Posted on 01/15/2020 7:03:08 AM PST by Kaslin
Matt Gaetz's campaign website features press quotes describing the Florida Republican as "Trump's best buddy," "Trump's ultimate defender," and "the Trumpiest congressman in Trump's Washington." Gaetz clearly was not driven by hatred of the president when he voted for last week's House resolution against an unauthorized war with Iran.
Although it may be hard to believe in these hyper-partisan times, Gaetz, a self-described "constitutional conservative," was defending a principle he thinks is more important than loyalty to one man or one party. He was standing up for the legislative branch's long-neglected but crucial role in deciding when the country should go to war.
The nonbinding House resolution, a response to the Trump-ordered drone attack that killed Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani as he was leaving the Baghdad International Airport on Jan. 3, "simply seeks to reclaim some of the Article 1 authority that we've ceded to the Executive over the past 20 years," Gaetz's office explained. "It states that only Congress has the authority to declare war, and that Congress has not authorized military force against Iran."
As Rep. Justin Amash, I-Mich., a former Republican who also supported the resolution, pointed out, "Matt Gaetz hasn't changed his position on war powers. He had the same position when President Obama was in office. It's the constitutionally conservative position."
Gaetz's consistency did not win him any points in the White House. A senior White House official told The Washington Post the Trump administration would punish Gaetz's "super uncool" position by cutting off all contact with him.
Gaetz praised the president's "mindful restraint" after Iran responded to Soleimani's death with a nonlethal barrage of missiles aimed at Iraqi military bases where U.S. troops are stationed. But the strike against Soleimani, coupled with the administration's shifting rationales for it, understandably raised concerns that the United States was about to become embroiled in yet another foreign conflict with no clear goal or end.
National security adviser Robert O'Brien initially said the operation was covered by the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq. Since Soleimani had helped Iran-backed militias kill U.S. troops in Iraq, that suggestion was superficially plausible.
But the 2002 AUMF, which authorized the president to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq" and "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq," was aimed at a regime that no longer exists. And now the Trump administration was using that seemingly obsolete authorization to kill a senior official of a different country, which the United States surely would view as an act of war if the positions were reversed.
"They have justified the killing of an Iranian general as being something that Congress gave them permission to do in 2002," observed Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., another Trump ally who shares Gaetz's concern about the erosion of congressional war powers. "That is absurd."
The Trump administration also said killing Soleimani was necessary to prevent an "imminent" attack against the United States that he was planning, which pretty much everyone agrees would fit within the president's war powers. But the administration provided no evidence, even in private briefings of legislators, that such an attack was in the offing, let alone that killing Soleimani prevented it. And Trump reportedly approved the assassination last June, making the claim of an imminent threat hard to swallow.
Last Friday, Trump suggested there was specific intelligence indicating that Soleimani planned to attack four U.S. embassies, a claim contradicted by Defense Secretary Mark Esper. But nevermind. "It doesn't really matter," Trump tweeted on Monday, "because of his horrible past!"
Despite lingering questions about the legality and wisdom of killing Soleimani, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., warns that legislators who raise those issues are "empowering the enemy." Yet members of Congress have a constitutional duty to ask those questions, and failing to do so empowers one person to launch wars that affect all of us.
” “It states that only Congress has the authority to declare war, and that Congress has not authorized military force against Iran.”
I thought we’ve been at war with Iran for 40yrs, so at some point congress gave approval.
Also we’ve had war on terror for 2 decades or so and Solemeini was considered terroist.
so by either, Trump was fine to do as he did and House is just not happy staying in their role but wants to usurp power given to the president already by previous congress, and/or the executive power to act as needed to protect American lives.
I’m sure I’m not the ONLY one that has noticed, lost in all of this bluff and bluster, the complete and utter AMNESIA by the Enemy Media (and Democrats, RINOs and Never-Trumpers!) when it came to 0bama’s ‘killing’ of 3,000+ people with drone strikes when he was waging American ‘Unrestrained Military Force!’
Anyone that doesn’t own up to that FACT needs to STFU!
So, SO tired of the double standard applied to D v. R Presidents. You’d think after 45 years of paying attention, I’d be used to it, but it still annoys me to no end!
(I’m feeling stabby, today; not sure that more coffee will even help, LOL!)
On principle I’m with Gaetz on this one. And I say this because I would have said the exact same thing when Obama was in the White House — which is more than could be said for many Republicans in the House, and many posters right here on FR.
This is incorrect. The U.S. has had no diplomatic ties with Iran since 1979, but Congress has never declared war against that country.
Also we’ve had war on terror for 2 decades or so and Solemeini was considered terroist.
The "War on Terror" was nothing more than a political propaganda term used by the retarded baboon in the White House back in the early 2000s to justify the unfettered and perpetual use of military force anywhere, and for any reason.
then thank you for the correction.
If I'm not mistaken, the strategy of Iran under General Road Pizza (and others) was to engage in proxy wars by embedding themselves in other countries so that they could deny any responsibility for the violence they cause.
They're the hermit crabs of the world.
Trump needs to step up the war if he wants to get close to obama war mongering. honorable mention goes to hillary klinton and john skerry.
Despite lingering questions about the legality and wisdom
Another retarded libertarian. I can’t find non-binding resolution anywhere in the Constitution. I do find “declare war” so bring it up and vote on it.
The CIC does not have to run to Congress to exercise his CIC powers.
Even the dubious legal War Powers act states he has “up to 48 hours AFTER the start of operations” to notify Congress.
So, as usual, the bellowing Democrat Propaganda bots in “Conservative Inc” clinging to their TDS because their god lost the 2016 GOP Primary, demonstrate their total cluelessness again.
Iran has been at war with the U.S. for 40 years, but the U.S. has not been at war with Iran. That said, Congress long ago ceded their war powers to the executive branch, because they did not want to take responsibility for war. That way they could attack the president if anything went sideways. In other words, they are weak SOB’s, and as such do not deserve Article 1 War powers. But how hypocritical of these 3 SOB’s, Gaetz, Lee, and Paul, as they were completly silent for the entire Obama reign. Some staunch supporters indeed. /sarcasm
Its just grandstanding. They launched a takeover of the embassy, Trump responded with a hundred marines and a strike that took out the leaders of the attack. Done.
If he decides to march on Tehran, he needs a new authorization from congress. He isn’t going to march on Tehran. But if he decides to do it, he will ask for authorization.
He doesn’t have to go to congress to repel an attack on an embassy, and had he decided to attack the missile batteries that were raining missiles on our bases, he would not need to ask Pelosi’s permission for that either.
So its all just theater. That includes Gaetz’ role in it too.
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.