hampshire and have the wind behind him going into South Carolina and Super Tuesday.
His socialism may be a bridge too far for most Americans, and an insuperable obstacle to his ever becoming president. But should he win the nomination, he could occupy in 2020 the space Trump occupied in 2016, as the anti-interventionist, anti-war candidate.
And if Bernie ran a “Come Home, America” campaign, half a century after the slogan’s author, George McGovern, lost in history’s largest landslide, Sanders could change the face and future of American politics.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.


theamericanconservative--2020-01-14--Senator McConnell Should Recuse Himself From Impeachment Now

He 's already declared that he is a partisan for the president .
How can he run this show without compromising it ?
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) talks to reporters at the U.S. Capitol January 07 , 2020 in Washington , DC .
( Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images ) After a closed door meeting with White House counsel Pat Cipollone on last month , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he will be collaborating with President Trump during the upcoming Senate impeachment trial .
“ Everything I do during this , I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” McConnell said .
“ There will be no difference between the president ’ s position and our position in how to handle this.
” Among others , Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski , Susan Collins , and Mitt Romney have voiced concern over the majority leader ’ s secret collaboration with the White House counsel .
They question whether it ’ s McConnell ’ s job to act as President Trump ’ s alter ego during the impeachment trial .
McConnell will be serving as a judge-juror .
His collaboration with President Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sir Francis Bacon sitting on the King ’ s Bench was convicted and disgraced because he ’ d engaged in ex parte communications with the British Crown .
The impartiality required by due process clearly forbids any private contact between a judge-juror and the defendant or defense counsel .
Accordingly , to entrust to the compromised majority leader the power to prescribe impeachment trial procedures would be to rig or appear to rig the process in favor of the president .
That would be politically hazardous for Senate Republicans .
President Franklin D. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scheme to rig the U.S. Supreme Court .
Not only did the legislation die in the Senate , it contributed to the Democratic loss of six Senate and 71 House seats during the 1938 midterm elections .
Senator Joe McCarthy lost favor because of unfair procedures during his investigations of communism and communists , and was condemned by the Senate in 1954 .
Voters generally respect due process and may abandon elected officials who do not .
To avoid the taint of McConnell ’ s bias , other Senate Republicans should consider voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Roberts to prescribe procedures for the impeachment trial .
Among other things , the procedures should govern the admissibility of evidence , claims of privilege , subpoenas to compel testimony or documents , the burden of proof , direct and cross-examination of witnesses , and instructions as to the elements of an impeachable offense .
The Constitution , by designating the chief justice as presiding officer of impeachment trials , foresaw the partisanship that would likely prevail in such an atmosphere .
The chief justice serves for life and is shielded from partisan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at 10 percent , while the corresponding figure for the Supreme Court is 42 percent .
The two major parties are in disrepute .
A 42 percent plurality of voters are registered as independent , while 29 percent are Democratic and 27 percent are Republican .
Chief Justice Roberts has earned considerable public confidence with his temperament and robust defense of judicial impartiality that had been questioned by President Trump .
Roberts publicly noted : “ We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges or Bush judges or Clinton judges.
” His @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the conservative and liberal constituencies .
Among other things , conservatives have assailed his twin opinions upholding President Barack Obama ’ s Affordable Care Act , while liberals have chafed at his opinions sustaining President Trump ’ s travel ban and invalidating the preclearance procedures of the Voting Rights Act .
Delegating procedural authority to the chief justice for Trump ’ s impeachment trial passes constitutional muster .
Still , those procedures can be overridden by a Senate majority , leaving ultimate political accountability in the upper chamber .
Moreover , the Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 1993 ) that the Senate ’ s powers over impeachment trial procedures are virtually limitless .
Yet the promulgation of procedural rules is a time-honored judicial function .
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure , for instance , are issued by the Supreme Court under the Rules Enabling Act subject to overruling by Congress .
To be successful , appointing Roberts the presiding officer needs to attract only three Republican votes .
In case of a tie , Roberts would cast the deciding vote himself , as was done by Chief Justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of President Andrew Johnson .
The votes might be there—but will Romney , Collins , and Murkowski put integrity before partisan imperative ?
Bruce Fein was associate deputy attorney general and general counsel of the Federal Communications Commission under President Reagan .

After a closed door meeting with White House counsel Pat Cipollone on last month, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he will be collaborating with President Trump during the upcoming Senate impeachment trial. “Everything I do during this, I’m coordinating with the White House counsel,” McConnell said. “There will be no difference between the president’s position and our position in how to handle this.”
Among others, Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and Mitt Romney have voiced concern over the majority leader’s secret collaboration with the White House counsel. They question whether it’s McConnell’s job to act as President Trump’s alter ego during the impeachment trial.
McConnell will be serving as a judge-juror. His collaboration with President Trump should disqualify him from that role. Sir Francis Bacon sitting on the King’s Bench was convicted and disgraced because he’d engaged in ex parte communications with the British Crown. The impartiality required by due process clearly forbids any private contact between a judge-juror and the defendant or defense counsel.
Accordingly, to entrust to the compromised majority leader the power to prescribe impeachment trial procedures would be to rig or appear to rig the process in favor of the president. That would be politically hazardous for Senate Republicans. President Franklin D. Roosevelt was repudiated over his 1937 court-packing scheme to rig the U.S. Supreme Court. Not only did the legislation die in the Senate, it contributed to the Democratic loss of six Senate and 71 House seats during the 1938 midterm elections. Senator Joe McCarthy lost favor because of unfair procedures during his investigations of communism and communists, and was condemned by the Senate in 1954. Voters generally respect due process and may abandon elected officials who do not.
To avoid the taint of McConnell’s bias, other Senate Republicans should consider voting with Democrats to empower Chief Justice John Roberts to prescribe procedures for the impeachment trial. Among other things, the procedures should govern the admissibility of evidence, claims of privilege, subpoenas to compel testimony or documents, the burden of proof, direct and cross-examination of witnesses, and instructions as to the elements of an impeachable offense.
The Constitution, by designating the chief justice as presiding officer of impeachment trials, foresaw the partisanship that would likely prevail in such an atmosphere. The chief justice serves for life and is shielded from partisan pressures. Public confidence in Congress hovers at 10 percent, while the corresponding figure for the Supreme Court is 42 percent. The two major parties are in disrepute. A 42 percent plurality of voters are registered as independent, while 29 percent are Democratic and 27 percent are Republican.
Chief Justice Roberts has earned considerable public confidence with his temperament and robust defense of judicial impartiality that had been questioned by President Trump. Roberts publicly noted: “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges or Bush judges or Clinton judges.” His major 5-4 opinions have skillfully navigated between the conservative and liberal constituencies. Among other things, conservatives have assailed his twin opinions upholding President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act, while liberals have chafed at his opinions sustaining President Trump’s travel ban and invalidating the preclearance procedures of the Voting Rights Act.
Delegating procedural authority to the chief justice for Trump’s impeachment trial passes constitutional muster. Still, those procedures can be overridden by a Senate majority, leaving ultimate political accountability in the upper chamber. Moreover, the Supreme Court held in Nixon v. United States (1993) that the Senate’s powers over impeachment trial procedures are virtually limitless. Yet the promulgation of procedural rules is a time-honored judicial function. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for instance, are issued by the Supreme Court under the Rules Enabling Act subject to overruling by Congress.
To be successful, appointing Roberts the presiding officer needs to attract only three Republican votes. In case of a tie, Roberts would cast the deciding vote himself, as was done by Chief Justice Salmon Portland Chase in the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson. The votes might be there—but will Romney, Collins, and Murkowski put integrity before partisan imperative?
Bruce Fein was associate deputy attorney general and general counsel of the Federal Communications Commission under President Reagan.


theamericanconservative--2020-01-14--The Easiest Way Donald Trump Can Bring Drug Prices Down

An eleventh-hour Obama executive order has benefitted pharmaceutical interests while hurting consumers .
The current president can change all that .
In any marketplace , prices are everything .
Knowing how much something costs allows people to make sensible decisions about how to assess value .
The market for health care is no different .
That ’ s why many on both sides of the aisle have prioritized providing patients with accurate pricing information about the cost of their health care .
For example , in an executive order this year , President Trump wrote : “ To make fully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must know the price and quality of a good or service in advance.
” He ordered the secretary of health and human services “ to require hospitals to publicly post standard charge information , including charges and information based on negotiated rates and for common or shoppable items and services , in an easy-to-understand , consumer-friendly , and machine-readable format….
” Of course , a fight is raging over whether this is the ideal way to ensure patients are provided with clear and accurate information about pricing .
An arguably even bigger issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In addition to providing more pricing information , it ’ s important that more pricing options be available to more people .
But thanks to an old decree , prices for too many prescription drugs remain far higher than they ought to be .
Before leaving office in 2016 , the Obama administration began allowing generic drugs to be placed on the same pricing tier as brand-name drugs at out-of-pocket rates .
What does that mean ?
When a drug is under patent , it has no competition .
Once that patent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make the same drug , but charge less .
It ’ s like buying store-brand paper products or groceries .
The product is the same but the price is lower .
Obama ’ s order has boosted existing health care interests , but it hasn ’ t helped consumers .
In fact , it ’ s cost us quite a bit .
Today , three years after the decision , Medicare Part D formularies exclude first generics almost 40 percent of the time .
Despite opponents arguing that the change will result in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have already paid nearly $ 22 billion more in out-of-pocket costs because their lower-cost generic was placed on a higher-cost brand tier than it could have been .
This practice has worked out so poorly for consumers that Senator James Lankford recently called it out in volume five of his “ Federal Fumbles : Ways the Government Dropped the Ball ” report .
To rectify it , he proposed three changes to the status quo : “ First , we should ensure patients have access to lower-cost drugs when they come on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be placed on the lowest cost-sharing formulary tier .
Third , we should create a specialty tier for lower-cost alternatives with reduced patient cost sharing.
” My organization , the Coalition to Reduce Spending , along with 22 other conservative and health care-focused groups , agree with Lankford ’ s sentiments .
“ Generics and biosimilars offer immense value to patients and the health care system , ” we wrote recently in a letter to lawmakers .
“ Over the last decade , they have saved America ’ s patients and our system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than $ 90 billion for Medicare in 2018 alone .
However , recent changes in treatment of generic medicines on formularies often reduce the full value of generics and put those savings in jeopardy.
” A bipartisan group of congressmen this year wrote a letter to Trump administration officials expressing a desire to fix this mess as well .
One of those lawmakers , Congressman David McKinley of West Virginia , has also proposed legislation to combat the abuse .
It ’ s important for Congress to address the issue , but there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration could simply change the rule .
The executive branch can thereby ensure that generic drugs are placed on the tiers where they were originally meant to be .
Prescription drug pricing shouldn ’ t be a partisan issue .
Everyone agrees that patients should know what their treatment costs and that drug costs should be affordable .
Now it ’ s time for the president and Congress to grab this low-hanging fruit and do something about it before costs spiral even more .
Jonathan Bydlak is a fiscal policy expert and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

In any marketplace, prices are everything. Knowing how much something costs allows people to make sensible decisions about how to assess value.
The market for health care is no different. That’s why many on both sides of the aisle have prioritized providing patients with accurate pricing information about the cost of their health care.
For example, in an executive order this year, President Trump wrote: “To make fully informed decisions about their healthcare, patients must know the price and quality of a good or service in advance.” He ordered the secretary of health and human services “to require hospitals to publicly post standard charge information, including charges and information based on negotiated rates and for common or shoppable items and services, in an easy-to-understand, consumer-friendly, and machine-readable format….”
Of course, a fight is raging over whether this is the ideal way to ensure patients are provided with clear and accurate information about pricing. An arguably even bigger issue, though, is still being overlooked.
In addition to providing more pricing information, it’s important that more pricing options be available to more people. But thanks to an old decree, prices for too many prescription drugs remain far higher than they ought to be.
Before leaving office in 2016, the Obama administration began allowing generic drugs to be placed on the same pricing tier as brand-name drugs at out-of-pocket rates.
What does that mean? When a drug is under patent, it has no competition. Once that patent expires, other companies are allowed to make the same drug, but charge less. It’s like buying store-brand paper products or groceries. The product is the same but the price is lower.
Obama’s order has boosted existing health care interests, but it hasn’t helped consumers. In fact, it’s cost us quite a bit.
Today, three years after the decision, Medicare Part D formularies exclude first generics almost 40 percent of the time. Despite opponents arguing that the change will result in lower negotiated prices for beneficiaries, seniors have already paid nearly $22 billion more in out-of-pocket costs because their lower-cost generic was placed on a higher-cost brand tier than it could have been.
This practice has worked out so poorly for consumers that Senator James Lankford recently called it out in volume five of his “Federal Fumbles: Ways the Government Dropped the Ball” report. To rectify it, he proposed three changes to the status quo: “First, we should ensure patients have access to lower-cost drugs when they come on the market. Second, these drugs should be placed on the lowest cost-sharing formulary tier. Third, we should create a specialty tier for lower-cost alternatives with reduced patient cost sharing.”
My organization, the Coalition to Reduce Spending, along with 22 other conservative and health care-focused groups, agree with Lankford’s sentiments. “Generics and biosimilars offer immense value to patients and the health care system,” we wrote recently in a letter to lawmakers. “Over the last decade, they have saved America’s patients and our system nearly $2 trillion, including more than $90 billion for Medicare in 2018 alone. However, recent changes in treatment of generic medicines on formularies often reduce the full value of generics and put those savings in jeopardy.”
A bipartisan group of congressmen this year wrote a letter to Trump administration officials expressing a desire to fix this mess as well. One of those lawmakers, Congressman David McKinley of West Virginia, has also proposed legislation to combat the abuse.
It’s important for Congress to address the issue, but there’s also the possibility that the administration could simply change the rule. The executive branch can thereby ensure that generic drugs are placed on the tiers where they were originally meant to be.
Prescription drug pricing shouldn’t be a partisan issue. Everyone agrees that patients should know what their treatment costs and that drug costs should be affordable. Now it’s time for the president and Congress to grab this low-hanging fruit and do something about it before costs spiral even more.
Jonathan Bydlak is a fiscal policy expert and the president of the Coalition to Reduce Spending.


theamericanconservative--2020-01-15--Trump Officials Stumble, Bumble, Stammer and Rationalize

Luckily they have Lindsey Graham , who thinks asking questions about imminent threats is 'empowering the enemy . '
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo leaves the stage to US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper .
( Photo by Nicholas Kamm / AFP ) ( Photo by NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP via Getty Images ) As the debate over presidential war powers intensifies in Congress , a coterie of key Trump officials hit the Sunday talk shows last weekend to ratchet up the rhetoric on the “ imminence ” of the attack Iranian General Qassem Soleimani had allegedly planned .
The debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ briefing provided to House and Senate officials laying out the justification for Soleimani ’ s killing was blasted by members on both sides of the aisle as “ insulting , ” “ demeaning , ” “ dismissive ” of Congress , and “ disdainful.
” “ It was this attitude that we don ’ t have to tell Congress , we don ’ t have to include Congress , ” said Senator Tim Kaine , Democrat of Virginia .
He added that after various scenarios were presented by senators , the administration refused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come to Congress ” no matter what the circumstances .
The president can not take military action against another nation without Congress ’ s approval , unless it is to defend against an imminent threat to U.S. territories , possessions , or citizens. The U.S. is not officially at war with Iran .
Yet the Trump administration took the unprecedented step of openly ordering the killing of an Iranian senior state official of a country , without an authorization of military force against that country and without briefing Congress .
On Friday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there was “ a series of imminent attacks that were being plotted by Qasem Soleimaini , we don ’ t know precisely when and we don ’ t precisely where.
” Members of Congress and the media seized upon the quote , charging that it does not sound like the definition of “ imminent.
” President Trump himself seemed to grasp the importance of stressing that the attack was “ imminent ” when he added details Friday on Fox News , asserting that Soleimani was plotting attacks on four U.S. embassies .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ embassies , ” Trump said .
“ Could have been military bases , could have been a lot of other things too .
But it was imminent.
” “ We did it because they were looking to blow up our embassy , ” Trump added .
“ He was looking very seriously at our embassies , and not just the embassy in Baghdad .
I can reveal that I believe it would have been four embassies.
” But members of Congress say they were not told that four embassies had been targeted .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether that claim was true , one by one they were left sputtering .
Pentagon Chief Mark Esper conceded he “ didn ’ t see ” intelligence indicating that on CBS ’ s Face the Nation .
“ I didn ’ t see one with regard to four embassies , ” Esper said .
“ What I ’ m saying is I share the president ’ s view.
” “ What the president said was he believed there probably and could ’ ve been attacks against additional embassies .
I shared that view @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adviser Robert O ’ Brien seemed to imply that members of Congress were at fault for not extracting that information from their intelligence briefing .
“ It does seem to be a contradiction .
[ Trump is ] telling Laura Ingraham [ about imminent attacks ] , but in a 75-minute classified briefing , your top national security people never mentioned this to members of Congress .
Why not ?
” Chris Wallace asked O ’ Brien on Fox News Sunday .
“ I wasn ’ t at the briefing , ” O @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t know how the Q & A went back and forth .
Sometimes it depends on the questions that were asked or how they were phrased.
” On Meet the Press , O ’ Brien asserted that “ exquisite ” intelligence he was privy to showed that “ the threat was imminent.
” When pressed by Chuck Todd about what the U.S. did to protect the other three embassies under alleged imminent threat , O ’ Brien declined to give details .
“ Is ‘ imminent ’ months , not weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” asked Todd .
“ I think imminent , generally , means soon , quickly , you know , in process .
So you know , I think those threats were imminent .
And I don ’ t want to get into the definition further than that , ” said O ’ Brien .
Pompeo ’ s claim that an attack could be “ imminent ” even though the U.S. did not “ know where or when ” it would come is “ pretty inconsistent , ” Senator Rand Paul , Republican of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Press .
“ To me there ’ s a bigger question too .
…This is what really infuriated me about the briefing… [ Trump officials ] maintain both in private and in public that a vote by Congress in 2003 or 2002 to go after Saddam Hussein was a vote that now allows them to still be in Iraq and do whatever they want , including killing a foreign general from Iran , ” said Paul .
“ And I don ’ t think that ’ s what Congress meant in 2002 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ about whether we should still be in Iraq or in Afghanistan .
There needs to be authorization from Congress.
” Paul argued that presidents from both parties have , for decades , usurped Congress ’ s war powers , and that it is time for Congress to claw them back .
Said Paul , the founders “ wanted to make it difficult to go to war , and I think we ’ ve been drifting away from that for a long time , but that ’ s why I ’ m willing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Trump—actually think he has shown remarkable restraint—but I ’ m willing to stand up even against a president of my party because we need to stand up and take back the power.
” While the debate over war powers continues , Trump supporters have counter-attacked by questioning the patriotism of those who don ’ t fall in line with their narrative .
Former White House spokesperson Sarah Huckabee-Sanders “ can ’ t think of anything dumber ” than Congress deciding matters of war and peace .
Nikki Haley accused Democrats of “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Collins said Democrats are “ in love with terrorists.
” And Lindsey Graham said senators like Lee and Paul are “ empowering the enemy ” by trying to rein in Trump ’ s war powers .
On Monday , Trump added on Twitter : “ The Fake News Media and their Democrat Partners are working hard to determine whether or not the future attack by terrorist Soleimani was ‘ imminent ’ or not , & was my team in agreement .
The answer to both is a strong YES.
, but it doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ horrible past !
” If Trump ’ s team was really in agreement , they sure had a good way of hiding it .

As the debate over presidential war powers intensifies in Congress, a coterie of key Trump officials hit the Sunday talk shows last weekend to ratchet up the rhetoric on the “imminence” of the attack Iranian General Qassem Soleimani had allegedly planned.
The debate took on added significance after an intelligence briefing provided to House and Senate officials laying out the justification for Soleimani’s killing was blasted by members on both sides of the aisle as “insulting,” “demeaning,” “dismissive” of Congress, and “disdainful.”
“It was this attitude that we don’t have to tell Congress, we don’t have to include Congress,” said Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia. He added that after various scenarios were presented by senators, the administration refused to provide any “commitment to ever come to Congress” no matter what the circumstances.
The president cannot take military action against another nation without Congress’s approval, unless it is to defend against an imminent threat to U.S. territories, possessions, or citizens.
The U.S. is not officially at war with Iran. Yet the Trump administration took the unprecedented step of openly ordering the killing of an Iranian senior state official of a country, without an authorization of military force against that country and without briefing Congress.
On Friday, Pompeo said the attacks were justified because there was “a series of imminent attacks that were being plotted by Qasem Soleimaini, we don’t know precisely when and we don’t precisely where.”
Members of Congress and the media seized upon the quote, charging that it does not sound like the definition of “imminent.”
President Trump himself seemed to grasp the importance of stressing that the attack was “imminent” when he added details Friday on Fox News, asserting that Soleimani was plotting attacks on four U.S. embassies.
“I think it would have been four embassies,” Trump said. “Could have been military bases, could have been a lot of other things too. But it was imminent.”
“We did it because they were looking to blow up our embassy,” Trump added. “He was looking very seriously at our embassies, and not just the embassy in Baghdad. I can reveal that I believe it would have been four embassies.”
But members of Congress say they were not told that four embassies had been targeted. And when Trump officials were asked Sunday whether that claim was true, one by one they were left sputtering.
Pentagon Chief Mark Esper conceded he “didn’t see” intelligence indicating that on CBS’s Face the Nation.
“I didn’t see one with regard to four embassies,” Esper said. “What I’m saying is I share the president’s view.”
“What the president said was he believed there probably and could’ve been attacks against additional embassies. I shared that view,” said Esper.
National Security adviser Robert O’Brien seemed to imply that members of Congress were at fault for not extracting that information from their intelligence briefing.
“It does seem to be a contradiction. [Trump is] telling Laura Ingraham [about imminent attacks], but in a 75-minute classified briefing, your top national security people never mentioned this to members of Congress. Why not?” Chris Wallace asked O’Brien on Fox News Sunday.
“I wasn’t at the briefing,” O’Brien answered, “and I don’t know how the Q&A went back and forth. Sometimes it depends on the questions that were asked or how they were phrased.”
On Meet the Press, O’Brien asserted that “exquisite” intelligence he was privy to showed that “the threat was imminent.”
When pressed by Chuck Todd about what the U.S. did to protect the other three embassies under alleged imminent threat, O’Brien declined to give details.
“Is ‘imminent’ months, not weeks? Are people misinterpreting that word?” asked Todd.
“I think imminent, generally, means soon, quickly, you know, in process. So you know, I think those threats were imminent. And I don’t want to get into the definition further than that,” said O’Brien.
Pompeo’s claim that an attack could be “imminent” even though the U.S. did not “know where or when” it would come is “pretty inconsistent,” Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, replied Sunday on Meet the Press.
“To me there’s a bigger question too. …This is what really infuriated me about the briefing…[Trump officials] maintain both in private and in public that a vote by Congress in 2003 or 2002 to go after Saddam Hussein was a vote that now allows them to still be in Iraq and do whatever they want, including killing a foreign general from Iran,” said Paul. “And I don’t think that’s what Congress meant in 2002. …We really need to have a debate about whether we should still be in Iraq or in Afghanistan. There needs to be authorization from Congress.”
Paul argued that presidents from both parties have, for decades, usurped Congress’s war powers, and that it is time for Congress to claw them back.
Said Paul, the founders “wanted to make it difficult to go to war, and I think we’ve been drifting away from that for a long time, but that’s why I’m willing to stand up, not because I distrust President Trump—actually think he has shown remarkable restraint—but I’m willing to stand up even against a president of my party because we need to stand up and take back the power.”
While the debate over war powers continues, Trump supporters have counter-attacked by questioning the patriotism of those who don’t fall in line with their narrative.
Former White House spokesperson Sarah Huckabee-Sanders “can’t think of anything dumber” than Congress deciding matters of war and peace. Nikki Haley accused Democrats of “mourning” General Soleimani. Congressman Doug Collins said Democrats are “in love with terrorists.” And Lindsey Graham said senators like Lee and Paul are “empowering the enemy” by trying to rein in Trump’s war powers.
On Monday, Trump added on Twitter: “The Fake News Media and their Democrat Partners are working hard to determine whether or not the future attack by terrorist Soleimani was ‘imminent’ or not, & was my team in agreement. The answer to both is a strong YES., but it doesn’t really matter because of his horrible past!” If Trump’s team was really in agreement, they sure had a good way of hiding it.