So, who is in favor and who is opposed to this attack on Iran? The friend mentioned in Part I argued that Trump should have obtained Congressional approval. There is no chance the Democrats would agree to that. First, they literally hate Trump. Second, there is no way they would give Trump what would be perceived as a victory, with the midterms coming up later this year. Does that mean the President can avoid the Constitution? No. But there is still the 1973 War Powers resolution, as well as the 2002 AUMF used by Obama, Biden and now Trump. And, to be clear, I believe all recent Presidents argued that the War Powers Resolution was an uncontitutional limit on the powers of the Commander in Chief.
Here was former VP Kamala Harris, and possible 2028 presidential candidate, in opposing this operation: "Let me be clear - I am opposed to a regime change war in Iran." California Governor, and obvious 2028 presidential candidate, Gavin Newsom, was also opposed. While agreeing that the Iranian regime must go, Newsom qualified his remarks by saying: "But that does not justify the President of the United States engaging in an illegal, dangerous war that will risk the lives of of our American service members and our friends without justification to the American people."
As much as I hate to say it, I agree with Newsom on one thing. Once the attack started, Trump should have immediately addressed the nation from the Oval Office. Given all the attacks by Iran and their proxies on the United States, not to mention Iran's continued development of enriched uranium and long range missiles, all in order to destroy what they refer to as the "Great Satan" (the United States), that speech could write itself. Did no one in the White House advise him to do that? Because the polls are not in his favor (see below). Given all of the above, I am supposed to believe that the threat from Iran is not imminent? It's been imminent and continuing ever since 1979.
Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez claimed that "this war is unlawful. It is unnecessary, And it will be catastrophic." Then she claimed that Iran was negotiating with us and an agreement would have "staved off war." Is she kidding? Iran has been "negotiating" with the Europeans and the the US since 2003! The entire time they were developing nuclear facilities and then enriching uranium. It was a ruse. A stalling tactic. Feign interest. They would never adhere to any deal.
PA. Governor Josh Shapiro agreed that Iran could never be allowed to get nukes. But he called Trump's actions "Illegal and dangerous." House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries (who will be the next Speaker if the Dems take the House in November) said Trump was involving us in another endless war in the Middle East "that is going to end in failure."
When these people say the war is "dangerous," aren't all wars by their very nature dangerous? Does that mean we never enter into a war? I'm not sure I understand the point. And for Cortez to say the result will be "catastrophic," and Jeffries to say that it will end in "failure,"...these comments might not meet the legal definition of treason, but they certainly lend support to our enemy and serve to undermine our troops.
There were 3 recent polls - Reuters/Ipsos and CNN/SSRS, and the latest one from Fox. The Reuters poll had only 27% approving of the attack on Iran, with 43% disapproving and almost 30% unsure. By party, Republicans approved with 55%, only 19% of Independents approved and a mere 7% of Democrats approved. With the CNN poll, 41% approved and 59% disapproved. 83% of Republicans felt that Trump had a clear plan, but 88% of Democrats disagreed and 70% of independents disagreed. The most current poll is the Fox poll, with 50% approving and 50% disapproving. That's not surprising to me. As Americans, we want to support our troops when they are in harms way, fighting for us. But, we also now that if the fighting becomes prolonged, support will likely wane.
No comments:
Post a Comment