Mike Johnson Breaks With Trump On Iran War: ‘We’ve Got To Wrap It Up’

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) was asked during a Capitol Hill press conference on Tuesday at what point he will move to use Congressional power to check President Donald Trump’s war in Iran. Johnson pointedly ended his reply by saying “we’ve got to wrap it up” in Iran, which many pundits and political insiders have warned is an additional threat to the GOP keeping its majorities in Congress.

Johnson’s answer appeared to be at odds with Trump, who vowed earlier in the day to continue bombing Iran until they come to the negotiating table in good faith.

“You repeatedly said that you trust the administration to handle the war with Iran. We’re now five months in, and the U.S. troop toll has surpassed that of the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Given that, at what point are you willing to put an AUMF on the floor, or vote for a War Powers Act resolution to try and remove it?” asked an off-camera reporter.

“The administration is working very hard — the commander-in-chief and the whole Department of War — they’re working very hard to bring this to a resolution. There’s a lot of discussion about how that will be done. We’re all closely watching those developments, of course. I don’t think an AUMF is in order right now. I think we need to bring it to a resolution,” Johnson replied, adding:

"Look, I think it’s important — in my personal view — for all of our international partners to have a role in this. I mean, we’ve got all of our allied nations, NATO, we’ve had the Arab countries over there, the Gulf states that are in closest proximity to Iran. Iran has now fired on all of its neighbors, and they’re turning everybody in the world into an enemy. So I think this is an important moment in history for the entire world community to decide how they want to handle this. It shouldn’t just be America’s obligation — my view is that everybody needs to play a role. So we’ll see how that develops. I think we have to allow the space to do that.

"And I know this administration is working around the clock to resolve that in a way so they don’t suffer any more troop losses. This is a great tragedy — it shouldn’t happen. But it is a very important objective, one that I believe we’ve achieved, to ensure that the largest state sponsor of terrorism does not have a nuclear weapon. That would be a disaster for everybody, and everybody around the world understands that.

I'm just going to skip over your wall of text and say you are an idiot if you think a nuclear exchange between anyone is okay.

I didn't say it was ok. That's just another strawman so you can duck defending your preposterous scenarios of Russia and China giving nukes to ::waves hands:: somebody who would then nuke us. Even you realize how dumb it sounds, so you're just trying to forget it and move on. Problem is, it's your justification for this failed war, which is more likely than not going to convince Iran having nukes is the only thing that will stop us from bombing them again.

You won't address it because you're just not capable of creating an even semi-plausible scenario where Israel and Iran exchanging nukes turns into WW3.

Your efforts were either ignorant (e.g. Netanyahu arrest warrant that already happened) or so ridiculous in their formation you can't even attempt to defend them.

I didn't say it was ok.

You don't get to fence straddle on this. We either stop a nuclear war, or we let it happen.

Your on the "let it happen" side of the issue.

Even you realize how dumb it sounds, so you're just trying to forget it and move on.

I forgot the Pakis. Saudia Arabia would immediately get nukes and missiles from them. In fact, China might bid for that business.

Hell, if we're having an auction, we might get the Russians and French involved.

Iraq would get them. Egypt would get them. Every damn Muslim country in the world would get them. There is no way they are going to let an attack on a Muslim country slide, even if it is those weirdo Shias that started it.

Trouble with you is that you want to believe that if I don't explain in every excruciating detail all the potential consequences which might occur because of Iranians getting Nukes, that you win the argument. Nope.

But here's the deal. I don't have to wallow through every possibility. Sane people can think for themselves and see that no matter what happens, it will be very bad.

You just want to believe what you want to believe, and I smell a little Jew Hatred in there too.

I've noticed we've had a lot more people bitching about the Jews this last year. They are coming out of the woodwork now. I suspect that is what is really driving all this anti-war talk.

You don't get to fence straddle on this. We either stop a nuclear war, or we let it happen.

I reject your strawman that if a nuclear bomb goes off the in the world it is because we 'let it happen'. You have a completely unrealistic view of our capabilities if you believe a statement like that.

You want a discourse, go back and read and respond to what I wrote regarding your fantasy scenarios.

I don't think you'll do it because I don't think you can make them plausible at all. It's baseless fearmongering that works only on weak minds. You're left blustering and scrambling the moment you're called on them because they're so preposterous.

And what would they do with them? Pakistan has been a nuclear power for over a quarter century and you forgot about them. It's that scary in reality.

Yeah, it's called 'making the case', and you just can't do it. You haven't convinced the country or the Congress it's worth doing for the bogus reasons you've trotted out here. So you ditch the Constitution and back a usurper President who starts this war at the request of a foreign country by our State Department's own admission.

You're a shill for foreign interests, and you can't even offer a reasonable explanation why.

You just want to believe what you want to believe

I'm not the guy trying to sell fantasy scenarios where Russia, China and Europe initiate WW3 because of a fight between Israel and Iran. That's you 'believing what you want to believe' no matter how ridiculous it is.

I've noticed we've had a lot more people bitching about the Jews this last year. They are coming out of the woodwork now. I suspect that is what is really driving all this anti-war talk.

You have it backwards. Zionists dragged our country into war again against our interests and to further theirs, and people are noticing that. They don't want to die for your favorite foreign country.

I don't want Americans to die for Somalis, or Rawandans, or Yemenis, or Rohingyans, or whatever tribe you want to find on the other side of the world.

That doesn't require me to hate them. IT'S NOT OUR PROBLEM TO FIX.

You know, replying to "all" doesn't light up my ping indicator.

You are unfamiliar with Curtis LeMay? Pity.

And what would they do with them?

Jihad. I dunno. they're MUSLIMS. They think killing other people to conquer them is a dandy idea.

This question is so dumb, it's like asking what would happen if you dropped machine guns into a pack of monkeys.

Nothing good.

Pakistan has been a nuclear power for over a quarter century and you forgot about them.

Lot of players involved. Didn't think about having to list them for some idiot. Most people would just realize what a f*ckup it would be to ever allow Iran to get a nuke.

The Pakis at least had a saner reason for wanting them. The Indians already had them.

Yeah, it's called 'making the case', and you just can't do it.

Already did it. Most people don't feel the need to explain that water is wet, but i've indulged you in your little rant session so far.

You haven't convinced the country or the Congress it's worth doing for the bogus reasons you've trotted out here.

Are you familiar with the SAVE act? Don't tell me that Congress or "the country" is the arbiter of common sense. We do a lot of stupid things in this country, and one of the stupidest would be to ever allow "Twelvers" to get their hands on a nuke. Might as well give one to Jim Jones.

I'm not the guy trying to sell fantasy scenarios where Russia, China and Europe initiate WW3 because of a fight between Israel and Iran.

Yeah, the idea that China, Russia, Europe, Pakistan, and every other @$$hole country in the world would do anything about a nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran is just crazy talk.

You have it backwards. Zionists dragged our country into war again against our interests and to further theirs, and people are noticing that.

Probably they get these ideas because lying pernicious @$$holes like you are doing your damndest to spread those lies.

Iran was our problem. *WE* created it. We should have stomped sh*t out of them 47 years ago, and we are long overdue for doing it.

You are an idiot if you think Iran getting a nuke works out to any sort of pleasant future for us. I can't think of anything more damned likely to start Armageddon than Iran getting their hands on nukes.

You can M.A.D. with the Russians, the Chinese, the French, the Indians, and probably even the Pakistanis, but you absolutely cannot M.A.D. with religious fanatics who celebrate death in the cause of Jihad, and believe their ultimate expression of piety is nuclear suicide.

IT'S NOT OUR PROBLEM TO FIX.

IT *IS* OUR PROBLEM TO FIX!

We are the only ones who can, and *WE* caused it!

"Unlawful"? It is to laugh.
You aren't so naive that you think there should exist some international court that punishes nations for meddling in the affairs of other nations, are you?

No court punishes sovereigns. One may view international law as acceptable international manners. Misbehaving nations are not referred to an international court. If you try, you can do better than that nonsense.

Accepting your illogic, it is perfectly OK, if they think it in their interest, for China or Russia or others to meddle in our elections. And it would be OK for China to overthrow the U.S. government and install a communist government to enhance friendly relations. Or it would be OK for the United States to get involved with the elections of a fellow NATO nation.

Let me give you an example of what a diplomat CIA agent can get up to. And regardless of what they do, it is OK. It is just lawful meddling.

Haitian-born director Raoul Peck’s work fictionally reconstructs Lumumba’s coming to power in 1960 and the intrigues which led to his brutal murder. The film shown on HBO is a version of the French-language original dubbed into English, which bleeps out the name of Frank Carlucci, a future deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and secretary of defense, in the dialogue and masks his name in the credits. At the time of Lumumba’s death, Carlucci was the second secretary at the US embassy in the Congo and, covertly, a CIA agent.
This attempt to keep Carlucci’s role in the Congo from television audiences follows the release of US government documents revealing that President Dwight Eisenhower ordered the CIA to murder Lumumba. Minutes of an August 1960 National Security Council meeting confirm that Eisenhower told CIA chief Allen Dulles to “eliminate” the Congolese leader. The official note taker, Robert H. Johnson, testified to this before the Senate Intelligence Committee in 1975, but no documentary evidence had been previously available to back up his claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Carlucci

Carlucci served alongside Herbert S. Okun on US military attaché General Vernon A. Walters' team in Brazil at the time of the 1964 Brazilian coup d'état against President João Goulart.
[...]
Carlucci became Ambassador to Portugal and served in that position from 1974 to 1977. He was remembered in Portugal among the winners of the coup of 25 November 1975.

The lives so far have been few compared to most wars, and the necessity has been greater than most wars.

There is no necessity whatever. None. How many Americans have to fight and die for Zionism so that Trump does not suffer bad PR?

“It was hit so hard,” Trump said, “the mountain literally collapsed on it.”
This seemed to startle Baier. “Why isn’t that good enough?” the host asked. “If your goal was to set back …”
“It is good enough,” Trump replied, “but you know what, it isn’t good enough public-relations-wise.”

- - - - -

Whether it is a gaffe or not is irrelevant.

Operation Midnight Hammer was failure. the material was not obliterated.

What is the gaffe? That he admitted that it is public relations bullshit?

It may very well be that he has been advised that the Iranians can dig that stuff up and start processing it again, so the longer term elimination of the threat requires it's seizure, because the next Democrat president will absolutely let Iran make nukes.

And he may have been advised that Batboy took the stuff. Trump called it nuclear dust. What he was trying to say was the containers were not destroyed in the first place. Luke Skywalker could not find the garbage chute.

They are not there looking for dust, and they are not seizing a damn thing without a massive land invasion. That is an Army job and there isn't even talk of any army being there, much less an army of hundreds of thousands.

But it is just like North Korea. Their leaders are insane, and if they get a nuke, they will surely use it. The main threat posed by possessing a nuke is that they are no longer subject to coercion.

Accepting your illogic, it is perfectly OK, if they think it in their interest, for China or Russia or others to meddle in our elections.

I don't think you quite have a handle on my logic just yet.

China did in fact interfere in our elections, and it is perfectly within their own self interest to do so. They would laugh at the idea that they shouldn't engage in operations that benefit them, including interfering in our elections. They would be derelict in their duty to their own country if they did not try to gain advantage in whatever way they could.

Now *WE*, on the other hand, shouldn't tolerate it, and *WE* should be using whatever power we have to prevent it and punish them for it.

Or it would be OK for the United States to get involved with the elections of a fellow NATO nation.

We shouldn't be undermining our allies in their own countries. It is both an ethical issue, and a practical issue. If they catch us, we may lose more than we ever hoped to gain, so doing the right thing is usually in our best interests, though with Britain and other parts of Europe, I don't think this holds any longer. They are on such a path of disaster that it is in our best interests to interfere in their domestic affairs in any plausible way we can.

But someone who studies this more and who has the ability to do the actual interfering should make that Judgement call.

"...follows the release of US government documents revealing that President Dwight Eisenhower ordered the CIA to murder Lumumba."

I'm guessing you expected me to be "Oh no!" about this?

Eisenhower was responsible for giving orders that eventually killed tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands.

I don't have a problem with presidents assassinating foreign leaders who they see as a problem. It would have saved the world a lot of grief if this had happened to Mao, to Hitler, and to Stalin.

I think I should trust Eisenhower's judgment on this. Now Congress has addressed this issue, and made it illegal for Presidents to have people assassinated, so of course I think the President and his departments should follow our laws.

But as for the main topic here, countries don't really have friends. At best they have shared "interests".

There is no necessity whatever. None. How many Americans have to fight and die for Zionism so that Trump does not suffer bad PR?

You are clearly very knowledgeable and intelligent, but I perceive you as suffering from an all too common and inherent human malady. You aren't really objective. You want to believe what you've chosen to believe, so you will discount or dismiss evidence to the contrary.

I think it is absolutely a necessity to stop Iran from ever getting a nuclear weapon. We should have been following Curtis LeMay's view of things from the very beginning. It was a mistake to let other hostile countries ever get their hands on nuclear technology, but Iran is particularly a special case because of their fanatical religious beliefs.

A nation that will stone people to death for sin, will absolutely nuke people to death for sin. They hate the Israelis, and they also hate us, probably because of how we put the Shah into power, and mostly because we have been supporting Israel.

Iran will absolutely nuke Israel, and there is a fair chance that they will nuke Washington DC and New York, because they absolutely do not care about retaliatory consequences.

They aren't Russians or Chinese, who though corrupt and totalitarian, aren't insane, and do value their own lives.

The Mullahs don't. They just don't care if you nuke them back. It's part of their belief system.

But it is just like North Korea. Their leaders are insane, and if they get a nuke, they will surely use it.

Kim Jong Un is more sane than the Iranian "Twelvers." Well in fact, they are also "sane", but fanatically believe their religion requires them to kill infidels, and that Allah will grant them eternity in Paradise if they do.

Kim Jong Un knows that he will be wiped out if he hits us or our allies with a nuke. The Iranian mullahs know this too, they just don't care. They have to provoke the final war to bring back their Mahdi, and they will absolutely do it regardless of any retaliatory threat.

If you think M.A.D. will work against the Mullahs, you just don't understand the nature of these people.

You are unfamiliar with Curtis LeMay? Pity.

I very familiar with Curtis LeMay. And furthermore, I know he isn't walking into the Pentagon nor the Situation Room anytime soon.

You keep expressing that victory will be achieved through means that simply are not going to be employed, and unwilling or unable to recognize they won't be employed, you're blind to the unfolding failure.

You should familiarize yourself with more WW2 generals:

"War is never a technical problem only, and if in pursuing technical solutions you neglect the psychological and the political, then the best technical solutions will be worthless." - Hermann Balck

Lot of players involved. Didn't think about having to list them for some idiot.

It's not that you can't list the 9 countries with nuclear weapons, it's that you completely forgot about the muslim nation that has had nuclear weapons for over a quarter century.

Muslim country with a nuclear weapon and you found it so worrisome you completely forgot about it. But I'm sure with some targeting propaganda you could be worked into a proper lather over it as well.

Yeah, the idea that China, Russia, Europe, Pakistan, and every other @$$hole country in the world would do anything about a nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran is just crazy talk.

No one said they 'wouldn't do anything', you just haven't presented a single reason they'd do what you assert - start WW3 in some as yet indescribable manner.

This is literally your assertion:

"You have it backwards. Zionists dragged our country into war again against our interests and to further theirs, and people are noticing that.

Probably they get these ideas because lying pernicious @$$holes like you are doing your damndest to spread those lies.

Don't look now, but the 'lies' are coming from inside the White House:

It's not that you can't list the 9 countries with nuclear weapons, it's that you completely forgot about the muslim nation that has had nuclear weapons for over a quarter century.

I don't remember telephone numbers either. I remember enough of the major aspects of various topics to find out whatever details I might want to put forth when I need them.

And no, I haven't forgotten about Pakistan, and I think it was a mistake to allow them to get their hands on nuclear technology.

But the Sunni Pakistanis and the Shia Iranians are two different critters. The Shias are by far more dangerous because their little splinter offshoot of Islam teaches that they need to trigger a massive world wide war to bring back the Mahdi, who shall return to lead them all to Islamic Victory on Earth.

No one said they 'wouldn't do anything', you just haven't presented a single reason they'd do what you assert - start WW3 in some as yet indescribable manner.

Who could have seen world war I beginning with a driver going down the wrong street? Anyone could see the nations bristling with arms and belligerence, all bound together in mutual defense treaties. It was like a massive pile of wood doused in Gasoline, just waiting for a spark.

You may not be able to say how a war was going to start, but you can clearly see the conditions made it inevitable.

I can tell you WW3 starts with Iran nuking Tel Aviv, and likely New York and Washington DC. Israel then makes Iran glow at night, and after that, it will be a miracle if it doesn't turn into a Nuclear shitstorm.

It *WILL* make non-nuclear countries into nuclear countries, and it *WILL* cause another nuclear war at some later date after that.

But supposing it is confined to just Tel Aviv, do you think it's just fine that all those people are murdered by the Fanatical Mullahs?

Also, you probably never heard of "Operation Sampson." Maybe you have.

If they carry it out, it won't be just Israeli cities burned with Nuclear fire.

And as for your last point, I have never disputed that this operation benefits Israel, but it also benefits Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and every other damned country in the region! And it benefits Europe.

But it benefits us most of all.

Also, you probably never heard of "Operation Sampson." Maybe you have.

It's not "Operation Sampson [sic]"

It's the Samson Option (Hebrew: b'rerat shimshon), referring the biblical figure.

Should we do something to disarm the messianic, religious state that stole nuclear material from us to build their first weapons? We have to take into account they've betrayed us over and over, and as you note, they threaten the world, even total innocents, with their nuclear weapons.

We should probably pre-emptively strike them to avoid anything worse happening. Two Ohio class should be more than enough to do the job in a fashion that would impress even General LeMay.

Are you onboard with starting a war with the messianic state who have nuclear weapons, and by your own admission threaten our lives with them?

It's not "Operation Sampson [sic]"

It's the Samson Option (Hebrew: b'rerat shimshon), referring the biblical figure.

I have a little trick that I like to use. I say something that's not quite right, and people fall all over themselves to correct me. In the process, they establish the point I was trying to make! I used it just yesterday in another thread. It works great!

Should we do something to disarm the messianic, religious state that stole nuclear material from us to build their first weapons?

No. Why would you feel any compulsion to do so? (even if all that blarney you've spouted is correct.)

We have to take into account they've betrayed us over and over, and as you note...

I've seen one example recently where their guys may have sold technology to China, but we have crooks in our army too. I don't consider what a rouge person or group does to be the policy of their government.

So I don't know what you mean about this "betrayed us" stuff.

...and as you note, they threaten the world, even total innocents, with their nuclear weapons.

After what the world has done to them, I can't say I blame them. They have innocents in their country too.

Are you onboard with starting a war with the messianic state who have nuclear weapons, and by your own admission threaten our lives with them?

Not at all. Unless they are shown to be a threat to us, I have no quarrel with Israel.

But clearly you do. It's "da joos" isn't it?

…

Are you onboard with starting a war with the messianic state who have nuclear weapons, and by your own admission threaten our lives with them?

Not at all.

So the point is we can, have, and do live with nuclear threats (e.g. Israel’s Samson Option, of which you so kindly reminded us) that don’t require us to go to war illegally.

Thanks for agreeing, even if you didn’t realize until now that’s what you were doing.

No tricks required. Just getting you to answer the questions.

I think you are trying to put words into my mouth and then pretending I agree with them.

They were your words, in response to my question. You just have to accept you don't have any principles, just favorites. That's normal for a Foreigners Firster.

"Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification." - George Washington

Israel is not a threat to us, but Iran is very much a threat to us.

Under our Constitution the Congress authorizes the President to address threats.

In the letter, President Washington responded to Moultrie's request for troops for a potential counteroffensive against the Creek Nation (in the context of ongoing conflicts with Native American tribes). He explained that he had consulted General Pickens for information but could not authorize offensive action without Congress:

August 28, 1793, in a letter from Philadelphia to South Carolina Governor William Moultrie.

"Having conceived an opinion highly favourable to General Pickens, I invited him to repair to this City in order that I might obtain from him such facts & information as would be essential to an offensive Expedition against the refractory part of the Creek nation, whenever Congress should decide that measure to be proper & necessary. The Constitution vests the power of declaring War with Congress, therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject, and authorised such a measure."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.