Senate Democrats may filibuster defense spending in an attempt to stay Trump's actions against Iran.

Jun 2019
11
3
United States
#1
The annual defense spending bill is being debated on the floor of the Senate this week. That gives Democrats an opportunity to filibuster the bill to demand passage of an amendment forcing Donald Trump to seek congressional approval before taking military action against Iran. CNN reports that Democratic senators are still working out the details of a possible amendment and whether they should take this approach in an attempt to restrain Trump.

The National Defense Authorization Act generally passes the Senate with nearly unanimous support, because few senators want to be on the receiving end of ads claiming they failed to fully support America’s military. For that reason, the whole idea of “filibuster” the bill is controversial. The impression from some is that Republicans are licking their lips, waiting for the opportunity to claim that Democrats are “playing politics with the lives of America’s service members.”

On the other hand, should Democrats gain the addition of an amendment that limits Trump’s actions in Iran, the bill, with amendment included, is likely to pass in both Senate and House. Trump might threaten a veto, but then he would be the one who was cutting off funds for the military … and in a time of crisis that he manufactured.

If Democrats don’t take the filibuster route, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell can be expected to block any offered amendment or attempt to bring up limitations on Trump’s actions as a stand-alone bill. Which means that Democrats have to be willing to withstand potential political headwinds if they genuinely want to see some restraint placed on Trump’s actions in the Middle East?

A week ago, Trump ordered up a strike, and then called it off. And ordered up a matching cyber strike on Iranian facilities, and didn’t call it off. Both of those actions only added to an air of confusion about the U.S. position. Trump may do anything, or nothing, at exactly the wrong time, in exactly the wrong way. And Democratic senators need to decide whether the political risk is worth placing at least some buffer between Trump and a national disaster.

The fact that Donald Trump did not follow through on attacking Iran for the downing of an unmanned spy drone is certainly a good thing. But the fact that Trump put the plans in motion at all, then overturned his own decision in mid-action, was a signal to both America’s allies and its opponents that Trump is indecisive and without a plan behind his actions. The fact that Trump didn’t stop the cyber attack, whose timing and targets show that it was meant to augment the physical strike means that the technologies deployed are spent.

Iran got not just a free look at the kind of strike the U.S. intended to launch and the preparations for that strike; it also got a chance to receive our cyber punch, study it, sort out any issues that it created, and protect its facilities against a repeat. In every way, Trump’s start-stop left America in a weaker position for any further action.

But the biggest problem with Trump’s action was that it signaled a lack of planning, a lack of any coherent strategy, a lack of purpose beyond being there because of Trump, because we, or at least John Bolton, want trouble.

All of that means that the risk of putting a safety lever in front of Trump’s big red button on Iran is a very good idea. Every time he initiates action and fails to follow through, it’s bad. Should the missiles actually fly, it would be worse.

Sen. Chuck Schumer has tried to get McConnell to slow the vote on the defense authorization act, partly because Democrats are trying to determine their own strategy, but also because this week’s debates mean that some of the Senate’s Democratic leaders will be busy prepping for and attending the first round of presidential debates. Naturally, McConnell and Republicans aren’t keen on that idea. In fact, given McConnell’s penchant for protecting Trump, all of that probably means that the act will be rushed forward at top speed.

There are other budget negotiations going on, including on bills, on border funding, which may provide opportunities for Democrats to demand a vote on an Iran amendment in exchange for some point in the legislative agenda. But it seems unlikely that McConnell will bring the idea to the floor unless forced.

And Democrats are going to have to decide very quickly on how they weigh a political gamble against national security risk.

Source of information: Daily Kos
 
Last edited:
Nov 2012
40,705
11,735
Lebanon, TN
#2
What action against Iran?

Remember the Democrats wanted the War Powers Act... Trump can do anything he wants for 60 days and congress can do nothing about it.

So Far, Trump has done nothing but to send forces to the Gulf, as per Article 5 of NATO agreement.
 
Jun 2019
11
3
United States
#3
What action against Iran?

Remember the Democrats wanted the War Powers Act... Trump can do anything he wants for 60 days and congress can do nothing about it.

So Far, Trump has done nothing but to send forces to the Gulf, as per Article 5 of NATO agreement.
Trump is instigating and posturing. He wants a signed deal with Iran with his name on it and President Obama's off, (this is an ego trip of his own making). Had Trump not pulled out of the Iran deal originally this would not be happening at all. Between Trump and Kushner playing the business field with the Saudi's, Israel, and their allies "Russia" I would not be surprised to learn in the future that it was one of those nations that actually attacked the tankers and that it was all coordinated to make it appear as though Iran did it. Keep in mind Trump is very good buddies with the murdering Saudi regime and the land jumping Israeli regime Kushner has been very busy traveling back and forth to these nations arranging private deals as I am sure anyone with any intelligence can see. No, the bottom line is Trump the Saudi's and other's so affiliated with one another want the Iranian oil market which is worth trillions and if it means war with Iran so be it. The only difference now is that the middle east nations have a patsy to start and fight their war instead of them doing it. Trump is the tool alright and he is getting caught up in the middle of a ten-thousand-year-old war. His best bet would be to apologize for his ignorance to Europe and our allies, return to the deal and go from there. It was working until Trump screwed it up. Something he is extremely professional at doing besides raping and sexually assaulting women and children that is.
 
Likes: RNG
Apr 2013
37,610
25,671
La La Land North
#4
Dotard's MO. Break it, blame someone else. Fix his own mistake and then brag about how wonderful he is.
 
Likes: TOG
Apr 2013
37,610
25,671
La La Land North
#7
'Liberals' howling because Trump did NOT attack Iran.

If he DID attack Iran, they'd be howling .

Note the common thread.
As far as I can tell, Bolton, Hannity and Dobbs are the only ones howling because he didn't attack Iran. Quite the collection of liberals there.
 
May 2019
320
63
USA
#10
The democrats are all over the place on Iran (thought I doubt their base cares). Let them filabuster. It will be absolutely spectacular to be going into the 4th of July holiday with that hanging around their necks.
 

Similar Discussions