Three dead American service members in Chump's war of choice. And Chump's reaction? David Edwards (RAW STORY) notes:
President Donald Trump responded to the death of three U.S. service members by bragging he got a "great deal" in the war that ended their lives.
[. . .]
"We expect casualties with something like this," the president said. "We have three, but we expect casualties - but in the end it's going to be a great deal for the world."
We should all remember that Chump received multiple deferments during the Vietnam War. He refused to serve. And he refused to protest the war. He was for it as long as he didn't have to go. And now, all these years later after having been a Chicken Hawk, he's sent others to die in a war.
Max Rego (THE HILL) notes that Chump's sparse words aren't cutting it:
Democratic Rep. Pat Ryan (N.Y.), an Army veteran, accused President Trump on Sunday of not looking out for U.S. troops, as three American service members have so been far been killed during the operation against Iran.
Speaking to Kaitlan Collins on CNN, Ryan said Trump not answering questions from reporters at the White House on the three Americans killed is “pathetic.”
“For the president to not answer those questions, to have nothing to say to those family members, is pathetic. It’s pathetic. And it’s because he doesn’t have answers. There is not a plan here, if [there] is he’s not sharing it with the American people,” added the New York Democrat, who was an Army intelligence officer during the Iraq War.
Ryan later said the U.S. operation against Iran, which began in tandem with Israel early Saturday, harkens memories of “past ill-conceived, half-baked, regime-change wars that sound good until they start, and then all of a sudden no one knows what the heck is going on, and it’s young American men and women that pay the price, and that pisses me off.”
Mike Walz was Chump's National Security Advisor until he took the fall for Signal gate and ended up being made the US representative to the United Nations. Tom Boggioni (RAW STORY) notes Walz reposted the announcement of the three dead:
In his repost, the Trump appointee simply added, “Freedom is never free,” followed by an American flag emoji.
That set off a wave of outrage, with Missouri Democratic House of Representatives candidate Fred Wellman writing, “Three service members died and you act like it was a check. You are just disgusting. None of you give a damn about our military members.”
“This is disgusting. Vile. Tone deaf. What is wrong with you?” asked Nikkib.
Former Republican Paige suggested, “I’m sure their families are not comforted by these words.”
“Freedom for who?” America First conservative David Giglio asked.
Podcaster Brian Tyler Cohen raged, “Three Americans dead and Trump’s UN Ambassador waves it off with some bulls—t jingoism. From the people who wailed about Benghazi for a decade. Absolute soulless ghouls.”
Laura Esposito (DAILY BEAST) also covers the cheerleaders minimizing the deaths:
Former Trump ally-turned-foe Marjorie Taylor Greene also took aim at far-right influencer Laura Loomer’s response to the deaths.
“3 US Service members have been killed in action as part of Operation Epic Fury,” Loomer wrote. “American heroes. God bless them and their families.”
In response, Greene wrote: “This b—h is celebrating the death of American military members and thanking their families for their blood sacrifice. Loomer lost two Congressional races bc nobody respected her or valued her enough to elect her.”
Greene continued: “But this is who Trump takes late night calls from and laps up her praise and worship. Loomer hated Charlie Kirk bc he spoke out against war with Iran the same way I do. War with Iran is AMERICA LAST and we voted against it the same way voters voted against Laura Loomer twice!”
The former Georgia congresswoman went even further: “And now Americans are once again coming home in flag draped coffins from another stupid pointless foreign war for foreign regime change on behalf of Israel. And Laura Loomer demanded it and begged for it. Sign up for the military, Laura! Go to the front lines, Laura! Maybe then they’ll give you a gun. You don’t love Trump enough unless you go fight Iran yourself.”
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) asked whether President Trump was “too mentally incapacitated” to realize he set the stage for the growth of Iran’s nuclear program during his first term.
“Has President Trump learned nothing from decades of U.S. meddling in Iran and forever wars in the Middle East?” Kaine asked. “Is he too mentally incapacitated to realize that we had a diplomatic agreement with Iran that was keeping its nuclear program in check, until he ripped it up during his first term?”
I can tell you as someone who was part of the Gan of 8, there is and was no eminent, immediate threat from Iran against America. So "why take this action now?" is the question I'm getting from the parents and friends of sailors deployed and I don't have any answer for them.
Kwong: President Trump said in this statement "sadly there will likely be more" referring to US casualties. What do you make of that?
Kwong: Let's --
atter of fact if the president had chosen to take action back in January when the Iranian people were on the streets in record numbers, he would have more of a case but he couldn't do it then because the aircraft carrier that was needed was off the coast of Venezuela and our allies that would be normally supportive were concerned rightly about Chump's plans on Greenland.
This morning, Senator Chris Murphy appeared on CBS' FACE THE NATION:
MARGARET BRENNAN: Joining us now is Connecticut Democratic Senator Chris Murphy, good morning.
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY: Good morning.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You have called for Congress to return to Washington and to vote on whether to try to essentially halt this military action. No War Powers Resolution has ever overcome a presidential veto. Why do you think you need to take one?
SEN. MURPHY: Well, nobody in this country is asking for war with Iran. Just like months ago, no one in this country was asking for war with Venezuela. This President is intentionally tanking our economy. He's the most corrupt president in the history of our nation, and Americans want him to focus on the crises here at home. Instead, he is busy getting us involved in quagmires overseas that already are becoming deadly to American soldiers. This is a disaster. It is illegal, and the President is obligated under the Constitution to come to Congress and ask for an authorization of military force. He wouldn't get that authorization if he asked for it. Congress wouldn't vote to give him the permission to do it, but he's obligated to come to Congress.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The administration would argue Venezuela was a limited military operation. They see- They're not explaining to the public yet, beyond that Twitter video, exactly what the plan is here, but the President has tweeted, in a way, describing this as an open ended conflict until peace is achieved. You are using the term war. You do consider this to be a war?
SEN. MURPHY: Oh, of course, we are engaged in regular, ongoing military strikes that have, that has already killed American soldiers with the goal of regime change. If that is not war, what is? Now, the president has said that the goal is regime change, and the goal is to eliminate Iran's missile program and their nuclear program. He is not going to succeed in either of those endeavors. His intelligence agencies have already told him that the most likely outcome is that hardline members of the IRGC replace the current leadership. So we're not going to get a democracy. We're going to get an even worse Iranian leadership. We already know that you can't bomb their nuclear program out of existence. He told us last year that he had obliterated the program, and then apparently, over the course of the last year, they had gotten back to within a week. So we're going to have Americans dying, and the end result is going to be hard line leadership continues in Iran and we don't get rid of their nuclear program. That's a moral and strategic disaster for the country.
As we noted last night, Senator Patty Murray has also made that call for members to return to DC to vote on the action:
Senator Murray: “Congress must return immediately and vote to put an end to this war. Every Senator should be on the record, and Congress must assert its authority—the American people deserve to know which of their leaders supports another potentially bloody and costly war in the Middle East. I voted against the war in Iraq in 2002 and I urge every Member of Congress to join me in voting against a war with Iran today.”
Senator Murray: “I think back to the hours and hours of briefings and discussions before we voted on war with Iraq—none of that. President Trump is just blithely throwing American lives and taxpayer dollars at a vainglorious effort at regime change. What the American people want—we the people—that’s just an afterthought for this President.”
Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, issued the following statement in response to President Trump engaging in war with Iran:
“President Trump promised to end wars—not start them. Congress must return immediately and vote to put an end to this war. Every Senator should be on the record, and Congress must assert its authority—the American people deserve to know which of their leaders supports another potentially bloody and costly war in the Middle East. I voted against the war in Iraq in 2002 and I urge every Member of Congress to join me in voting against a war with Iran today—stand on the right side of history.
“Iran should never possess a nuclear weapon, but there was a diplomatic agreement that was already in place to constrain Iran’s nuclear program that Trump tore up. And now just months after he claimed he had nearly obliterated Iran’s nuclear program, President Trump is shamelessly telling the American people that he’s started this war in self-defense. There are no concrete goals. There is no long-term strategy.
“I think back to the hours and hours of briefings and discussions before we voted on war with Iraq—none of that. President Trump is just blithely throwing American lives and taxpayer dollars at a vainglorious effort at regime change. What the American people want—we the people—that’s just an afterthought for this President.
“No one supports the brutal Iranian regime—but already this President’s reckless actions are triggering attacks on U.S. military bases. There is no clear endgame here and no guarantee that these strikes will mean democracy and freedom for the Iranian people or that the world will be any safer for it. The situation in Iran and the surrounding region could quickly spiral out of control, endangering our servicemembers and tens of millions of innocents.
“Leader Thune, whether you agree with this war or not, it is your responsibility to call the Senate back into session—I am calling on you to recognize the gravity of this moment and bring the Senate back. We are a democracy and our Constitution demands that Members of Congress debate and vote on this war for all the American people to see. No war with Iran.”
###
At IN THESE TIMES, Jake Johnson observes:
The United States and Israeli attacks — which both nations characterized as “preemptive” — are plainly illegal under international law, which prohibits the threat or use of force except in response to an armed attack. The Trump administration is also violating United States law, which gives Congress the sole power to declare war.
“The term ‘preemptive’ is pure propaganda,” wrote Drop Site journalist Jeremy Scahill. “The US once again used the veneer of negotiations as a cover to bomb Iran. Tehran had just offered terms that went far beyond the 2015 nuclear deal. What was preempted was diplomacy. The same propaganda tactics used in the 2003 Iraq war.”
Trump, who ditched the 2015 nuclear deal during his first White House term, repeatedly made clear in his remarks Saturday that he does not intend the new assault on Iran to be limited in scope like his bombings of Iranian nuclear sites last year. In the weeks leading up to Saturday’s attack, the Trump administration carried out a massive military buildup in the Middle East even as the president publicly claimed he was open to a diplomatic resolution.
Zolan Kanno-Youngs, David E. Sanger and Tyler Pager (NEW YORK TIMES) report:
President Trump said on Sunday that the U.S. military intends to sustain its assault on Iran for “four to five weeks” if necessary, insisting that it “won’t be difficult” for Israel and the United States to maintain the intensity of the battle even as he warned of the possibility of more American casualties.
In a brief telephone interview with The New York Times, Mr. Trump offered several seemingly contradictory visions of how power might be transferred to a new government — or even whether the existing Iranian power structure would run that government or be overthrown.
Among the options he suggested was an outcome similar to what he engineered in Venezuela, in which only the top leader was removed during an American military strike and much of the rest of the government remained in place, but newly willing to work pragmatically with the United States.
The assault on Iran is considered far more complex and risky than the operation to capture Nicolás Maduro, who was Venezuela’s leader, in part because Iran’s leadership oversees extensive military abilities and because of deep divides in Iranian society over the country’s course. And unlike Venezuela, Iran has sustained an active nuclear program.
The interview with Mr. Trump seemed to reflect the degree to which his administration remains uncertain about how the next few weeks will unfold, both on the battlefield and in the creation of a replacement government in Tehran.
But he insisted the Pentagon retained plenty of forces, missiles and bombs to sustain the military assault “if we have to.”
Asked how long the United States and Israel could keep up this level of attacks, he responded: “Well, we intended four to five weeks.”
“It won’t be difficult,” Mr. Trump added. “We have tremendous amounts of ammunition. You know, we have ammunition stored all over the world in different countries.”
He made no mention of the Pentagon’s concerns that the conflict could further deplete reserves that military strategists have said are critical to retain in scenarios like a conflict over Taiwan or Russian incursions into Europe.
The following sites updated:
-
-
-
-
-
The Economics of Technological Change14 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
Idiot of the Week1 day ago
-
Grifting Sarah Ferguson1 day ago
-
-
Heated Rivalry1 day ago
-
Neil Sedaka1 day ago
-
SCREAM 71 day ago
-
-
