Trump's Veto Stands-- He Is Free To Attack Iran At Will

Blood On Their Hands by Nancy Ohanian

On Thursday, the Senate attempted to override Trump's veto of the joint resolution that directed him to remove American armed forced from hostilities against Iran that hadn't been authorized by Congress. There was never any chance an override was in the cards-- not with 44 Republicans firmly committed to backing anything and everything Trump does. Every Senate Democrat voted to override but only 6 Republicans had the guts (or sense) to join them:

Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Bill Cassidy (R-LA)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Rand Paul (R-KY)

After the vote, Al Gross, the independent running on the Democratic line in Alaska, noted that "Yet again, party-line Dan Sullivan put National Republicans first, and left Alaska behind. Alaskans don’t believe in party run politics especially when it means putting our military members at risk without oversight and careful consideration. Considering our needs or interests has never been something Dan Sullivan takes to heart so it’s not surprising he voted this way. Dan’s like lap dog for the national Republicans, and Alaskans deserve a real, independent leader to put Alaskans first, whether the president likes it or not."

Had Gross been in the Senate, both Alaska senators would have voted to override. Something tells me Murkowski is hoping that's the outcome in November anyway.

There was no vote in the House, but it's worth remembering that when it passed the House on March 11, there were just 6 no good, dirty, fake Democrats who sided with Trump and the GOP:

• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)
• Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA)
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)
• Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)
• Max Rose (Blue Dog-NY)

The only one of these war-monger fake Dems with a primary os Kendra Horn, where she is being challenged by progressive Democrat Tom Guild. Yesterday, he told OK-05 voters that "Under no circumstances should America become engaged in military action in Iran without prior congressional approval. I am deeply disappointed that my June 30 primary opponent Rep. Horn gave the current president or any president carte blanche to start another costly war in the Middle East. During this widespread and destructive pandemic and unprecedented meltdown in the American economy, we should be rebuilding and investing in America, not engaging in more unauthorized international military actions. The American people are tired to the point of exhaustion with America’s endless wars."

Blue America's most recently endorsed candidate, West Virginia progressive Cathy Kunkel, noted that the Republican in the seat she's running for, Alex Mooney, "the hypocritical Republican Congressman from WV-02, was the only Republican to cosponsor legislation (HR 1274) repealing the Authorization for Use of Military Force, yet to vote against this resolution. When push came to shove, support for Trump in an election year was more important than his previous belief in restoring Congressional authority to make war. H.R. 1274 cosponsor list show that Thomas Massie (KY) and Justin Amash (MI) were the only other Republican co-sponsors, and both were consistent in supporting the resolution to remove U.S. troops from hostilities with Iran)."

Please consider contributing to Tom's and Cathy's campaigns by clicking on the Blue America 2020 congressional primary thermometer above and giving what you can.

The Worst Democrats In Congress Voted With The GOP This Week On Two Super Important Bills. Want To Know Who?

There were two important bills Congress passed on Wednesday-- a bad one and a good one. The bad one was a reauthorization of the USA Freedom Act (FISA). It passed 278-136. 75 Democrats and 60 Republicans voted against it. The Blue Dogs, New Dems and the corrupt Military Industrial Complex supporters led the way. Which Democrats voted against it? You know... the good ones like Ro Khanna (D-CA), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), AOC (D-NY), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Andy Levin (D-MI), Judy Chu (D-CA), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Joe Neguse (D-CO), Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ), Chuy García (D-IL), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA)... the ones you'd expect. And the bad guys? 152 Democrats joined with most of the GOP to pass this, many of them all the regular suspects like this couple of dozen shitheads:

• Steny Hoyer (Majority Leader-MD)
• Jim Clyburn (Biden Resuscitator-SC)
• Cheri Bustos (DCCC chair-IL)
• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)
• Max Rose (Blue Dog-NY)
• Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL)
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)
• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)
• Xochitl Torres Small (Blue Dog-NM)
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
• Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ)
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
• Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)
• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)
• Mikie Sherrill (Blue Dog-NJ)
• Greg Meeks (New Dem-NY)
• Debbie Wasserman Schultz (New Dem-FL)
• Joe Morelle (New Dem-NY)
• Stephen Lynch (New Dem-MA)
• Pete Aguilar (Blue Dog-CA)
• Gil Cisneros (New Dem-CA)
• Harley Rouda (New Dem-CA)

Those 24 were just a representative sample of all the bad Democrats who voted for an especially bad bill that reauthorizes the unchecked domestic spying powers of what is now Trump's intelligence-gathering bureaus, such as the unwarranted collection of phone records. I asked some of the candidates running for Congress whose opponents voted for the bill. Liam O'Mara, the Riverside County progressive Democrat taking on Trump sycophant Ken Calvert responded with his own question: "How is it that a country which prides itself on freedom is so quick to limit freedoms in the name of security? There is no cause for spying on the communications of American citizens as a whole, and the Orwellian name of the USA FREEDOM Act should not be allowed to obscure its purpose. Calvert voted to let the NSA watch your calls; I would have voted no."

Eva Putzova, the Arizona progressive taking on Blue Dog and "ex"-Republican Tom O'Halleran who voted to reauthorize the domestic spying bill (and against the war powers bill). He can always be counted on to vote with the Republicans on any important legislation. Eva told us this morning that his vote "to join with the Trump administration and the GOP and reauthorize Section 215 of the Patriot Act that allows government spying and surveillance on American citizens is reprehensible. This provision allows the unwarranted collection of phone records of hundreds of millions of people in the United States. It would give Attorney General Barr the authority to engage in surveillance of the administration's political rivals. Is this what the incumbent and my opponent wants? Growing up in pre-1989 Czechoslovakia, I'm too familiar with tools of totalitarian regimes used to terrorize their own citizens and the Patriot Act is just like that. When I am in Congress I will vote to repeal the Patriot Act and all other intrusive government spying and surveillance programs that interfere with our rights under the Constitution."

So that was the bad bill. The good bill that passed was a bicameral directive to removes all U.S. armed forces deployed against Iran without congressional approval. It passed 227 to 186. Six fucked-up fake Democrats voted with the Republicans to stop this. If you see one of these in the street, you should throw a runny fruit pie in their face:

• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)
• Max Rose (Blue Dog-NY)
• Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)
• Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA)

And if you live in one of their districts... Well, you know what to do. Oklahoma's 5th district would be a good one to start in. Blue Dog Kendra Horn has one of the most disgraceful voting records of any Democrat in Congress-- craven, cowardly and conservative. She has no business being in Congress at all and was never anything more than a lesser-of-two evils candidate. Progressive Tom Guild is running against her this cycle, in part because of voters like the two she screwed up on this week-- voting for domestic spying and against peace With Iran. "Under no circumstances," said Guild today, "should American troops fight in Iran without prior congressional approval. I’m deeply disappointed that Horn gave the current volatile and impulsive president or any president carte blanche to start another costly endless war in the Middle East. Enough is Enough!"

Unfit For Office

What Blows Up Must Come Down by Nancy Ohanian

Clearly, Trump does at least one thing every day that shows him unfit for office. Yesterday, for example, it revolved around his corrupt relationship with the state of New York. A few weeks ago Trump had cut off the state's access to the Global Entry and other "trusted traveler" programs that allow travelers shorter airport lines and faster border crossings. If you travel a lot, it's a big deal. It's very inconvenient for travelers, many of whom are wealthy and influential, to be denied that in New York (and only New York).

No one believed Trump when he claimed he was singling out New York because they allow undocumented residents to apply for driver's licenses (as do many states). But yesterday the truth came out when Trump tweeted at Governor Cuomo that if he wants to trusted traveler programs back, the state would have to-- well in his own words: "New York must stop all of its unnecessary lawsuits & harrassment, start cleaning itself up, and lowering taxes." Sounds like blackmail to me, no?

While Trump was on Twitter fighting like a 9 year old girl with Mini-Mike, General Kelly and Andrew Cuomo, the U.S. Senate based bipartisan legislation to prevent him from starting a war with Iran. The vote was 55-45 against the Trumpets position. That should have been the vote for calling witnesses at the impeachment trial. The 8 Republicans who crossed the aisle to vote with all the Democrats were Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Susan Collins (R-ME), Mike Lee (R-UT), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Rand Paul (R-KY), and Todd Young (R-IN). (Yes, Mitt's back to ass-kissing mode.)

Reporting for the Washington Post, Karoun Demirjian that it was "a bipartisan rebuke of his administration’s resistance to involving the legislative branch in decisions that some fear could lead to all-out war... Trump will almost certainly veto the measure once it passes the House, and neither chamber of Congress has the votes to override that veto... The number of GOP senators willing to cross Trump over his Iran policy has risen in the wake of the strike last month that killed top Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani, amid the possibility that it could have triggered a wider war without any congressional involvement."

New to the group willing to stand up to Trump on Iran and war-powers resolutions were Lamar Alexander and Bill Cassidy.

Presidents of both parties, including George W. Bush, Obama and Trump, have said they have the right to order military action as a matter of self-defense when they see threats they define as “imminent.” But some lawmakers say the executive branch has expanded its war powers to the detriment of Congress, particularly when it invokes congressional authorizations passed in 2001 and 2002 to support action in conflicts never envisioned at that time.

National security adviser Robert C. O’Brien said the strike on Soleimani was justified by Congress’s 2002 authorization of the war on Iraq.

Efforts in Congress to repeal the old authorizations or write new ones have failed, amid the divide between lawmakers who want to bring troops home and those who want to provide fresh authorization for current campaigns.

The debate over Iran has also been fueled by many lawmakers’ frustration at what they see as a lack of candor from administration officials about what prompted the strike on Soleimani. Officials have offered shifting explanations of the basis for the strike, including that Soleimani posed an imminent threat to U.S. personnel in the Middle East and that it was retaliation for an attack on a U.S. base in Iraq that killed a U.S. contractor.

Lee, one of the Republican senators who openly criticized the administration for its mixed and limited messages, insisted this week that voting to reassert Congress’s war powers “should not be controversial” and that reclaiming such ground from the executive branch “doesn’t show weakness, that shows strength.”

It is not clear that the bipartisan nature of vote in the House will be as strong as it was in the Senate. The House must take up Kaine’s resolution before it can be sent to Trump’s desk-- something House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) promised Thursday to do “in the coming weeks.”

Last month, the House passed a similar but nonbinding Iran war-powers resolution by a vote of 224 to 194. Only three Republicans joined most of the Democrats to support that measure-- far fewer than joined Democrats in 2019 to back measures preventing Trump from using federal funds to conduct operations against Iran and invoking Congress’s war powers to pull back support for the Saudi-led campaign in Yemen.

One of those Republicans, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), is a close ally of Trump’s and a leading voice in his party for reasserting Congress’s war powers and ending endless wars. In the wake of the House’s vote last month, he told Politico that he suspected he had been kept off the president’s team of defenders during his impeachment trial as retaliation for his vote to constrain Trump’s actions against Iran.

Young Voters Want To Vote-- But Not For Warmongers-- Of Either Party... Watch Out Josh Gottheimer, Anthony Brindisi And Kendra Horn

Writing for the American Independent on Friday, Dan Martin reported that Political activism skyrocketing among high schoolers. Martin wrote that "Since the 2016 election, high schools around the country have seen an explosion of activism by young people... [and that] most of the excitement is on the progressive side, with the membership in the High School Democrats of America doubling over the past year... In the 2018 midterm election, voter participation by voters aged 18 to 29 increased in all 42 states where data is available [and] young voters preferred Democratic House candidates by a 35-point margin, a gap the group says helped Democrats win back the House majority." The issues motivating them are the issues Bernie and the candidates running on his platform are talking about: the Green New Deal, a more equitable distribution of wealth, general reform-- from campaign finance and government ethics to gun safety and more government ethics, the social safety net and, of course, peace.

Over the weekend, New Republic editor, Chris Lehmann, sent the magazine's subscribers a note ("The Neocons Strike Back") with this photo of Republican politicians and GOP fellow-travelers, some familiar Concast-TV characters as #NeverTrumpers:

Lehmann noted that "Trump's drone strike on Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani shocked much of the world when it happened, but at least one group greeted it as the welcome return of a familiar and beloved policy outlook: D.C.’s influential corps of neoconservative thinkers and global strategists. As New Republic writer Jacob Heilbrunn notes, the neocons-- long viewed as a bulwark of anguished Never Trump dissent in the reconfigured alignments of right-wing power-- were abruptly jolted into a familiar, pleasing sense of their own realpolitik wisdom and policy clout:

Neoconservatism as a foreign policy ideology has been badly discredited over the last two decades, thanks to the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan. But in the blinding flash of one drone strike, neoconservatism was easily able to reinsert itself in the national conversation. It now appears that Trump intends to make Soleimani’s killing-- which has nearly drawn the U.S. into yet another conflict in the Middle East and, in typical neoconservative fashion, ended up backfiring and undercutting American goals in the region-- a central part of his 2020 reelection bid.

And the neoconservative establishment is forever poised to retake its role in the sanctums of interventionism, Heilbrunn writes: Thanks to their well-documented organizational prowess and political savvy, neoconservative policy gurus always function as a sort of floating government-in-waiting, keenly attuned to the moment when unilateral military action pivots the D.C. consensus-sphere back onto a war footing. The movement’s “hawkish tendencies remain widely prevalent not only in the Republican Party but also in the media, the think-tank universe, and the liberal-hawk precincts of the Democratic Party,” Heilbrunn observes. Neoconservatives have been able to trade on the movement’s warrior prestige ever since the fall of communism and gathered momentum with the 1991 Iraq invasion, alongside philosophic rationales for American interventionism under the rubric of democracy promotion produced by neoconservative intellectuals such as Jeane Kirkpatrick and Francis Fukuyama.

The disastrous and ongoing military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, launched in the early aughts, appeared to put the movement into a provisional state of disfavor—and Donald Trump’s election in 2016, on at least a partially isolationist “America First” platform, seemed to further secure the neoconservatives’ state of near-permanent policy exile.

But appearances are deceiving-- and not simply because Trump’s foreign policy views, like all his positions not devoted exclusively to the promotion of his own ego, are stunningly incoherent. In reality, plenty of Trump’s inner circle is tightly aligned with neocon doctrine, from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to Special Representative to Iran Brian Hook to Lindsey Graham and Rudy Giuliani. And a subfaction of what Stephen Wertheim has dubbed “anti-globalist neocons” furnish a conceptual bridge from the president’s occasional posture of guarded nationalism on the global stage to the bellicose, where-do-we-invade-next worldview forever in favor on the neocon right. The resulting, chilling synthesis can of course be glimpsed on Trump’s Twitter account. In one recent tweet, Heilbrunn writes, Trump “dismissed his national security adviser... Robert O’Brien, for declaring that the strike against Soleimani would force Iran to negotiate: ‘Actually, I couldn’t care less if they negotiate,’ he said. ‘Will be totally up to them, but no nuclear weapons and don’t kill your protestors.’”

In other words, behold the 2020 model of the neoconservative world order-- one in which intellectual consistency, and indeed coherent leadership, is an entirely disposable commodity. “Whether the neoconservatives themselves are occupying top positions in the Trump administration is almost irrelevant,” Heilbrunn argues. “The ideology itself has reemerged to a degree that even Trump himself seems hard-pressed to resist it—even if he wanted to.” After three chaotic, scandal-plagued years in power, Donald Trump has finally stumbled into a corner of Washington where he can be made to seem to belong.

No one is going to argue about the inclusion of war-mongers likJohn Bolton, Lindsey Graham, Robert O’Brien, Bill Kristol, Mike Pompeo, Brian Hook, David Frum, Mark Dubowitz, David Wurmser, Tom Cotton. But considering that the vote was just a couple of weeks ago, they might have mentioned that when the House brought up the War Powers Resolution on January 9, there were 8 Democrats who refused to vote for it:

• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)
• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)
• Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA)
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)
• Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)
• Max Rose (Blue Dog-NY)

You like activism among idealistic young people manifesting itself at the polls? Then don't keep nominating fake Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- the Blue Dogs and New Dems-- to muddy the Democratic Party brand. Because if young people get riled up enough-- and find the Democratic Party as distasteful as the Republican Party-- there are other options. These people are not, after all, beholden to party bosses.

Saturday Walter Shapiro wrote, also for the New Republic, that "Biden is drawing significantly smaller Iowa crowds than Pete Buttigieg, Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren. In fact, Biden may have played to more packed rooms in the run-up to the 2008 caucuses in which he limped home with an embarrassingly weak fifth-place finish." No one-- particularly people under 60-- want to come see him or his pathetic cast of conservative surrogates who often seem downright prehistoric with their ancient Republican-like ideas. (And by the way, I haven't seen a single poll showing Status Quo Joe breaking into double digits when people under 30 are asked which Democratic nominee they prefer. Do you think they're going to even bother voting in great numbers if Biden somehow gets the nomination, especially if that nomination is viewed as having been obtained illegitimately through the kinds of shenanigans the DNC pulled to hand it to Hillary in 2016?)

How Many Senate Republicans Will Stand Up For America In The War Powers Debate?

Never dependable in a pinch

Even after 8 of the worst Democrats in the House-- each of whom absolutely deserves to be defeated for reelection, but is being bolstered by the DCCC-- sided with Trump in a failed attempt defeat the War Powers Resolution, The Hill reported Tuesday morning that there might be "as many as 10 Republican senators" who buck Trump on this crucial approach to constitutional jurisdiction over war and peace. These are the House Democrats who, along with almost every Republican in the House, betrayed the country and their oaths of office:

• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)
• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)
• Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA)
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)
• Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)
• Max Rose (Blue Dog-NY)

It would have been 9 Democrats, instead of 8, betraying the country, their constituents and the Constitution but DCCC-Blue Dog Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey is now officially a Republican and, of course, voted against the War Powers Resolution as a Republican and dedicated and enthusiastic Trump ass-licker.

The Hill's Alexander Bolton wrote that "The increasing number [10 Republican senators] is the latest sign of growing GOP frustration over the Trump administration’s justification for the drone strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) is circulating a bipartisan resolution that would direct Trump to remove U.S. forces from any hostilities against Iran within 30 days of its enactment."

Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rand Paul (R-KY) are already publicly somewhat on board-- though Paul has a tendency to run his mouth and roar until vote time and then meekly back Trump. Bolton claims that 8 more Republicans are considering Kaine's resolution and names Susan Collins (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Mitt Romney (R-UT), the 3 obvious ones, and adds Todd Young (R-IN). That leaves 4 unnamed. The Republicans at the greatest electoral risk this year, aside from Collins, are:

• Cory Gardner (R-CO)
• Martha McSally (R-AZ)
• Thom Tillis (R-NC)
• David Perdue (R-GA)
• Joni Ernst (R-IA)
• Dan Sullivan (R-AK)
• Kelly Loeffler (R-GA)

There's an outside shot that John Cornyn (R-TX), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and MoscowMitch (R-KY) could be vulnerable but the lockstep support for Trump from these three goofballs is completely baked into the cake already. When asked how many Republicans are open to his resolution, Kaine told The Hill "Probably about 10. There’s good discussion going on." Lee also mentioned 10 as the number of Republicans open to at least considering it.

Democrats can force a vote on the measure at any time, but Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) on Monday said a vote will happen later in the week.

Schumer wants to make sure his entire caucus is present, increasing the odds that a vote would be held sometime after Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential primary debate in Iowa.

It needs only a simple majority to pass.

If it passes the Senate, the House would also need to pass the resolution before it can be sent to the White House, where Trump would be expected to veto it.

Lee said fellow Republicans should view the Kaine-sponsored resolution as a “completely noncontroversial measure” that restates the Constitution’s declaration that Congress shall have sole power to declare war.

He said it merely spells out that “additional hostilities against Iran need to be authorized by Congress.”

“That is a perfectly unremarkable statement,” Lee added. “The fact that this would be objectionable to anyone in either political party is really saying something.”

Republican senators are suggesting changes to Kaine’s resolutions, which the Democratic senator says can be offered as amendments on the Senate floor.

“I want to make sure that anything I vote on makes clear that the president maintains his Article II prerogatives and also that it does not contain any political content,” Young told reporters Monday, referring to Trump’s constitutional power to respond to attacks or imminent threats.

Kaine has agreed to accept Republican amendments that remove specific reference to Trump or might be construed as forcing the withdrawal of U.S. troops from areas where Iranian proxies are present.

...Senators in both parties say a briefing by senior administration officials last week failed to provide a clear legal justification for the U.S. drone strike that killed Soleimani.

The murky legal arguments put forth by the administration come on top of an evolving story about whether U.S. personnel in the Middle East faced an imminent threat from Soleimani, as Trump claimed last week when he said Iran and its allies “were looking to blow up our embassy.”

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Friday also asserted “an imminent threat,” adding the intelligence included “attacks on U.S. embassies.” He declined to define what exactly he meant by imminent.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper over the weekend told CBS’s “Face the Nation” that he “didn’t see” a “specific piece of evidence” that Soleimani was masterminding an attack on as many as four U.S. embassies.

The president pulled back from his initial claim on Monday by arguing that “it doesn’t really matter” whether there was an imminent threat against U.S. personnel and that the strike against Soleimani was justified “because of his horrible past.”

Perdue isn't getting away with his robot-like devotion to Trump-over-country without a spirited retort from at least one of his Democratic opponents. Teresa Tomlinson, the progressive in the Georgia U.S. Senate primary, noted, with gumption, that "Support for the War Powers Act is constitutional not partisan. I urge Senator Perdue to change course and finally put his allegiance to our constitution over his personal allegiance to Donald Trump."

Al Gross is the Independent/Democrat running for the Alaska Senate seat currently held by Trump puppet, Dan Sullivan. This morning, Gross told me that "Dan Sullivan believes in giving the President full war authority-- that's irresponsible. A Senator must serve as a check on, not a rubber stamp for the President. Dan Sullivan shows no leadership because he always puts Republican Party priorities before Alaska's priorities. I'll be a very different kind of Senator."

Rand Paul Loves The Prince Of Peace Trump While Lindsey Graham Loves The Big Macho Ass-Kicker Trump

Last week-- on Fox News, no less-- Kentucky Senator Rand Paul (R) said Trump should never have pulled out of the Iran nuclear agreement and that the assassination of Qassem Soleimani was a mistake, the two blunders together making the U.S. "less safe." A poll by Ipsos since then shows that most Americans agree that Trump's botched approach to Iran has made the country less safe. Only 25% of Americans belief what Trump has done made the U.S. safer. This caused the Senate's most notorious closet case to pull his head out of Trump's butt to hiss some anti-Rand assertions before reinsertion. The AP's Ben Tobin reported that Lindsey Graham mocked Paul's constitutional knowledge: "If I had an eye problem, I would go to him. If I had a constitutional question, he would be the last guy I would pick."

Maybe Lindsey should take his problems with the Constitution to constitutional law professor and Maryland Congressman Jamie Raskin, certainly the most knowledgeable member of either House when it comes to the U.S. Constitution. "Gee," he said this morning, "you think the people who pretend to be constitutional 'textualists' and 'originalists' would at least bother to read the Constitution, research its history and spend 5 minutes thinking seriously about it. The reason the Framers gave Congress the exclusive power to declare war, raise armies and make military appropriations is because the Kings and princes constantly plunged their populations into wars of vanity, political advantage and distraction, all at the great expense of human life and national treasure. Our Founders didn’t want presidents to have that awesome and easily exploited power and that’s why it’s the representatives of the people who, under Article I, must debate and deliberate the benefits, costs and consequences of going to war against other nations. Our passage of a War Powers Resolution on Iran last week is the beginning of restoration of Congressional warmaking powers that have been usurped by the President and abdicated by prior Congresses for far too long."




Graham was all in a dither because Paul criticized Trump's decision to authorize Soleimani's assassination while he was in Iraq without consulting Congress. "Trust me, I'm going to let people know that at this moment in time to play this game with the war powers act ... whether you mean to or not, you're empowering the enemy," Graham told reporters on Wednesday, referring to Republican senators Paul and Lee.

After receiving a briefing with fellow senators on Wednesday, Paul called the Trump administration's justification for killing Soleimani "absurd" and "an insult" to Congress.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, made similar comments, leading Graham to say his two Republican colleagues were "overreacting." The South Carolina Republican also attacked Paul and Lee for supporting the Democratic House's war powers resolution, a measure that passed Thursday evening to limit Trump's powers with respect to military action with Iran.

...Paul fired back during an interview later Wednesday on CNN, claiming Graham was invoking a "fake sort of drape of patriotism."

"I love my country as much as the next guy, but for him to insult and say that somehow we're not as patriotic as he is, he hasn't even read the history of the Constitution," Paul said. "He insults the Constitution, our Founding Fathers and what we do stand for in this republic by making light of it and accusing people of lacking patriotism. I think that's a low, gutter type of response."

Will John Bolton Testify? by Nancy Ohanian

Yesterday, Paul was on Meet The Press, still on the attack against the Trump regime's Iran bungling. The first thing Chuck Todd asked him was if he thought he had gotten "enough information to make you feel comfortable with what President Trump did?" Paul said he hadn't-- and that the information he got, as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was "contradictory... We've heard that the-- from the Secretary of State that they don't know where or when but it was imminent. That to me does seem inconsistent. He thinks he can square the circle, but to me it seems pretty inconsistent. To me there's a bigger question too, though. This is what really infuriated me about the briefing: Is they maintain both in private and in public that a vote by Congress in 2003 or 2002 to go after Saddam Hussein was a vote that now allows them to still be in Iraq and do whatever they want, including killing a foreign general from Iran. And I don't think that's what Congress meant in 2002, nor do I think one generation can bind another generation. So my point in being for this war powers debate is that we really need to have a debate about whether we should still be in Iraq or in Afghanistan. There needs to be authorization from Congress... I think presidents of both parties have been trying to usurp the authority. But our Founding Fathers wanted it to remain in Congress. They wanted to make it difficult to go to war. And I think we've been drifting away from that for a long time. But that's why I'm willing to stand up. Not because I distrust President Trump. I actually think he has shown remarkable restraint. But I'm willing to stand up even against a president of my party, because we need to stand up and take back the power. We also need to debate whether or not we're going to keep sending kids forever to Afghanistan and Iraq. And I, frankly, think we ought to end those wars."

TODD: Are you concerned? I mean look, the numbers tell the story. It does feel as if we've sent more troops to the Middle East, look at what's happening in Saudi Arabia, which I know you've been against, then we're bringing them home. What kind of message does that send to the American people?

PAUL: Well, I think it's a mixed message. I think President Trump has been very consistent saying he doesn't want perpetual war. But I have pushed back and I've said, "If you keep sending more troops, you will have perpetual war." The troops are merely targets. I'm going to be having a hearing in the next couple weeks about the Afghan Papers. It troubles me that in private commanders and generals have been saying for more than a decade that there's no mission in Afghanistan. We had two young men die this week. You know, I have friends who will be sending their kids there in the next six months. I don't want to send these young men and women to war if there is no mission and if the generals are privately saying it can't be won.

TODD: Is there a way... it's my understanding during the briefing, according to George Will's reporting, that Senator Chris Coons multiple times asked whether, whether they would seek congressional approval to deal with Iran if Iran got a nuclear weapon, to deal with Iran in a military way. And they just kept dodging the question. How important do you think it is to get that, essentially, on paper?

PAUL: I think it's incredibly important. Throughout the whole briefing they were dismissive of Congress. They , in the end, said they didn't have time to come back. We only had about eight senators ask questions and they said, "Oh, we don't have time. We're busy" about coming back to brief the rest of us or take questions from the rest of us. So it was very dismissive. But it's also arrogant to say that a vote from Congress, 16, 17 years ago, that that vote now binds another generation and another generation to war in Iraq. It was against Saddam Hussein, for goodness sakes. This is a completely different government. This is not even the Iraqi government we're now fighting. It's Iranian generals that happen to be in Iraq. But here's the great irony of the Iraq War, and this is something Trump gets incredibly right. And that is that since the Iraq War we now have an Iraq that is more aligned with Iran than us. We're trying to force them to keep our troops. The irony of that is glaring. And I think we really need to have a full throated debate in Congress. The majority of American people want to come home. They don't understand why we're still there. I want to have that debate and I want to bring our kids home.

TODD: You know, it's interesting. You have-- and I think in some ways you believe President Trump's instincts comport with your instincts when it comes to national security and foreign policy. But his advisers are in a different place. How much do you think that-- does that bothers you? Or is that healthy?

PAUL: I'll give you an example. You know I'm on the Foreign Relations Committee and all of his nominees come before me. And I even warned some of them in private, "I'm going to ask you, 'Do you agree with President Trump that the Iraq War was a mistake?'" You know what? Most of them don't agree with him. He keeps appointing people to represent him that think the Iraq War was just great. They loved Dick Cheney's position and they still don't admit it was a mistake. So that's why he keeps getting policy that isn't his policy. I do think his instincts are pure. He's been saying it since -- for 20, 30 years. He's been saying it for a long time that the wars have drained our treasury and that he's not in favor of these wars. But then they convince him if we leave, we'll look weak. I actually think this is a time of strength right now. Soleimani's dead. The leader of a lot of the mayhem is dead. This will be the time to come home. The Iraqi government, the democratically elected government, wants us to come home. We should come home. And the only way...

TODD: I was just going to say you think the President should take them up on this offer? You want us out? Let's do it.

PAUL: Absolutely. And the only way people become stronger is when they stand up for themselves. In Afghanistan when the government, and the soldiers, and the police finally fight the Taliban, they'll do better. When Iraq says, "Oh my goodness. Iran is overrunning us," or they see that the Sunni extremists are overrunning us, they have to stand up and fight. If they can't fight for their country, why are we always the patsy sending our kids there?

Eight Democratic War Mongers Voted With Trump Today Against The War Powers Resolution

This morning Bernie introduced the No War Against Iran Act with support from co-sponsors Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Ed Markey (D-MA), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Kamala Harris (D-CA), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Marie Cantwell (D-WA) plus Congress members Ro Khanna (D-CA), Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Pramila Jayapal (D-WA).

"When I look back upon America history," Bernie said this morning, "I remember the two most significant foreign policy mistakes our country made in the modern era, and those are the war in Vietnam and the war in Iraq. And let us be clear—; we were led into both of those wars by a series of lies. The result: the war in Vietnam cost us 59,000 American deaths and many others who came home wounded in body and spirit. In fact, a whole generation was devastated by that war. The casualties in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia are almost incalculable." Then he moved to speaking about Iraq.

In 2002 and 2003, in terms of Iraq, we were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, that he was working with Al Qaeda, and that we needed to invade Iraq unless we wanted to see another 9/11—or even worse, a nuclear attack.

Those claims were lies.

The war in Iraq led to the deaths of some 4,500 U.S. troops, and the wounding—physical and emotional—of tens of thousands of others. It led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and the displacement of over 5 million people.

The war in Iraq cost trillions of dollars—-- money that could have been spent on rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, education, health care, and environmental protection.

And after all that, the Iraqi parliament voted earlier this week to boot U.S. forces out of the country.

And now we have a president who abandoned a nuclear agreement we signed with our allies, has turned to a policy of escalation, and appears to be walking us toward another disastrous war in the Middle East.

And let’s be clear: another war in the Middle East could cost countless lives and trillions more dollars and lead to even more deaths, more conflict, more displacement in that already highly volatile region of the world.

I will do everything that I can as a United States Senator to prevent such a war.

Just as we were led into Vietnam and Iraq by lies, the Trump administration is misleading us on Iran. They have justified the assassination of Qassem Solemani by claiming that he was planning “imminent attacks” on hundreds of Americans in the region. And yet they produce no evidence that would justify this claim, not even in a classified setting.

And that is why it is so important that we are all here today together. Because under our Constitution, it is the Congress that has the responsibility for declaring war, not the president. Our Founding Fathers understood that it was only too easy for a president to lead the country into a disastrous military conflict. That is why they gave the exclusive power over war and peace to the people’s elected representatives.

We cannot remain bystanders right now. It is imperative that the United States Congress provide the kind of leadership that our country needs by passing this legislation and defending the Constitution and the rule of law.

Last year, I am proud to have helped lead the effort to pass a War Powers Resolution on Yemen, in which the Congress, for the first time in history, used the powers laid out in the 1973 War Powers Act to constrain the president on matters of war. While President Trump vetoed that resolution there is no question that it played a major role in signaling to the region that the American people do not support the Saudi-led war in Yemen.

And now is the time for us to once again come together and make certain that the president will not have one penny to spend on a war in Iran unless there is Congressional authorization.

Late this afternoon, the House voted on  House Resolution 83, which Pelosi let Elissa Slotkin put her name on, "to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran." The Resolution passed 224-194. Independent Justin Amash voted with the Democrats for the resolution as did 3 Republicans-- Matt Gaetz (FL), Francis Rooney (FL) and Thomas Massie (KY). Meanwhile 8 Democratic war mongers voted with the Republicans to let Trump go to war on anyone he wants to for any reason he wants to and without consulting anyone. They have violated their constitutional obligations:

• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)
• Max Rose (Blue Dog-NY)
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)
• Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)
• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)
• Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA)

Right after the vote I was corresponding with Riverside County progressive Liam O'Mara, a history professor specializing in the Middle East and the Democratic Party nominee for the congressional seat held by Trumpist Ken Calvert "Calvert," he told me, "took to Twitter Thursday to call efforts to stop war against Iran 'partisan,' and made a pair of characteristically stupid arguments. He said the bill was unnecessary because we were not engaged in hostilities with Iran, which is insane given we committed an act of war by assassinating a senior general in their military. Then he turned around and claimed it would make us less safe because our military could not preëmptively eliminate threats from Iran! Is he really stupid enough not to see that his two arguments are flatly contradictory? What Calvert wants is a military freed of civilian control and oversight, handed directly into the hands of a dictatorial executive. This is not how our Constitution works, and if Ken is too spineless to uphold his oath of office, he should step down."

I also spoke with Kara Eastman, the Omaha progressive running for the seat occupied by Trump lackey Don Bacon, who, of course, voted against the war powers resolution today. "I agree with Republicans like Sens. Mike Lee and Rand Paul-- who are demonstrating courage-- that elected officials must be able to fully debate and discuss the appropriateness of military intervention against Iran. This is especially the case when the lives of American servicemen and women and their families are at stake. It is absolutely Congress' prerogative and imperative to demand transparency and accountability, and the Trump Administration and Rep. Don Bacon are wrong to suggest otherwise."

Pelosi said that the House could also "soon" consider additional related measures, including Barbara Lee's resolution to repeal the Iraq Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) resolution from 2002, as well as recent legislation proposed by Ro Khanna to prohibit funding for military action against Iran not authorized by Congress.

Smart Democratic Candidates Should Be Going On The Offensive Against Trump Ginning Up A War With Iran

And that's Gamba to the right of the banner at Friday night's citizens' protest

Milwaukie Mayor Mark Gamba, who’s running for Congress in Oregon in a seat held by reactionary, warmonger Kurt Schrader,a hopeless corporate Blue Dog. Gamba was the first candidate I saw who sent a letter to his supporters talking exclusively about the assassinations and what that means in terms of his own candidacy. The subject line of his e-mail was “We Must Fight For Peace?” He began by writing that he wanted to “make clear to you where I stand on the President’s recent assassination order of a high ranking Iranian General.” 

Our Constitution clearly establishes that only Congress has the power to declare war, and further charges Congress with the responsibility for oversight of, and accountability for, our use of military force. Yet Congress has increasingly enabled the reckless abuse of the AUMF by turning a blind eye to Executive overreach.

The unsanctioned assassination of high ranking Iranian officials is an unambiguous act of war conducted without Congressional authorization. Once again, we teeter on the edge of another endless war in the Middle East with a sovereign state that has not attacked us nor has it threatened our freedoms.

It is no coincidence that the President is facing an impeachment trial at home. It should be noted that President Clinton did the same thing. It is a disgusting, time honored technique for drawing the public’s attention away from self-inflicted tribulations.

It is also no coincidence that congress just voted to increase our already bloated military budget to a record $738 BILLION while slashing amendments that could have precluded this rash action by Trump. Schrader voted for this bill.

We go to war to make rich people richer. We do it both to secure access to other countries resources for our corporations and simply to enrich the military industrial complex. We allow our young people to be maimed, psychologically ravaged or be killed in order to enrich Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman and dozens of others. Never mind the fact that we kill millions of innocent civilians in other countries in the process.

I believe in a strong national defense. But we were already spending more than the next 10 largest armed forces in the world combined BEFORE the terrible vote by 188 house democrats to increase it. Yet the only real threat we face goes completely unaddressed, simply because no defense contractor will make billions fighting climate change.

No big surprise that Kurt Schrader was one of the Dems that took that bad vote. It’s long past time to replace corporate Dems with people who are not beholden the Military Industrial Complex and who actually give a damn about our young people. It’s time to spend this kind of money solving the actual threat of climate change rather than the Trumped up threats from other countries.

Congress must act swiftly to constrain this administration from deceiving the American public into yet another protracted war with grave and irrevocable consequences. They must also immediately repeal the 2001 AUMF by voting on the War Powers Resolution and reintroduce and immediately vote on the National Defense Authorization Act amendment which would block the funding for further attacks on Iran without Congressional approval.

We all must make it abundantly clear now and forever that we will no longer tolerate war without reason and war without end. Join me in speaking out, in writing letters to the editor, in taking to the streets to decry this insanity.

Instead, let’s invest that money bringing people out of poverty while solving the REAL threat of climate chaos.

As congressman of district 5, I promise to stay focused on issues that affect America’s citizens and to act boldly against a corrupt president and corporate tyrants who use fear and violence to bully us into submission.

Stand with me in saying, “WE ARE THE PEOPLE AND WE WILL TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY FROM THOSE WHO STEAL OUR PEACE AND SELL IT TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER.”

Many of you know that I am not accepting any campaign money from corporations. I work for YOU!  With your support we will ensure that peace and the planet prevails.

All solid progressive candidates need to be able to explain that… just the way Mark Gamba did. And that includes showing voters the contrast with opponents like Kurt Schrader, who really are not much more than cowardly, profiteering Trump enablers. Please consider contributing to Mark's campaign by clicking on the "Primary A Blue Dog" ActBlue thermometer above. And think about this:

Ever Wonder Where Trump's-- And His Followers'-- Contempt For The Constitution Is Leading Us?

Jamie Raskin (D-MD), is the guy people turn to when they want the sharpest insight into how the Constitution was meant to work and how it really does work. He's pretty much acknowledged the smartest constitutional scholar in any room. "The president just impeached by the House of Representatives for contorting U.S. foreign policy to advance his reelection," he told us yesterday, "now usurps the war powers of Congress to make assassination of strategic (not operational) military personnel an instrument of U.S. foreign policy. This is a perilous new provocation and political distraction by the impetuous, lawless and ungovernable Donald Trump. No one will miss the blood-soaked General Soleimani, but that is not the question. The constitutional question is whether the President can order killings of ‘bad guys’ anywhere in the world without a declaration of war and without even  consultation of Congress. The policy question is what America will do now as the Iraqi Parliament seeks to kick all U.S. forces out of their country and an inflamed Iranian regime, bolstered by popular backlash against Trump, threatens 'severe revenge' against the  American people, American businesses and American allies. The master of official law-breaking and monarchical arrogance, President Trump has now unleashed a new descent into chaos in the Middle East. After the decades-long nightmares of the trillion-dollar Afghan and Iraqi Wars, which cost thousands of American and allied forces’ lives, in addition to thousands of civilians in those countries, the president has brought us to the brink of another brutal and endless war. We are all much less safe today because of the President’s recent outbreak of lawless impetuosity."

Yesterday, the New York Times reported that some Bolton cronies have indicated that his testimony would likely be damning to Señor Trumpanzee and "put additional pressure on moderate Republicans to consider convicting him." The Times speculated that "That could fundamentally change the dynamics around the impeachment trial in the Senate, where a two-thirds vote-- 67 senators-- is needed to remove Mr. Trump. Democrats, the minority party, control 45 seats." There aren't 22 "moderate" Republicans in the Senate

A little later on today, foreign policy expert Reese Erlich will give us his back-of-the-envelope version of what happened in regard to the Trump assassinations against Iran in Baghdad. By the weekend, I expect a much fuller analysis from him. I was especially struck by his comparison of the meaning of Soleimani to the Iranian people to how Americans would have viewed the assassination of Eisenhower during World War II. Damned, I hope someone is telling the Iranians to retaliate against Trump’s own property and not against the American people. Most of us hate him as much as they do.

He wants to be a war president

Over this past weekend, The Atlantic published an essay by Yale law professor Oona Hathaway, The Soleimani Strike Defied The U.S. Constitution, warning that “if Congress fails to respond effectively, the constitutional order will be broken beyond repair, and the president will be left with the unmitigated power to take the country to war on his own-- anywhere, anytime, for any reason.” Did no one tell Hathaway that that seems to be exactly what the transpartisan DC establishment has been aiming at for decades? A complete abrogation of responsibility that the Constitution invested in the Congress.

Hathaway wrote that “Any significant military action requires legal authority under both domestic and international law. Normally, domestic law would require the president to seek the approval of Congress, usually through a law authorizing the use of military force (after all, the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to ‘declare war’). International law would also require him to seek the approval of the United Nations Security Council before resorting to force, unless the host state consents (which it did not) or the action qualifies for the express, but narrow, self-defense exception. Trump did not seek approval in either forum.” Does anyone assume that Trump has any feelings other than complete contempt for the Constitution and constitutional norms? AM I missing something?

National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien told reporters that the killing was justified under the 2002 law Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, which was passed to permit the president to act to address threats posed by Iraq. Relying on the law would require a conclusion that the threat from Soleimani, an Iranian government official, was posed by Iraq. In other words, relying on the law is as good as admitting there is no legal basis. Vice President Mike Pence also asserted a false connection between Soleimani and the 9/11 attacks, perhaps in an effort to suggest that the strike could fall under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force. Those claims have been widely discredited, and several members of the Senate earlier expressed skepticism that the 2001 law authorized action against Iran.

Without any more solid legal authority to cite, the Trump administration seems to have turned to the claim that it was acting in self-defense. Though the administration has yet to provide any clear explanation for the legality of the strikes, it has offered various clues that the central justification is the president’s right to engage in self-defense on behalf of the United States. The Department of Defense issued a short statement suggesting that the attack was justified as an act of defense “aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans.” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo later more forcefully claimed that the strike was aimed at disrupting an “imminent attack.”

This claim-- were it true-- could solve the administration’s domestic and international legal problems at once. Both the U.S. Constitution and the UN charter include an exception for self-defense. Under Article II of the Constitution, the president may act to respond to imminent threats to the nation. The original idea was that there may be times when it is impractical or impossible to convene Congress-- something that was especially true when communication and travel could take weeks. In such cases, the president would not be prevented from taking necessary action to defend the nation until Congress could be convened. The UN charter, which prohibits a state from unilaterally resorting to the use of force against another state, also allows for an exception in cases where the state has been the subject of an armed attack or, most experts agree, will imminently be subject to such an attack. In both cases, the exception is narrow: The threat must be so extreme and imminent that it would be unreasonable to seek the necessary approvals before taking action to defend the country.

New reporting from the New York Times, however, concludes that “the evidence suggesting there was to be an imminent attack on American targets is ‘razor thin.’” A U.S. government official reportedly described the claim that Soleimani was planning an attack “that could kill hundreds” as “an illogical leap.” In short, it does not seem there was any imminent threat justifying unilateral action by the president.

…Though presidents have pushed the boundaries of their unilateral authority before, this action by President Trump is arguably unprecedented. When President Barack Obama participated in the NATO strikes in Libya, at least the operation was undertaken with allies and approved by the United Nations Security Council. (He later stated that the operation was the worst mistake of his presidency.) When President George W. Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, his international support was tenuous, but he had clear congressional authorization. In fact, the closest recent precedent for the current operation is President Trump’s own earlier decisions to strike Syrian-government targets in April 2017 and again in April 2018-- without either congressional or international support. But those strikes were relatively minor in comparison and did not risk setting off a new regional war.

In 1973, after discovering President Richard Nixon’s secret bombing campaign in Cambodia, Congress took steps to reclaim its power by passing the War Powers Resolution, which requires the president to report to Congress whenever armed forces are introduced “into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated,” and to terminate any hostilities after 60 days unless authorized by Congress. The effectiveness of the resolution has since been undermined by, among other things, fights over the meaning of “hostilities.” Congress must now act again not only to reject the illegal use of force represented by the decision to kill Soleimani, but also to reassert its constitutional role in the decision-making process that takes the nation to war. If Congress fails to effectively press back against this unconstitutional assertion of unilateral authority, it will set a precedent that will put the greatest destructive power the world has ever known in the hands of a single man.

There have been just a tiny handful of members of Congress-- a few outlier Republicans and a few dozen (mostly) progressive Democrats-- who have stood up against this slide away from congressional authority and responsibility. At least Barbara Lee isn’t the only one any longer. The most prominent leaders against it, along with her, have certainly not been Pelosi or Hoyer or any of that claque. It’s been Ro Khanna (D-CA), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), AOC (D-NY), Justin Amash (I-MI), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Andy Levin (D-MI), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Joe Neguse (D-CO), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Ayanna Pressley… a pitifully few others.

And all the DCCC’s crappy “majority-maker” 2018 freshmen? Not a single one! Michigander Andy Levin is a freshman but because he won a blue district he isn't considered a "majority maker." Over the weekend he sent out an email to his supporters making his feelings clear about the way Trump has been screwing up the Middle East. He wrote that after "Trump's airstrike on an Iranian General without notifying Congress, I am very concerned that he is on the precipice of starting an unauthorized war with Iran. Last year, I introduced the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) Clarification Act to make crystal clear that the president does not have Congressional authorization to initiate a war with Iran. If President Trump believes he needs that authority, he must follow the Constitution, come to Congress, and make his argument. Iran is obviously a dangerous actor on the world stage, and Qasem Soleimani was an enemy of the United States. But this president is reckless-- all impulse and no strategy. We have yet to see a plan in which the U.S. avoids another disastrous war in the Middle East. In the wake of the strike on Thursday night, our top priority must be to protect Americans at home and abroad. That is my goal: To return to Washington and pass the AUMF Clarification Act to save America from another costly war.