With the assassination of Soleimani, Trump has provided undeniable evidence that his Presidency is a threat to US National Security. Trump has impulsively and recklessly committed this act of war without Congressional authorization. It’s generally accepted that the White House’s “imminent attack” claim is both a rationalization and a lie. The Vice President aided in the lie, by claiming that Iran was involved in 9/11. Not only was Iran not involved in 9/11, but Soleimani was one of our more important allies in the fight against Al-Qaeda and ISIS. Pence should be included in any impeachment, as his lie shows a reckless disregard for both truth and US national security.
Trump and Pence have declared open war on a branch of Islam which had nothing to do with 9/11. However Iran does have a worldwide network of operatives, who now prose a grave risk to US national security. And by crossing a previous red line on the assassination of foreign leaders, Trump has additionally put the lives of US leaders at risk. The only way to remove this risk is to remove both Trump and Pence from office.
But will Democrats act? I think it’s unlikely, based on the full context of US policy in the Middle East. According to Pentagon sources, the Soleimani assassination was offered to Trump as an obviously-crazy option, meant to steer the President towards more prudent choices. We are meant to believe that Pentagon officials were “stunned” when the President exercised the option, as if Trump carried-out the crazy plan without their knowledge or involvement.
In reality this aggressively anti-Iranian posture is part of a long US commitment to backing the Sunni faction of the Sunni-Shia divide. The assassination may represent the more crazy neocon faction, but it is hardly outside of US strategy. This is a strategy that both Hillary and Obama were supporters of. While Obama was the driving force behind the Iran Nuclear Deal, he simultaneously used US military power to fight proxy wars against Iran in Syria and Yemen. Under normal circumstances, the Iran Deal would signal a move towards detente, but when it is followed by the deaths of thousands of Iran’s allies (and an unknown number of Iranian fighters), our actions are hardly conducive to maintaining peaceful coexistence.
The impeachment already voted on studiously avoids any mention of Trump’s reckless, illegal and self-serving actions in the Middle East. This is not surprising, when we consider the foreign policy alignment of current Democratic leadership. They have been supportive of the anti-Iranian strategy, even going so far as to call Democrats who oppose the Syrian War “Assad/Putin Assets.” But opinions can change, as new evidence comes to the fore. The President’s actions demonstrate the grave danger posed by current US policy. Let’s hope that Democratic leaders are privately weighing the costs and benefits of blindly throwing the US into this crazy no-win Sunni-Shia conflict.
It would undeniably be a smart move to include Soleimani’s assassination in the impeachment, and to include Pence in the impeachment as well. Americans are tired of the lies — tired of the deaths — tired of the wasted resources — tired of the endless wars. This would give us a REAL opportunity to remove Trump. Democrats have talked a good game on this — now let’s see if they will back it up.
doubleman says
The Senate approved a new cabinet member with only 5 Democrats voting NO yesterday, so I won’t hold my breath on Democrats taking decisive action here.
Christopher says
Which one? I had the MSNBC shows on last night and don’t recall hearing anything, but with only 5 nays from a party fired up to fight Trump maybe not so bad?
doubleman says
SBA Administrator. It doesn’t matter if the individual is good or not. What matters is that a majority of Dems are going to the Capitol every day and approving nominees of all kinds. Every day. There are more judges coming up for a vote this week as well.
All this while we have an impeached, criminal President engaging in illegal acts of war.
Business as usual is unacceptable while Trump is in office.
This is a crisis. Don’t talk about it as one if you’re not willing to act like it is one.
Christopher says
Well, by Cabinet I usually think Secretaries and AG. I did just check and apparently this position has been granted cabinet-level status, but is not in the line of succession.
As for not mattering if they are good or not – SERIOUSLY? If Trump managed to find someone actually qualified I’d be dancing in the streets! I thought MY Trump Derangement Syndrome was pretty severe! Opposition Congresses continued to work with both Nixon and Clinton while they were under this cloud. He should have been removed ages ago, but since he hasn’t been (and let’s face it, likely will not be)…
SomervilleTom says
@Opposition Congresses continued to work with both Nixon and Clinton while they were under this cloud:
No administration has ever demonstrated the utter contempt for Congress that we’ve seen from this one. No party has ever embraced such flagrant lies as today’s GOP.
When Congress issued subpoenas for members of both Mr. Nixon’s administration and staff and Mr. Clinton’s administration and staff, they appeared. They produced documents whether they wanted to or not.
This is the first time in American history that a president and his party have resolutely given a raised middle finger to the rule of law — not just once, but continuously and on each and every item that comes up.
Merrick Garland was eminently well qualified, and Mr. McConnell wouldn’t even hold hearings, never mind a confirmation vote. The GOP has been manufacturing government shutdowns for decades based on nothing but party dogma that they’ve demonstrated they about only when it suits their immediate political agenda.
So … yes, SERIOUSLY. The House should stop funding Donald Trump and the GOP.
Now.
Christopher says
That’s a temper tantrum I expect from the GOP. I prefer we don’t sink to their level.
SomervilleTom says
The Senate GOP is in the process of discarding the impeachment resolution.
As Congress remains paralyzed and we avoid “temper tantrums”, America continues to provoke wars and destroy alliances.
Do you think that continuing that paralysis is the best policy?
Christopher says
Well, I certainly don’t think contributing to that paralysis is!
Christopher says
I don’t understand why the Pentagon thought that he would not choose the craziest option.
doubleman says
Definitely need to take that story (and literally everything said from any part of this administration) with the largest grains of salt imaginable.
couves says
Ever watch Ren and Stimpy? Remember the Big Red Button? Who’s bright idea was it to give Trump a Big Red Iran Button…? But seriously, there’s no way this happened without significant support from within the Pentagon. The Anti-Iranian strategy runs through everything we do in the middle east and it runs deep.
SomervilleTom says
The House can block any and all appropriations any time it chooses, I believe by a simple majority. I don’t believe that such an action requires Senate consent, and I don’t think it is subject to a veto.
If the GOP held a majority of the House, would they hesitate even a moment to take this step?
I think the House should begin passing an escalating sequence of dis-appropriation bills, starting with narrowly-drafted articles and increasing in scope and intensity.
I think the House can choose from options such as:
– Delay House approval on a specific item until after hearings have occurred. No witnesses, no documents, no approval.
– Block House approval on specific items altogether
Such a sequence could begin with very narrowly-drafted provisions — “No funds for office supplies for Presidential assistants. No funds for any activity conducted by an immediate family member of the President” and expand until these abuses stop.
Each time a Democrat casts ANY vote for anything except removing this clear and present danger to national security, that Democrat enables the behavior that is so destructive.
doubleman says
Yes. There is no other power at this time except purse strings and public pressure. They should use every lever possible, and in the Senate, they should try to grind everything to a halt, and at the very very least STOP VOTING TO CONFIRM HIS NOMINEES.
Christopher says
The two houses have a negative on each other so to appropriate money both have to approve. However, to alter that even to reduce an appropriation would require another law which would need the concurrence of both houses plus presidential signature or veto override.
SomervilleTom says
You may well be correct about existing appropriations. I think Ms. Pelosi and the House leadership should announce that there will be NO new appropriations for ANYTHING until Mr. McConnell and Senate show some respect for the Constitution.
Christopher says
I’d rather take a scalpel rather than sledgehammer approach. Not funding anything hurts a lot of things that people rely on or like.
SomervilleTom says
That’s why I wrote this:
I agree that we should start with very limited restraints.
The president, judiciary, and GOP are removing Congressional oversight capabilities one by one. Subpoena power is gone. Impeachment is gone. Witnesses simply refuse to appear. Documents are just shredded. GOP members of the Senate and House were briefed about last week’s assassination — Democrats were not.
At this point, appropriation authority is pretty much the last area.,
While you’re talking about scalpels, the other side is using bombs, grenades, and missiles. They left sledgehammers behind years ago.
Christopher says
And even the GOP members were livid about the briefings they did get. I do wish House Dems were more aggressive enforcing their subpoenas.
petr says
Why is it the responsibility of Democrats to do any more than they are already doing?
If the Republicans had agreed to meet the Democrats even half-way, at any point along the way, Trump would be gone by now… Heck, if some Republicans had even agreed to meet other Republicans even half-way, Trump would never have even got the nomination…
Why is it the Democrats fault that this has not happened?
Your plea reduces to the charge that Democrats should be as feckless and amoral as the Republicans, but in service to a greater cause… But feckless and amoral does not — cannot– serve a greater cause that’s exactly why it is both feckless and amoral.
If the Democrats acted like Republicans, they would not be Democrats.
Christopher says
Yeah, I love how the GOP has never even considered looking at the evidence for impeachment then claim the whole process is illegitimate because it is not bipartisan:(
fredrichlariccia says
“This president is impeached for life regardless of any gamesmanship on the part of Mitch McConnell. There is nothing the Senate can do to ever erase that.” Speaker Nancy Pelosi
couves says
Republicans are not going to budge on Ukrainegate. They might on Iran, if presented with overwhelming public opposition to Trump. That support would be very easy to rally… When Obama asked Congress to approve of military action in Syria, the spontaneous reaction of voters shut that down almost overnight. An organized campaign could accomplish even more — being contacted by hundreds of constituents personally hurt by senseless war in the Middle East would make it very difficult for Republican Senators to stick with Trump.
All of this depends on Democratic leadership being opposed to Trump’s Middle East strategy, which is not exactly the case. We can of course try to appeal to the higher principles and self interest of Democratic leadership. But we ultimately need new leadership that will peruse a Middle East strategy consistent with our values and the realities of our post-9/11 world.
couves says
Trump has now admitted to selling of US troops (YouTube)
“I said to Saudi Arabia … You want more troops? I’m going to send them to you, but you’ve got to pay us. They’re paying us. They’ve already deposited 1 billion dollars in the bank.”
Also, Tulsi Gabbard and Dennis Kucinich are addressing Middle East policy live now.
scott12mass says
Don’t you think we’ve been selling our protection for years? Both parties will give these other countries arms to crank up our military infrastructure system. But giving our rocket launchers is the same as when we go to the store and buy an HP printer for next to nothing. It’s when you have to go and buy the replacement missiles/cartridges that the real money starts to roll in.
SomervilleTom says
The lovable despot in Terry Pratchett’s “Disk World” has maintained peace throughout the empire for an unprecedented period.
When asked how he does it, he answers (to paraphrase): “It’s easy. I sell them weapons they can’t afford, and loan them the money they need to buy them. If they use them in any way I don’t like, I threaten to call in their loans. They do exactly what I want.”
The arms merchants, of course, greatly benefit from this approach to world “diplomacy”.
couves says
You’re correct, it’s the reason Obama supported two proxy wars against Iran. Trump is just saying out loud what we have done for a very long time. But when the families of the deployed hear this, don’t you think they are going to throw up in their mouths a little? This has nothing to do with US national security, which is why Democrats should pivot on the issue.
At the Des Moines debate, Biden and Buttigieg had some encouraging things to say on the need for Congressional approval for any new wars. Then in the post-debate CNN interview, Buttigieg said he is the guy to confront Iran in the proxy wars… ie, he will not change our overall policy (which is likely true for all of them except Gabbard and perhaps Sanders).