This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/house-measure-demanding-trump-pull-back-on-iran-could-have-some-gop-support/2020/01/09/c612975c-3300-11ea-91fd-82d4e04a3fac_story.html
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| House measure demanding Trump pull back on Iran could have some GOP support | House measure demanding Trump pull back on Iran could have some GOP support |
| (32 minutes later) | |
| The House is poised to pass a war powers resolution ordering President Trump to withdraw forces engaged in hostilities with Iran, sending the administration a message of disapproval largely along party lines but one that, ultimately, is unlikely to restrain the administration’s military activities. | The House is poised to pass a war powers resolution ordering President Trump to withdraw forces engaged in hostilities with Iran, sending the administration a message of disapproval largely along party lines but one that, ultimately, is unlikely to restrain the administration’s military activities. |
| The resolution by Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), which Democrats unveiled late Wednesday, instructs Trump “to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran or any part of its government or military,” unless Congress has made a declaration of war or there is “an imminent armed attack upon the United States.” It comes a day after the administration’s senior national security officials briefed Congress on the intelligence that informed Trump’s order to kill a top Iranian general, Qasem Soleimani. | |
| Cracks emerge among Republicans over Trump’s handling of Iran crisis | Cracks emerge among Republicans over Trump’s handling of Iran crisis |
| The House resolution is expected to gain the support of Democrats and possibly a handful of Republicans, despite protests from the broader GOP and its leaders that Congress has no basis to check the president for taking out a known terrorist, especially when the conflict with Iran appears to be de-escalating. | |
| Speaking to reporters Thursday morning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) argued that Trump’s order to kill Soleimani was not about “promoting peace, but an escalation” — even if the general, whom U.S. military officials have linked to hundreds of American military fatalities during the Iraq War, was a reprehensible figure. | Speaking to reporters Thursday morning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) argued that Trump’s order to kill Soleimani was not about “promoting peace, but an escalation” — even if the general, whom U.S. military officials have linked to hundreds of American military fatalities during the Iraq War, was a reprehensible figure. |
| House Democrats chose to state their disapproval through a type of resolution that, procedurally, cannot be sent to the president’s desk to attempt to force his hand. To do that, congressional Democrats will need to rally enough votes around a similar resolution from Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), which is expected to come up for a vote in the Senate as soon as next week. If that measure were to pass the Senate, it can then go to the House. | House Democrats chose to state their disapproval through a type of resolution that, procedurally, cannot be sent to the president’s desk to attempt to force his hand. To do that, congressional Democrats will need to rally enough votes around a similar resolution from Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), which is expected to come up for a vote in the Senate as soon as next week. If that measure were to pass the Senate, it can then go to the House. |
| It is not yet clear that Kaine’s resolution will have the votes to pass. Even if the measure gets through both chambers of Congress, Trump would probably veto it. | |
| Administration officials have insisted the president had legal authority to kill Soleimani, basing their argument on an authorization for use of military force (AUMF) that Congress passed in 2002 to facilitate the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the president’s inherent constitutional right to self-defense of American troops. | Administration officials have insisted the president had legal authority to kill Soleimani, basing their argument on an authorization for use of military force (AUMF) that Congress passed in 2002 to facilitate the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the president’s inherent constitutional right to self-defense of American troops. |
| Missile strike on U.S. targets ‘did not intend to kill,’ says Iranian commander | Missile strike on U.S. targets ‘did not intend to kill,’ says Iranian commander |
| But congressional Republicans and Democrats have broken over whether Trump’s operation was inspired and justified, or illegal and reckless, with the dispute coming down to whether Soleimani posed such an imminent threat to warrant going after him without the consent of Congress. | But congressional Republicans and Democrats have broken over whether Trump’s operation was inspired and justified, or illegal and reckless, with the dispute coming down to whether Soleimani posed such an imminent threat to warrant going after him without the consent of Congress. |
| Only a handful of Republicans have publicly objected to the administration’s end run around Congress and continued effort to withhold information about the operation. Thus far in the Senate, only Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) have announced their intention to back a war powers resolution, doing so in heated fashion after emerging from Wednesday’s briefing — which Lee called “insulting” and “lame.” | Only a handful of Republicans have publicly objected to the administration’s end run around Congress and continued effort to withhold information about the operation. Thus far in the Senate, only Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) have announced their intention to back a war powers resolution, doing so in heated fashion after emerging from Wednesday’s briefing — which Lee called “insulting” and “lame.” |
| “They were asked repeatedly what, if anything, would trigger the need for the administration to come back to Congress for a declaration of war or an authorization for use of military force. . . . They struggled to identify anything,” Lee told reporters Wednesday, visibly agitated. “They had to leave after 75 minutes while they’re in the process of telling us we need to be good little boys and girls, and run along and not debate this in public. I find that absolutely insane. I think it’s unacceptable.” | |
| Lee, Paul and several Democrats complained that the administration had been less than forthcoming with sharing the intelligence behind the administration’s decision to pursue the strike on Soleimani. On Thursday morning, Vice President Pence said on NBC News that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper, CIA Director Gina Haspel and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley could not share too much intelligence with Congress during Wednesday’s closed-door briefings because that would have risked divulging sources and methods. | |
| Several Republicans defended Pence’s stance, such as Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.), who said Thursday that “this Congress leaks like the Titanic, and most of the time it’s for political reasons.” | |
| “That’s why many of these briefings are not sometimes as beneficial as they could be — it’s not the briefers’ fault. They’re scared it’s going to leak,” Kennedy continued, adding that in his opinion, Wednesday’s briefing “was very specific.” | |
| Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) also argued that the administration had provided lawmakers all the information they needed. | Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) also argued that the administration had provided lawmakers all the information they needed. |
| “In terms of where there is an imminent threat, General Milley was compelling and chilling about what was going to happen and what had happened,” he said. “I think a third grader could have believed there was an imminent threat coming from the man that we killed.” | “In terms of where there is an imminent threat, General Milley was compelling and chilling about what was going to happen and what had happened,” he said. “I think a third grader could have believed there was an imminent threat coming from the man that we killed.” |
| Democrats, however, shared in Lee’s frustration that the administration was withholding information from Congress potentially vital to making a conclusion about whether the strike was justified. | Democrats, however, shared in Lee’s frustration that the administration was withholding information from Congress potentially vital to making a conclusion about whether the strike was justified. |
| “Accountability to Congress by the administration in matters of war and peace is a foundational principle of our Constitution,” Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.) told reporters Thursday morning. “It is critical that the administration and Congress trust each other to act in the best interest of the United States, and that includes sharing classified intelligence because we’re all trying to make sure we’re keeping the American people safe.” | “Accountability to Congress by the administration in matters of war and peace is a foundational principle of our Constitution,” Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.) told reporters Thursday morning. “It is critical that the administration and Congress trust each other to act in the best interest of the United States, and that includes sharing classified intelligence because we’re all trying to make sure we’re keeping the American people safe.” |