Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Mike Lee and the Need for Discretion in Foreign Policy
Senator Mike Lee of Utah recently got hot over a Trump administration briefing that he saw as disrespectful. According to Lee, when pressed about what exactly the Trump administration needed congressional approval for, the administration responded by saying there were almost no limits. As to legal justification, the administration officials responded, “I’m sure we could think of something.” Well, Senator Lee was mad, as he should be. The power that Congress has ceded to the executive in matters of foreign policy has exceeded the time horizon envisioned in its initial approval of the war on terror. It’s well past time to reign the executive back in.
I’m afraid, however, that Senator Lee in his anger has made an unforced blunder with his bluster. When to speak is as important as what is said, particularly in matters of foreign policy. Right now, Trump is in the middle of a standoff which requires that any threat he makes, either real or implied, be credible. If the Senate or, even worse, a handful of senators even give a hint that they won’t follow through with retaliatory action, mixed messages are sent to Iran. Mixed messages lead to miscalculation, and miscalculation in foreign policy leads to bloodshed.
The Trump administration attempted to deescalate the rising problem of Iranian aggression with deterrent action. Mike Lee out of personal pique is threatening to throw this clear strategy into disarray. It’s past time for the Congress to take back the control afforded to it by the Constitution, but prudence dictates patience.
Published in General
As I understand it he pushed for the administration to give him a limiting principle and the administration dissimulated instead of giving him a straight answer. To someone who fancies himself a “constitutionalist” like Lee that counts as a major insult. The brazen way the executive is ignoring the legislature is what has him hot not the particulars of the past or near future. Its about a usurpation of power, his power since he’s a Senator, that has got him up in arms.
Mike Murphy and co believed in the money-bomb. I’m not sure anyone else did. I agree about Rubio. Bush folks still hate him for having the audacity to run. Trump’s arrival in the race didn’t blow up jack. Everyone just pretended he didn’t exist for about the first 6 debates. By the time his lead proved sticky the voters’ views on each candidate had already been crystallized it was too late for anyone to reformulate their game plans.
and I can see how it could be tricky to do this off the cuff and unexpectedly while trying to be careful about intelligence. Lee has since spoken with the President and seems more confident that he will get what he expects in the future.
The game plans blown up were the ones each candidate had to counter the other ‘serious’ candidates, not Trump, because they thought Trump’s run was some type of publicity stunt for Season 11 of “The Apprentice”.
I don’t know if it was a politician or a pundit, but I recall the following statement:
“The Senate is composed of one-hundred people who think they should be President.”
In spite of so many wanting to argue with Gary, I want to let you know that I agree with you. I think tensions are high, and Mike Lee should have thought through what he was saying. Then again, the administration could have been more tactful, too. It appears that they are trying to work on a strategy with Iran, but trying to get bi-partisan buy-in at this point will be nearly impossible. I’m still hoping that they are developing a strategy behind the scenes, realizing how unpredictable Iran is. Good points, Vice.
This does look like where we are, I call it partisanship over patriotism. This divide is composed of some different pieces – some are party, some are ideological, and some are devoid of patriotism . And we have some Democrats not drinking the kool-aid. We have had ‘separation of powers’ issues for quite some time (Lee has put a lot of work on this issue) related to Congress improperly delegating essentially legislative functions to executive agencies, and confusion over ‘war powers’, and failures in the intelligence process between Congress and the Executive.
Some say Pelosi is a great House Speaker having never lost a vote. I see a failing on behalf of America. Contrast Pelosi with McConnell.
We had a bipartisan strategy…its called Iraq 2002/2003 (ie level the place). Congress approved it and everything. If Iraq hadn’t happened, we’d probably be doing this strategy now in Iran. But, that strategy isn’t valid anymore, after 15 years of trashing from the Left, with plenty of help from the Trumpers. But now, its the Trumpers responsibility for getting people on board and fixing the problem. And when you’re starting off with your own “WMD moment”, thats not a good sign.
There is a theory, I posted a link somewhere the past two days, that the IC courtiers around presidents back to Reagan feared personal retribution from Iran like the car bombing of the Vincennes’ captain’s wife in 1989. That was described by the LA Times as a “crude pipe bomb” but it may have spooked members of the “Intel Community ” to fear personal retribution from Iran. As a result, they counseled subsequent presidents to avoid taking out senior Iranian terrorist figures like Soleimani. This was not necessarily an issue of national interest but of personal interest like so much of the “Deep State” concerns.
Trump owes zero to the Deep State which has opposed him at every turn and thus he was unconcerned at the matter of possible retribution. In fact Democrats have now been suggesting that Iran target retribution at his hotels.
Obama is reported to have informed Iran of a planned hit on Soleimani by Israel when he was busy allying himself with the mullahs.
I enjoy absurd humor as much as anybody, but. . .
We’re still debating the 2016 primary?! Dear Lord, we’ve learned nothing.
And I’m confused why Lee has a problem. Did he want the President to seek permission? Did he just want to be notified in advance? Does he not know that it’s sometimes best not to signal one’s intentions when responding to years of provocation and escalation by a terrorist-sponsoring state? Has he never heard of standing orders waiting for an opportunity? Does he not know that Democrats and some Republicans (think McCain and the Steele dossier and Obamacare vote) aren’t trustworthy due to their Trump animus? Ahem. What’s the big “imminent threat” deal when the enemy had just attacked our embassy? From a common sense perspective, doesn’t the requirement for widespread agreement between the legislative and executive just lead to inertia and failure? Not killing Salami would have been an egregious act in my book, likely leading to more death and destruction.
I admit total ignorance on the war powers issue, but from where I’m sitting, Mike Lee looks like a pompous ass.
Dinesh D’Souza had the best retort to that whinge. “We didn’t inform Iran, either, and for the same reasons.”
Obama informed Iran of a planned Israeli hit on Soleimani when he was president.
What does that even mean? Are you saying that Soleimani was not an imminent threat ? What was the attempted invasion of the embassy then ?
“Our”? You got a mouse in yer pocket?
I got news for you: “we” do not want to stop Trump as the nominee.
All he’s got is a hammer, so everything looks like a nail.
Yeah, I think the only Republicans trying to stop Trump that could be properly referred to as ‘our’ at the time of the convention were neoconservatives. They’re time is up now with ‘our’ anti-war POTUS.
More like the dumbest retort. Imagine a few months of those kinds of vulgar tweets in the midst of a real conflict with Iran with major casualties. Welcome to Civil War 2, brought to you by the Trumpian “own the libs” brigade. But hey, Dinesh has to make a living somehow, I guess.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/obama-administration-stopped-israel-from-assassinating-soleimani-in-2015-report-says/
Anyway, it appears the Iranians are skilled in handling their missile launches since none directed at sites housing Americans in retaliation killed anyone as far as I have heard. The one that hit the commercial aircraft may never be explained. Let’s hope the existing peace holds until something can be settled regarding nuclear capability for Iran.
If you had any knowledge of that environment, you would know that the number of leaks/security incidents increases in direct proportion to the increased number of people briefed. ’nuff said.
If true, it is troublesome and explains the sometimes lack of patriotic attitudes coming from intelligence officials and operatives. We’ll see what Durham comes up with.
But remember, @romanblichar, is not supportive of POTUS.
The opposite is the truth. The “Resistance,” of both parties including the miniscule number of anti-Trump Republicans, are leading us toward a breakdown of bipartisan government. The refusal of both groups to accept the legal election is hardening opinions. I frankly see no advantage to the NeverTrumper’s pique as it will reduce the willingness of the vast majority of the GOP to take them seriously.
Shouldn’t matter whom one supports. If you’re old enough, you’ll remember “Leaky Leahy” who earned that nickname through his tendency to leak to the press information regarding any action he opposed. I never understood why he wasn’t in prison for that. Lack of guts on the part of the GOP at the time. This POTUS probably wouldn’t tolerate it. Instead, his administration just informs the “Gang of Eight”.
I wish we could count on this for our intelligence matters.
And theres probably a reason for that. And its not because everyones on board…..and thats generally a good thing. But you’re free to show me the awesome missions that were thwarted by telling 5 more members of Congress
And just like that I’m back to wanting a block option.
That comment doesn’t even make sense. If you care, you can read about the mission trashed because Jack Anderson wrote about it. Where did he get the information? I have no idea, but the possibility of someone like Leahy giving it to him exists.
This statement is incongruous with the Constitution. Seeing as the executive power to conduct foreign policy is in the original document dated 1789.
To make a treaty he has to have the ability to negotiate one, so he is also given the power to
Transcript, or it didn’t happen.
Those were ballistic missiles and they actually hit things important to us. It seems that the early warning systems and the bomb shelters worked as advertised.
That was not a ballistic missile, but would be a Surface to Air Missile. Those have to be aimed, and then self guide to their target. The easy explanation is incompetence (someone had an itchy trigger finger).
The two types of missile are far different things.