Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
babylonsister
babylonsister's Journal
babylonsister's Journal
January 10, 2020
These Democrats voted no on the War Powers resolution
Why would they vote this way?
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/09/politics/war-powers-resolution-democrats-no-votes/index.html
These Democrats voted no on the War Powers resolution
By Clare Foran, Haley Byrd, Holmes Lybrand and Caroline Kelly, CNN
Updated 6:51 PM ET, Thu January 9, 2020
House votes to limit Trump's war powers in Iran
(CNN)Eight Democrats broke with their party on Thursday to vote against the Iran War Powers resolution -- an effort to restrain President Donald Trump's ability to use military action against Iran without congressional approval -- that passed the House of Representatives.
Democratic Reps. Ben McAdams of Utah, Joe Cunningham of South Carolina, Elaine Luria of Virginia, Kendra Horn of Oklahoma, Stephanie Murphy of Florida, Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, and Max Rose and Anthony Brindisi of New York all opposed the resolution.
The measure, which passed by a nearly party line vote of 224-194 on Thursday evening, will next go to the Senate.
The structure of the House resolution is unique, however, calling into question whether it is actually legally binding. It was introduced as a concurrent resolution, a type of resolution often used for "sense of Congress" bills. They don't go to the President for a signature, and they aren't legally binding.
But House Democrats are arguing that concurrent resolutions under the War Powers Act are a special case, and they are legally binding. Republicans, however, say the resolution is not binding.
Rep. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, a former CIA analyst and freshman Democrat, is the sponsor of the resolution, which calls on the President "to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran" unless Congress declares war or enacts "specific statutory authorization" for the use of armed forces.
January 9, 2020
Donald Trump Not Causing Nuclear War Is What Now Qualifies as Good News in America, Hooray?
By Ben Mathis-Lilley
Jan 08, 2020
8:32 PM
The remarks that Donald Trump delivered about the Iran situation on Wednesday from the entrance hall to the White House did not answer or even address many of the issues that concerned United States citizens might be wondering about in the aftermath of the American attack that killed Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad last Friday.
Trump didn’t discuss whether the U.S. is planning to withdraw forces from Iraq, as a letter that the Department of Defense issued but then disavowed Tuesday suggested. He said he is “going to ask NATO to become much more involved in the Middle East process,” but didn’t say anything about what that meant, or why any of the NATO countries would have an incentive to hear him out. He didn’t explain, more broadly, what his administration wants from Iran—what the country could do to relieve the economic and military pressure that Trump is apparently so keen to put on it.
Typically, these kinds of details might be filled in during background briefings by other high-ranking administration officials or by a White House press secretary. But there hasn’t been a White House press briefing since March 2019, and there do not appear to have been any “senior administration official” conference calls Wednesday about NATO. Given past incidents, as when Trump said at a rally in 2018 that a middle-class tax-cut bill was going to be passed within two weeks when in fact no such bill had been or ever would be written, or as with the announcements he has been making for years about the major infrastructure proposal that is purportedly on the verge of being released, it is possible that there is no plan related to NATO at all. The administration has also still not presented any description, even a one concocted dubiously from low-confidence intelligence reports, of the allegedly “imminent” operation that Soleimani was planning against U.S. personnel in Iraq. This is not a war effort that is getting a lot of legwork and shoe leather put into it.
Trump’s remarks did include the inaccurate claim that Iran had escalated proxy attacks against the U.S. after signing a nuclear agreement with the Obama administration, the non-topical assertion that “under my leadership, our economy is stronger than ever before,” and a description of the U.S. military’s missiles as “big” and “fast.”
Most upsettingly, all of this happened because Donald Trump is the president. Of America!
And yet, in the third paragraph of his speech, Trump said that “Iran appears to be standing down”—a conclusion drawn from the non-lethal outcome of its missile attacks on U.S. military facilities earlier Wednesday. Thus the modal reaction to seeing a famously spray-tanned, fake-haired brand-marketing CEO and tabloid personality in the White House, delivering a Fox News call-in segment disguised as an “address to the nation,” was one of relief. It meant that President Donald Trump is not, for now, following through on his sickening threats to escalate a quasi-war by bombing Iranian cultural sites, an act that could justify prosecution at the Hague , or by doing anything else that might bring about a devastating full-scale conflict involving hundreds of thousands of soldiers (or worse).
And indeed, by the standards of a few hours before—the only time horizon that exists within the president’s attention span, and therefore the only one that matters—this was a tremendous improvement! Why worry about the details if the person in charge doesn’t think about them either? He was mad enough to start a war but then maybe Tucker Carlson, on his TV, talked him out of it. Everything is fine for now.
Donald Trump Not Causing Nuclear War Is What Now Qualifies as Good News in America, Hooray?
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/sure-the-president-is-donald-trump-but-at-least-today-he-seemed-to-stop-escalating-his-pointless-war.htmlDonald Trump Not Causing Nuclear War Is What Now Qualifies as Good News in America, Hooray?
By Ben Mathis-Lilley
Jan 08, 2020
8:32 PM
The remarks that Donald Trump delivered about the Iran situation on Wednesday from the entrance hall to the White House did not answer or even address many of the issues that concerned United States citizens might be wondering about in the aftermath of the American attack that killed Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad last Friday.
Trump didn’t discuss whether the U.S. is planning to withdraw forces from Iraq, as a letter that the Department of Defense issued but then disavowed Tuesday suggested. He said he is “going to ask NATO to become much more involved in the Middle East process,” but didn’t say anything about what that meant, or why any of the NATO countries would have an incentive to hear him out. He didn’t explain, more broadly, what his administration wants from Iran—what the country could do to relieve the economic and military pressure that Trump is apparently so keen to put on it.
Typically, these kinds of details might be filled in during background briefings by other high-ranking administration officials or by a White House press secretary. But there hasn’t been a White House press briefing since March 2019, and there do not appear to have been any “senior administration official” conference calls Wednesday about NATO. Given past incidents, as when Trump said at a rally in 2018 that a middle-class tax-cut bill was going to be passed within two weeks when in fact no such bill had been or ever would be written, or as with the announcements he has been making for years about the major infrastructure proposal that is purportedly on the verge of being released, it is possible that there is no plan related to NATO at all. The administration has also still not presented any description, even a one concocted dubiously from low-confidence intelligence reports, of the allegedly “imminent” operation that Soleimani was planning against U.S. personnel in Iraq. This is not a war effort that is getting a lot of legwork and shoe leather put into it.
Trump’s remarks did include the inaccurate claim that Iran had escalated proxy attacks against the U.S. after signing a nuclear agreement with the Obama administration, the non-topical assertion that “under my leadership, our economy is stronger than ever before,” and a description of the U.S. military’s missiles as “big” and “fast.”
Most upsettingly, all of this happened because Donald Trump is the president. Of America!
And yet, in the third paragraph of his speech, Trump said that “Iran appears to be standing down”—a conclusion drawn from the non-lethal outcome of its missile attacks on U.S. military facilities earlier Wednesday. Thus the modal reaction to seeing a famously spray-tanned, fake-haired brand-marketing CEO and tabloid personality in the White House, delivering a Fox News call-in segment disguised as an “address to the nation,” was one of relief. It meant that President Donald Trump is not, for now, following through on his sickening threats to escalate a quasi-war by bombing Iranian cultural sites, an act that could justify prosecution at the Hague , or by doing anything else that might bring about a devastating full-scale conflict involving hundreds of thousands of soldiers (or worse).
And indeed, by the standards of a few hours before—the only time horizon that exists within the president’s attention span, and therefore the only one that matters—this was a tremendous improvement! Why worry about the details if the person in charge doesn’t think about them either? He was mad enough to start a war but then maybe Tucker Carlson, on his TV, talked him out of it. Everything is fine for now.
January 9, 2020
Will Trump Get Away With This?
by Robert Kuttner
January 8, 2020
snip//
When you are certifiably nuts and capable of almost anything, that does tend to keep your adversaries off-balance. The Iranians must be thinking twice about taking any actions that kill Americans.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo sounds almost convincing when he ticks off all of the horrific things Qassem Soleimani did over the years. Surely he had it coming?
According to a new Reuters poll, about 53 percent of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of Iran, an increase of nine points since their December poll, but still about the same percentage who disapprove of him generally.
So the assassination of Soleimani, in plain violation of international law, hasn’t cost Trump significantly with either his base or with swing voters, though it hasn’t benefited him either.
My sense is that the geopolitical damage will be long term. Among other reverberating effects, this killing damages our relations with Iraq, creates unity inside a fractious Iran, sets back the effort to contain ISIS, and reverses Trump’s promise to avoid other wars and bring troops home. It may soon bring new conflict to Israel as well. That’s a lot.
Whether Trump is held accountable politically depends partly on how, and how soon, all of this plays out, and on whether the Democrats are effective at pinning the new instability on him. But all of this needs to be about the perverse substance of what Trump has done, and not about whether it violated the War Powers Act.
Will Trump Get Away With This?
https://prospect.org/blogs/tap/will-trump-get-away-with-this-iran/Will Trump Get Away With This?
by Robert Kuttner
January 8, 2020
snip//
When you are certifiably nuts and capable of almost anything, that does tend to keep your adversaries off-balance. The Iranians must be thinking twice about taking any actions that kill Americans.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo sounds almost convincing when he ticks off all of the horrific things Qassem Soleimani did over the years. Surely he had it coming?
According to a new Reuters poll, about 53 percent of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of Iran, an increase of nine points since their December poll, but still about the same percentage who disapprove of him generally.
So the assassination of Soleimani, in plain violation of international law, hasn’t cost Trump significantly with either his base or with swing voters, though it hasn’t benefited him either.
My sense is that the geopolitical damage will be long term. Among other reverberating effects, this killing damages our relations with Iraq, creates unity inside a fractious Iran, sets back the effort to contain ISIS, and reverses Trump’s promise to avoid other wars and bring troops home. It may soon bring new conflict to Israel as well. That’s a lot.
Whether Trump is held accountable politically depends partly on how, and how soon, all of this plays out, and on whether the Democrats are effective at pinning the new instability on him. But all of this needs to be about the perverse substance of what Trump has done, and not about whether it violated the War Powers Act.
January 9, 2020
https://www.politicususa.com/2020/01/09/unwell-trump-rants-about-the-song-ymca-at-the-white-house.html
Posted on Thu, Jan 9th, 2020 by Jason Easley
Unwell Trump Rants About The Song YMCA At The White House
Donald Trump went off on a rant and claimed nobody remembers the name NAFTA, which is why he named his trade deal after the Village People’s YMCA.
Trump said, “I’m good at names. USMCA. Like the song “YMCA.” Now everybody says it. They don’t remember the previous name of the bad deal. Commonly known as NAFTA.”
https://twitter.com/i/status/1215368240857264128
Trump thinks that he is good at names in the same way that a toddler thinks that they are good at hide and seek when they put their fingers over their eyes. USMCA is not a good name for a trade deal. Trump hasn’t come up with a good name for either his programs or his political opponents since he was a candidate. Trump is still trying to make “Sleepy” Joe a thing, even though Biden is more active in a day than Trump is in a month.
The president is clearly not well. He sounded drugged as he slurred his words, snorted, and breathed heavily during his statement on Iran.
Trump has blown past the standard of not presidential behavior and descended to not normal human behavior.
The White House won’t tell the American people, but there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that something appears to be wrong with this president.
Unwell Trump Rants About The Song YMCA At The White House
https://www.politicususa.com/2020/01/09/unwell-trump-rants-about-the-song-ymca-at-the-white-house.html
Posted on Thu, Jan 9th, 2020 by Jason Easley
Unwell Trump Rants About The Song YMCA At The White House
Donald Trump went off on a rant and claimed nobody remembers the name NAFTA, which is why he named his trade deal after the Village People’s YMCA.
Trump said, “I’m good at names. USMCA. Like the song “YMCA.” Now everybody says it. They don’t remember the previous name of the bad deal. Commonly known as NAFTA.”
https://twitter.com/i/status/1215368240857264128
Trump thinks that he is good at names in the same way that a toddler thinks that they are good at hide and seek when they put their fingers over their eyes. USMCA is not a good name for a trade deal. Trump hasn’t come up with a good name for either his programs or his political opponents since he was a candidate. Trump is still trying to make “Sleepy” Joe a thing, even though Biden is more active in a day than Trump is in a month.
The president is clearly not well. He sounded drugged as he slurred his words, snorted, and breathed heavily during his statement on Iran.
Trump has blown past the standard of not presidential behavior and descended to not normal human behavior.
The White House won’t tell the American people, but there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that something appears to be wrong with this president.
January 8, 2020
Posted on Wed, Jan 8th, 2020 by Jason Easley
Sen. Tammy Duckworth Rocks The Senate By Calling Out Toddler Trump
Combat vet Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) said that her 20-month-old has better impulse control than Donald Trump.
Sen. Duckworth said on the Senate floor, “Once again he’s been manipulated by a hostile regime into decisions that further their goals while endangering the security of the nation Trump’s actually supposed to lead… All these dictators have realized the same thing: the President of the United States is as easy to control as a toddler. Sweet talk him or thump your chest and issue a few schoolyard threats, and you’ve got him. He’ll fall for it every time, doing your bidding as if it’s his own. I wish this weren’t true, but my diaper-wearing 20-month-old has better impulse control than this president.”
Video @ link~
Sen. Duckworth’s remarks are an example of why Trump’s approval rating has plunged with the military. Trump’s behavior is the opposite of what our troops believe in. The president is disrespectful, undisciplined, lacking in impulse control, disloyal, and reckless.
Sen. Duckworth was right. There are children with better impulse control than Trump. Trump is soft and easy to manipulate. He is easy for any authoritarian to control, and he puts the lives of US troops in jeopardy with each bad decision that he makes.,
Sen. Tammy Duckworth Rocks The Senate By Calling Out Toddler Trump
https://www.politicususa.com/2020/01/08/sen-tammy-duckworth-rocks-the-senate-by-calling-out-toddler-trump.htmlPosted on Wed, Jan 8th, 2020 by Jason Easley
Sen. Tammy Duckworth Rocks The Senate By Calling Out Toddler Trump
Combat vet Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) said that her 20-month-old has better impulse control than Donald Trump.
Sen. Duckworth said on the Senate floor, “Once again he’s been manipulated by a hostile regime into decisions that further their goals while endangering the security of the nation Trump’s actually supposed to lead… All these dictators have realized the same thing: the President of the United States is as easy to control as a toddler. Sweet talk him or thump your chest and issue a few schoolyard threats, and you’ve got him. He’ll fall for it every time, doing your bidding as if it’s his own. I wish this weren’t true, but my diaper-wearing 20-month-old has better impulse control than this president.”
Video @ link~
Sen. Duckworth’s remarks are an example of why Trump’s approval rating has plunged with the military. Trump’s behavior is the opposite of what our troops believe in. The president is disrespectful, undisciplined, lacking in impulse control, disloyal, and reckless.
Sen. Duckworth was right. There are children with better impulse control than Trump. Trump is soft and easy to manipulate. He is easy for any authoritarian to control, and he puts the lives of US troops in jeopardy with each bad decision that he makes.,
January 8, 2020
‘The worst national security team that I’ve ever seen’
01/08/20 10:27 AM—Updated 01/08/20 11:15 AM
By Steve Benen
Andrea Mitchell, NBC News’ chief foreign affairs correspondent, sat down with Brian Williams last night and reflected on the White House team responding to the crisis in the Middle East. She characterized Donald Trump’s existing operation as “least experienced, the least effective, and the smallest” in recent memory.
Mitchell, a veteran journalist who’s covered a variety of Democratic and Republican administrations, concluded that the current president has “the worst national security team that I’ve ever seen.”
I think that’s unambiguously true, and to appreciate its accuracy, there are two broad angles to consider. The first is that Trump’s team, to the extent that it can even be called a “team,” is woefully incomplete. As Garrett Graff noted yesterday, the Trump administration does not currently have, for example, a Senate-confirmed director of National Intelligence or a deputy director of National Intelligence.
There’s also no Senate-confirmed Homeland Security secretary or deputy secretary. There’s no Senate-confirmed undersecretary for arms control and international security affairs or assistant secretary for arms control, verification, and compliance.
At the Pentagon, meanwhile, there’s been a scramble of top officials resigning, including six notable departures in the last five weeks.
For several of the aforementioned positions, the White House hasn’t even nominated anyone to fill the posts. As Trump’s presidency enters its fourth year, and as circumstances require a competent and experience national security team, it stands to reason that the administration wouldn’t still be struggling with vacancies and acting officials.
And yet, here we are.
more...
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-worst-national-security-team-ive-ever-seen
'The worst national security team that I've ever seen'
‘The worst national security team that I’ve ever seen’
01/08/20 10:27 AM—Updated 01/08/20 11:15 AM
By Steve Benen
Andrea Mitchell, NBC News’ chief foreign affairs correspondent, sat down with Brian Williams last night and reflected on the White House team responding to the crisis in the Middle East. She characterized Donald Trump’s existing operation as “least experienced, the least effective, and the smallest” in recent memory.
Mitchell, a veteran journalist who’s covered a variety of Democratic and Republican administrations, concluded that the current president has “the worst national security team that I’ve ever seen.”
I think that’s unambiguously true, and to appreciate its accuracy, there are two broad angles to consider. The first is that Trump’s team, to the extent that it can even be called a “team,” is woefully incomplete. As Garrett Graff noted yesterday, the Trump administration does not currently have, for example, a Senate-confirmed director of National Intelligence or a deputy director of National Intelligence.
There’s also no Senate-confirmed Homeland Security secretary or deputy secretary. There’s no Senate-confirmed undersecretary for arms control and international security affairs or assistant secretary for arms control, verification, and compliance.
At the Pentagon, meanwhile, there’s been a scramble of top officials resigning, including six notable departures in the last five weeks.
For several of the aforementioned positions, the White House hasn’t even nominated anyone to fill the posts. As Trump’s presidency enters its fourth year, and as circumstances require a competent and experience national security team, it stands to reason that the administration wouldn’t still be struggling with vacancies and acting officials.
And yet, here we are.
more...
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-worst-national-security-team-ive-ever-seen
January 8, 2020
House Democrat calls administration's Iran briefing 'sophomoric and utterly unconvincing'
By Rebecca Klar - 01/08/20 03:06 PM EST
Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) said after an administration briefing on Wednesday that he is unconvinced that President Trump's decision to launch the drone strike that killed Iran's top military commander was necessary.
Connolly stressed the urgency for Congress to act to limit the president’s ability to take further military action against Iran.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1214987526055837696
Connolly said the administration’s rationale for targeting Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani wouldn’t “pass a graduate school thesis test” and he was “utterly unpersuaded” that there was new or compelling evidence that showed an imminent threat.
more...
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/477390-house-democrat-calls-administrations-iran-briefing-sophomoric-and-utterly
House Democrat calls administration's Iran briefing 'sophomoric and utterly unconvincing'
House Democrat calls administration's Iran briefing 'sophomoric and utterly unconvincing'
By Rebecca Klar - 01/08/20 03:06 PM EST
Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) said after an administration briefing on Wednesday that he is unconvinced that President Trump's decision to launch the drone strike that killed Iran's top military commander was necessary.
Connolly stressed the urgency for Congress to act to limit the president’s ability to take further military action against Iran.
“Without commenting on content, my reaction to this briefing was it was sophomoric and utterly unconvincing and I believe that more than ever the Congress needs to act to protect that constitutional provisions about war and peace,” Connolly told reporters as he left the briefing.
“I believe this administration is after the fact trying to piece together a rationale for its action that was impulsive, reckless and put this country's security at risk,” he added.
“I believe this administration is after the fact trying to piece together a rationale for its action that was impulsive, reckless and put this country's security at risk,” he added.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1214987526055837696
Connolly said the administration’s rationale for targeting Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani wouldn’t “pass a graduate school thesis test” and he was “utterly unpersuaded” that there was new or compelling evidence that showed an imminent threat.
more...
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/477390-house-democrat-calls-administrations-iran-briefing-sophomoric-and-utterly
January 8, 2020
Sean Hannity suggests bombing Iranian oil refineries to cause “major poverty for the people of Iran”
“Maybe we could help them with arms and help them, you know — in some ways.”
By Jane Coastonjane.coaston@vox.com Jan 8, 2020, 3:30pm EST
As the world waited to see how President Donald Trump would respond to the Iranian missile strikes on al-Asad airbase in Iraq, one of his favorite television hosts cheered on potential reprisals, including retaliation aimed at creating “major poverty” for Iranians.
After suggesting during the opening of the show that Iranian oil refineries may be at risk, Hannity then directly suggested bombing those refineries in an interview with Sen. Ted Cruz, with the intention of creating “major poverty” in the country, then “maybe” providing arms to Iranians to foment regime change.
Cruz responded by pivoting to the Iran nuclear deal, saying, “under Barack Obama, the policy [regarding Iran] was appeasement.”
“We need to stand up to the Ayatollah,” Cruz added. I’ve reached out to Sen. Cruz’s office for comment.
more...
https://www.vox.com/2020/1/8/21056693/sean-hannity-fox-news-iran-oil-bombing-poverty
Sean Hannity suggests bombing Iranian oil refineries to cause "major poverty for the people of Iran"
Sean Hannity suggests bombing Iranian oil refineries to cause “major poverty for the people of Iran”
“Maybe we could help them with arms and help them, you know — in some ways.”
By Jane Coastonjane.coaston@vox.com Jan 8, 2020, 3:30pm EST
As the world waited to see how President Donald Trump would respond to the Iranian missile strikes on al-Asad airbase in Iraq, one of his favorite television hosts cheered on potential reprisals, including retaliation aimed at creating “major poverty” for Iranians.
“There is a massive price to pay. You don’t get to do what they did tonight. They’re going to get hit hard,” Fox News host Sean Hannity said Tuesday night. “The mullahs of Iran, well, they may want to watch and keep a watchful eye on the sky tonight.”
After suggesting during the opening of the show that Iranian oil refineries may be at risk, Hannity then directly suggested bombing those refineries in an interview with Sen. Ted Cruz, with the intention of creating “major poverty” in the country, then “maybe” providing arms to Iranians to foment regime change.
“They have three major refineries in Iran, senator. Three. I would imagine those refineries blew up one day, they got themselves a hell of a domestic problem, because that’s going to result in major poverty for the people of Iran. And if they want regime change, that’s up to them,” he said. “Maybe we could help them with arms and help them, you know — in some ways, but we are not sending our sons and daughters there.”
Cruz responded by pivoting to the Iran nuclear deal, saying, “under Barack Obama, the policy [regarding Iran] was appeasement.”
“We need to stand up to the Ayatollah,” Cruz added. I’ve reached out to Sen. Cruz’s office for comment.
more...
https://www.vox.com/2020/1/8/21056693/sean-hannity-fox-news-iran-oil-bombing-poverty
January 8, 2020
Robert Reich: "This is by no means a comprehensive list..."
On FB
Robert Reich
54 mins ·
Trump lies like most people breathe, and today was no exception. His speech this morning addressing Iran’s missile attacks on two American army bases in Iraq was riddled with misleading statements, inflammatory rhetoric, and outright lies. Among the most outrageous of Trump’s tall tales:
— He claimed the Iranian people chanted “Death to America” on the day the nuclear deal was signed. In reality, thousands of Iranians took to the streets to celebrate the signing of the nuclear deal, elate that a diplomatic channel between Iran and the United States had finally been opened after years of tensions. Public dancing, while normally banned, was even permitted as Iran’s citizens banded together in a joyous display of national unity.
— He repeated a wild claim that the U.S. gave Iran "$150 billion, not to mention $1.8 billion in cash" after signing the deal. This is patently untrue: after the deal was signed, Iran regained access to $150 billion of its own assets, which had been frozen abroad. The $1.8 billion in cash was from a 1970s-era deal in which Iran paid the U.S. $400 million for military equipment that never ended up getting delivered due to the revolution, which disintegrated diplomatic relations. After the deal was signed in 2015, the U.S. agreed to pay Iran the original $400 million in addition to $1.3 billion in interest.
— He again claimed that he had destroyed "100 percent of ISIS and its territorial caliphate". While its territorial caliphate is no longer, ISIS is very much alive and well. In fact, ISIS is poised on the edge of resurgence thanks to Trump’s brash foreign policy decisions, including his abandonment of our Kurdish allies in Syria last October and last week’s strike against General Soleimani.
This is by no means a comprehensive list of all the lies Trump spouted this morning. At a time when world peace hangs precipitously in the balance, it is unconscionable that the American people cannot rely on the president to tell us the basic truth.
— He claimed the Iranian people chanted “Death to America” on the day the nuclear deal was signed. In reality, thousands of Iranians took to the streets to celebrate the signing of the nuclear deal, elate that a diplomatic channel between Iran and the United States had finally been opened after years of tensions. Public dancing, while normally banned, was even permitted as Iran’s citizens banded together in a joyous display of national unity.
— He repeated a wild claim that the U.S. gave Iran "$150 billion, not to mention $1.8 billion in cash" after signing the deal. This is patently untrue: after the deal was signed, Iran regained access to $150 billion of its own assets, which had been frozen abroad. The $1.8 billion in cash was from a 1970s-era deal in which Iran paid the U.S. $400 million for military equipment that never ended up getting delivered due to the revolution, which disintegrated diplomatic relations. After the deal was signed in 2015, the U.S. agreed to pay Iran the original $400 million in addition to $1.3 billion in interest.
— He again claimed that he had destroyed "100 percent of ISIS and its territorial caliphate". While its territorial caliphate is no longer, ISIS is very much alive and well. In fact, ISIS is poised on the edge of resurgence thanks to Trump’s brash foreign policy decisions, including his abandonment of our Kurdish allies in Syria last October and last week’s strike against General Soleimani.
This is by no means a comprehensive list of all the lies Trump spouted this morning. At a time when world peace hangs precipitously in the balance, it is unconscionable that the American people cannot rely on the president to tell us the basic truth.
January 8, 2020
Wednesday, January 08, 2020
by Common Dreams
'Kicking the Can to Next Week Is Irresponsible': Progressives Rebuke Pelosi for Delaying Iran War Powers Vote
"Every day we wait is a message from Congress to Trump to continue this march to war."
by Jake Johnson, staff writer
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi faced immediate backlash from progressives Tuesday night after she informed congressional Democrats of her decision to delay the planned vote on a War Powers Resolution to constrain President Donald Trump's authority to launch further military attacks on Iran.
Pelosi's decision to push the vote back to next week, first reported by CNN, came shortly after Iran retaliated for the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani with missile attacks on U.S. airbases in Iraq. A House War Powers vote was expected as early as Wednesday.
Indivisible—part of a coalition of progressive groups leading nationwide anti-war protests on Thursday—said Iran's strikes should increase, not diminish, the urgency of the congressional effort to restrain Trump, whose hawkish policies and belligerent rhetoric toward Iran have sparked widespread fears of another devastating Middle East conflict.
more...
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/08/kicking-can-next-week-irresponsible-progressives-rebuke-pelosi-delaying-iran-war?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR0unKWtoDDWMxXAnv0yhvBjqVAvs2GMqiyFZymYrT1dF7Bm2XEZ_XO_WtE
'Kicking the Can to Next Week Is Irresponsible': Progressives Rebuke Pelosi...
Wednesday, January 08, 2020
by Common Dreams
'Kicking the Can to Next Week Is Irresponsible': Progressives Rebuke Pelosi for Delaying Iran War Powers Vote
"Every day we wait is a message from Congress to Trump to continue this march to war."
by Jake Johnson, staff writer
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi faced immediate backlash from progressives Tuesday night after she informed congressional Democrats of her decision to delay the planned vote on a War Powers Resolution to constrain President Donald Trump's authority to launch further military attacks on Iran.
Pelosi's decision to push the vote back to next week, first reported by CNN, came shortly after Iran retaliated for the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani with missile attacks on U.S. airbases in Iraq. A House War Powers vote was expected as early as Wednesday.
"We have a choice—we do not need to double down on escalation. Congress must end this dangerous cycle and declare, with strength and resolve: #NoWarWithIran."
—Rep. Pramila Jayapal
—Rep. Pramila Jayapal
Indivisible—part of a coalition of progressive groups leading nationwide anti-war protests on Thursday—said Iran's strikes should increase, not diminish, the urgency of the congressional effort to restrain Trump, whose hawkish policies and belligerent rhetoric toward Iran have sparked widespread fears of another devastating Middle East conflict.
"Speaker Pelosi, the House should have already voted on a resolution to limit Trump's authority on Iran," Indivisible tweeted Tuesday night. "Every day we wait is a message from Congress to Trump to continue this march to war. After tonight, kicking the can to next week is irresponsible."
more...
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/08/kicking-can-next-week-irresponsible-progressives-rebuke-pelosi-delaying-iran-war?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR0unKWtoDDWMxXAnv0yhvBjqVAvs2GMqiyFZymYrT1dF7Bm2XEZ_XO_WtE
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: NY
Home country: US
Current location: Florida
Member since: Mon Sep 6, 2004, 09:54 PM
Number of posts: 171,092
