MASSIE interview: Houthi strikes 'not America First'

Responsible Statecraft ^ | March 27 | Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

[RandFan]

In an interview this morning with RS, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) said there was clearly "no urgency" for U.S. military airstrikes against the Houthis in Yemen, now in their 13th day. Therefore, the administration should have gone to Congress for authorization and without it, those strikes are illegal.

Massie pointed to Vice President J.D. Vance's contribution to the now infamous signal chat which described the strikes as they were happening. "JD" as identified in the chat, which has been authenticated by the administration, among other points, said that "there is a strong argument for delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why this matters, seeing where the economy is, etc.”

"(Vance's) contribution there was to prove that there was no urgency, and that there were no U.S. troops that were in imminent danger, that needed to be defended. Which is the instance in which you might allow the president to engage in hostilities — if it was in self-defense and urgent, and before they had time to come to Congress," Massie told RS. " But they obviously, based on that signal chat, had time to come to Congress, but they chose not to."

Massie said there may be some effort in the House to push for a War Powers Act vote or for defunding the U.S. military operations in Yemen

[Vermont Lt]

In the case of Jefferson, he WAS acting in conjunction with other nations who had the same issues in Africa.

And they have fired at plenty of US assets going through that area to justify leveling a good part of Yemen.

You might not like it, but the US has spent the better part of the past 100 years leading efforts like this around the globe. You might want us to just pull up roots and stay out of everyone’s business. That is simply impractical and would just cause chaos.

But I guess you want Russia and China to fill the vacuum we would leave. Would that make you happy?

[ETCM]

Is that what happened?

The Houthis have fired ballistic and cruise missiles, as well as drones on several US flagged commercial ships, including:

Maersk Chesapeake

Maersk Detroit

Torm Thor

Maersk Yorktown

Maersk Sentosa

Maersk Hartford

Maersk Seletar

Liberty Grace

Maersk Saratoga

Stena Impeccable

Those are just the US flagged ships. Many others have US ownership, equity or cargo. In many cases, drones/missiles were shot down when the target wasn't known.

In at most cases, the missiles or drones were intercepted by US Navy ships, while in others "anti-ship ballistic missiles" missed and just splashed down near the ships.

They have also launched missiles and drones at US Navy ships:

USS Dwight D. Eisenhower

USS Gravely

USS Laboon

USS Mason

USS Carney

USS Cole

USS Abraham Lincoln

USS Stockdale

USS Spruance

USS O'Kane

USS Harry S. Truman

There may be others, as CENTCOM doesn't always name the ships that are targeted. If so, a response is warranted.

Agreed.

[unclebankster]

If God supports Israel, I support Israel.

************************

God supports everybody, that’s why we’re here.

I haven’t talked to him lately, but I highly doubt he’s a fan of what’s been going on in the Middle East.

[cowboyusa]

I agree with Vance about us having to bail out Europe here again, butbI think that this action was right.

[Alberta's Child]

Jefferson took the initiative to push Congress to fund a naval force to deal with the problem of piracy in the Mediterranean Sea in the early 19th century. And this piracy had become a problem for the U.S. specifically because the British made it clear after the American Revolution that they would not protect American ships on the high seas.

Under no circumstances should the U.S. taxpayer be paying for the defense of maritime shipping vessels owned by companies that adamantly refuse to register their ships under U.S. flags to avoid paying taxes in the U.S. and meeting our maritime regulations for shipping.

If Maersk wants to operate vessels in international waters that are registered in Panama and staffed by Indonesian crews, then let the company pay the Danish government to protect their ships.

There are two great ironies that have come out of this idiocy:

1. The U.S. has no legal or diplomatic justification for protecting foreign vessels in international waters, as we are one of the only nations in the world that has not ratified the current United Nations "open seas" treaty. That means our naval efforts in international water should only involve the protection of our own military and commercial interests.

2. It's comical to see so many of the Freepers who are praising the Trump tariffs on imports from foreign countries are the same ones clamoring for the U.S. taxpayer to pay the cost of protecting the foreign ships that are transporting all the cheap crap here to the U.S. I have a better idea. If the purpose of the tariffs is to protect U.S. industries, then instead of (or in addition to) imposing tariffs on foreign goods, why not just tell these foreign manufacturers that their cargo is only going to be protected by the U.S. Navy if it is being transported in U.S.-flagged ships?

[cowboyusa]

Read the Old Testement. Spesficly, Joshua.

[cowboyusa]

This was a quick and hard action. No Neo- zconish Nation Bulding, just a good old Jacksonian thumping.

[cowboyusa]

You have a point, but the point also is that our ships DID come under attack.

[unclebankster]

Read the Old Testement. Spesficly, Joshua.

**************

I’m familiar with the book.

My wife has numerous versions all over my house.

[ETCM]

1. The U.S. has no legal or diplomatic justification for protecting foreign vessels in international waters

And what of the 10 US flagged ships listed in post 62? Or the many US Navy ships that were fired on. Are those not reason enough to take decisive action against those who attack us?

Obviously, we should expect Europe to chip in on this effort, and the leaked Signal chat implied that we are seeking just that.

[Captainpaintball]

ISRAEL ÜBER ALLES

[Captainpaintball]

We hardly have any ships in that area.

[Captainpaintball]

Yeah, he has no issues with American ships being

There are hardly any ships in that area that are American. Mostly are chinese.In fact you can go on X and easily find out how many American ships make up traffic in that region.

He is David Duke 2.0

You are resorting to really lame and pathetic name calling at this point. That's all you have?

[rrrod]

Good info. Thanks.

[Nextrush]

I openly describe myself as Zionist I think Trump has Israel’s back although that back could also be legitimately called Benjamin Netanyahu’s back.

Netanyahu is leveraging war to stay in power and hold off the verdict and the sentence in his corruption trial slow walking its way since 2020 with an even slower pace since October 7th, 2023.

Trump bombs Houthis, Houthis attack Israel Netanyahu gets the dividend of saying Israel is under attack I am needed somewhere other than a courtroom.

[Alberta's Child]

Interestingly, most (if not all) of those U.S.-flagged ships listed in Post #62 are owned by foreign companies (Maersk, one of the largest commercial vessel operators in the world, is a Danish company). If they are flying U.S. flags, then it is almost certain that they are carrying U.S. government cargo -- including military cargo.

One thing is for certain: You can go to any major U.S. port today and see thousands of shipping containers being handled from massive ships -- and none of this civilian cargo is being carried by U.S.-flagged ships.

[dforest]

I disagree with Massie more than a few times. On this, I agree with him.

he focus needs to be on MAGA, not this.

[unclebankster]

I openly describe myself as Zionist I think Trump has Israel’s back

****************

I’m not a Zionist, but I don’t have an issue with Zionists or Zionism.

We have a special relationship with Israel and will continue to have their back.
That relationship is supported by Christians, Jews, and others who make up our nation.

However, there will be times when US and Israeli interests aren’t in alignment and people supporting the US position in a dispute, shouldn’t be slandered as being antisemitic.

[ridesthemiles]

DOES MASSIE EVEN KNOW HOW INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING WORKS & WHERE IT GOES????

[Nextrush]

A tough thing to deal with the speech and boycott rights that exist in other situations don’t exist when it comes to Israel.

“Conservatives” have enshrined it in law all across the fruited plain.

I guess we were lucky Bud Light wasn’t made in Israel.

Netanyahu ruffled feathers with his antisemitism conference in Jerusalem this week.

ADL which defines antisemitism very liberally was not so liberal towards invited guests from the Vox Party of Spain, the National Rally of France and Marion Marechal, the niece of Marine Le Pen.

ADL pulled out of the event.