US-Iran War Has Begun! Iran launches dozens of ballistic missiles!

[Valmy]

Congress has been demoted from the only branch who can declare war to not being allowed to even have an opinion.

[Razgovory]

I'm still trying to wrap my head the idea that shooting missiles at US forces is "backing down".

[DGuller]

I'm still trying to wrap my head the idea that shooting missiles at US forces is "backing down".

If you shoot missiles at US forces while making it obvious that you really, really hope they don't actually do anything to piss off said US forces, you're kind of negating the point of shooting missiles at US forces, and then some.

[11B4V]

 

[Razgovory]

They aren't backing down, they are fucking up!

[Syt]

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/08/politics/iran-briefing-senators/index.html

'The worst briefing I've had': Senate Iran briefing gets heated

(CNN)Senate Democrats -- and two key GOP senators -- slammed a classified briefing Wednesday on the strike that killed Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani, charging that administration officials failed to provide evidence to show the attack was imminent and dismissed the role Congress should play in deciding to take military action.

The sharpest of the criticism came from two of President Donald Trump's Senate allies: Republican Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky. Lee said after the briefing that it was the "worst briefing I've had on a military issue" during his nine years in the Senate.

In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room" on Wednesday, Paul said the briefing was "an insult to the Constitution."

"In the briefing and in public, this administration has argued that the vote to topple Saddam Hussein in 2002 applies to military action in Iraq. That is absurd," Paul told Blitzer. "Nobody in their right mind -- with a straight face, with an ounce of honesty -- can argue when Congress voted to go after Saddam Hussein in 2002 that (they) authorized military force against an Iranian general 18 years later."

Paul later added, "There was no specific information given to us of a specific attack. Generality -- stuff that you read in the newspaper. I didn't learn anything in the hearing that I hadn't seen in a newspaper already."

‪Lee called the way the briefing played out "un-American" and "completely unacceptable," given that the administration suggested that Congress shouldn't have a role in approving Iran military action. He said the administration would not commit to a new Authorization for Use of Military Force or a cite a reason for coming to Congress before taking military action.

"At one point one of the briefers said something like, 'Don't worry, we'll consult you,'" Lee said. "Consultation isn't a constitutional declaration of war. Drive-by notification or after the fact lame briefings like the one we just received are inadequate."

Paul and Lee also announced they would support the War Powers resolution sponsored by Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, which would limit the President's ability to use military force in Iran.

Four senators in the room said the briefing became tense and heated amid repeated questions from senators about the intelligence regarding how imminent a future attack would be and the legal justification for striking Iran.

The administration representatives ended up leaving before all questions were asked -- departing after the allotted time of 90 minutes. Several senators, including Lee, said the briefing itself lasted 75 minutes.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, CIA Director Gina Haspel and acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire briefed senators and House members on Wednesday.

Esper pushed back at lawmakers who slammed the briefing Wednesday, saying, "Most members of Congress do not have access to the intelligence that I think was the most compelling."

On Tuesday, Esper had said that the "exquisite intelligence" on the threat posed by Soleimani that drove the US military to target him in a drone strike would be shared only with the Gang of Eight -- a group of eight lawmakers made up of congressional leaders from both parties as well as the Intelligence Committee chairs -- saying "most Members (of Congress) will not have access to that."

Senate Democrats pressed for specifics of the targets and timeline, and while senators said the timeline was described as within "days," the information provided in Wednesday's briefing did not explicitly back that up, according to Democrats.

At one point, Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, pressed on the imminence of the attack. Several senators said they came away with the sense her specific question remained unanswered.

Administration officials were pressed about whether the attacks would be carried out especially since Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei apparently had not signed off on what Soleimani was plotting, sources said.

"I walk away unsatisfied on the key questions that I went into this briefing with," said Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "It makes me concerned that we cannot have clarity on those key questions -- imminency, target, all of those things."

House Democrats expressed similar concerns that the administration officials failed to justify claims of an imminent attack, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the House would vote Thursday on its Iran War Powers resolution.

The administration officials said the strike was justified under Article II and the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF. That resolution authorized the Iraq War, and the officials said the strike was justified under it because it took place in Iraq. But the officials said the AUMF would not cover any military action inside Iran.

Republicans expressed frustration over the Democratic posture during the briefing, with Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina saying they were "out of their minds" for how they approached the strikes.

"They don't want specifics. I was really disappointed in their behavior in there because it was clear to me that this guy was up to no good in the moment," Graham said.

Following the briefing, a group of Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, came to the cameras to voice their concerns. Shortly after, Pompeo walked out behind them, and appeared to be waiting to speak at the cameras as well. After a few minutes of listening to the Democrats, however, Pompeo departed the Senate basement without making a comment.

[Hamilcar]

https://spectator.us/give-tucker-carlson-nobel-prize/amp/

Give Tucker Carlson a Nobel prize!

Thank goodness the president listens more to Fox News than he does to his advisers

Freddy Gray
20 June 2019   8:49 AM

tucker carlson
The strong favorite for the Nobel Peace Prize this year is Greta Thunberg, a girl who lectures grownups about climate change. In a sane world, the award would go to somebody who stops wars. In 2019, that somebody should be Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson.

Carlson is a Fox News host, which means the smart people who give out awards will never take him seriously. In the last few weeks, however, he may have done more to advance the cause of peace than any other human on the planet.

Anyone with half a brain can tell that some of President Trump's cabinet and his advisers are itching to bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran — as the late, hawk Saint John McCain so delicately put it, to the tune of the Beach Boys' Barbara Ann. There has been a concerted PR-effort to escalate hostilities with Tehran, one that we all know (we aren't stupid) is being pushed by national security adviser John Bolton. Iran, foolishly, seems to be taking the bait, having shot down a US drone that may or may not have been in international airspace last night.

If you listen to the hawks, the  only thing stopping the president from intervening militarily in Iran is domestic politics. Trump needs to win the election next year. He understands that his base does not want war, so he's reluctant to 'punish' Tehran for its misbehavior. The heavy implication is that, after success in 2020, Trump will 'show leadership' by turning fire and fury on the Iranian regime.

No doubt there is truth in that assessment. Perhaps, however, Donald Trump is not quite as convinced of the merits of attacking Iran as his inner circle are. The reason for that, it seems, is Tucker Carlson.

The president is, we're often told, a Fox News junkie. As the Daily Beast reports, he likes Tucker's show and sometimes telephones the host afterwards to talk about world affairs. One of Trump's strengths is that he appears to be able to entertain opposing ideas at the same time, a sign of intelligence. Or maybe he just pretends to hear differing points of view: maybe he just goes with the last opinion he hears, like a mental cushion that bears the imprint of the last bottom that sat on him.

Carlson is intelligent. Rare among famous right-wing pundits, he regards the Bolton worldview — the worldview that brought us the Iraq war — as dangerous and foolish. He says that he is 'enraged' by the way the way America is being pushed towards another conflict. He regularly argues that another Middle East war is not 'in anyone's interest'. The Daily Beast reveals that, in a series of private conversations, he has repeatedly advised the president not to listen to his more bellicose aides. When Donald Trump told reporters that the alleged Iranian attack on tankers in the Gulf of Oman was 'a minor incident',  he may well have been parroting Carlson. His response on Twitter to yesterday's drone incident 'Iran made a very big mistake!' sounds more like the impulsive, Tweeter-in-Chief we've all come to know.

Trump's recklessness is encouraged by figures such as Bolton. It is moderated by voices such as Carlson's. It's often said that Trump is a 'reality TV' president who takes his cue from Fox News. This is widely thought to make him a maniac in charge. In this instance, however, Trump's affinity for Fox has made him less dangerous than he might otherwise have been. Credit for that should go to Carlson.

It's hard to criticize the case for war without being accused of 'siding with' the Iranian regime. So let's be clear: the government in Tehran is a ghastly, corrupt, theocracy. Iran is, as the Israelis always tells us, a malevolent actor  – though it is far from the only force for ill in the region.

It would be good if Iran became a more tolerant place, or if its liberal middle-classes had more stake in their country's future. But look at Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya: forced regime change doesn't cause democracy to flower. It tends to have the opposite effect. The fall of the mullahs in Tehran would be good news — in the short term, at least, for US allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia. But American-led wars almost always backfire spectacularly — and another war could further destabilize the Muslim world, bad news for anyone who wants peace. Let's hope Donald Trump keeps listening to Tucker Carlson. And give the TV anchor the Nobel!

[Barrister]

CBS reporting the Iranians did shoot down the Ukrainian jet with all the Canadians on board.

https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1215315032684343298

[Admiral Yi]

Kind of a no brainer.  Will be interesting to see if the Iranians try to spin it or fake it up.

[Barrister]

The interesting question is if the Iranians did shoot down the airliner... then what?  Iran would seem to have zero motive to do so, and thus was presumably an accident.  And the US did accidentally shoot down an Iranian airlines just over 30 years ago.

[Barrister]

Kind of a no brainer.  Will be interesting to see if the Iranians try to spin it or fake it up.

Indeed.  I quick reminder to myself: the Americans in the Iranian airlines admitted it was an accident and eventually paid restitution (though never accepted any fault).  Soviets initially denied shooting down the Korean airlines, then admitted and claimed it was a spy plane.

More recently, the Russians continue to deny responsibility for shooting down MH17, and blame the Ukrainians.

Related will be whether the Iranians co-operate with any investigation or not.

[Admiral Yi]

The interesting question is if the Iranians did shoot down the airliner... then what?  Iran would seem to have zero motive to do so, and thus was presumably an accident.  And the US did accidentally shoot down an Iranian airlines just over 30 years ago.

Is the interesting question what then or what if the US did it?

[Barrister]

The interesting question is if the Iranians did shoot down the airliner... then what?  Iran would seem to have zero motive to do so, and thus was presumably an accident.  And the US did accidentally shoot down an Iranian airlines just over 30 years ago.

Is the interesting question what then or what if the US did it?

If we accept that the Iranians shot down the plane by accident (they misidentified it or something)... then what should the international reaction be?

[Admiral Yi]

If we accept that the Iranians shot down the plane by accident (they misidentified it or something)... then what should the international reaction be?

Sympathy for the dead, contempt for the Iranian air defense decision makers, and maybe a little doubt about the judgement of the airlines to continue flying in that context.

[Barrister]

If we accept that the Iranians shot down the plane by accident (they misidentified it or something)... then what should the international reaction be?

Sympathy for the dead, contempt for the Iranian air defense decision makers, and maybe a little doubt about the judgement of the airlines to continue flying in that context.

So apparently the reason there were so many Canadians on that flight is due to US sanctions on Iran.  Which means a lot of western airlines can not or will not fly into that country, which is why those people were stuck routing through Kiyev on a third-rate Ukrainian airline.