35 Burst results for "Qasem Soleimani"
Breach of air traffic control sends chilling threat
"And FAA are looking into a breach of the air traffic control system tonight. After someone broadcast a threat to attack the U. S. Capitol over the radio frequencies used by pilots. CBS's Jeff Gaze has exclusive new reporting tonight. Chilling threat obtained exclusively by CBS News was heard by multiple air traffic controllers on Monday afternoon in New York. We're flying a plane into the capital Wednesday. Talabani will be avenged. Sources tell CBS News. The Pentagon and other agencies were briefed today about the digitized voice recording. And believe it was designed to suggest hitting the capital. On the same day Congress is set to count the electoral college results recording refers to Qasem Soleimani, the Iranian general killed in a U. S drone strike ordered by President Trump. And came on the one year anniversary of his death. You look over his past his past. He's been called a monster, and he was a monster, and he's no longer a monster. He's dead. But in a rain, Sulamani is revered and Iranian officials about revenge. CBS News has learned that while the government does not believe the warning of an attack is credible, It is being investigated as a breach of aviation frequencies, and the threat would be a crime Experts say the intrusion is concerning because it could affect the instructions Pilots get about how and where to fly plates.
In Reversal, Pentagon Announces Aircraft Carrier Nimitz Will Remain in Middle East
"Meantime, just days after ordering a U. S aircraft carrier out of the Middle East, the Trump administration is now reversing course. Here's correspondent Luis Martinez In announcing the abrupt reversal to keep the carrier in the Middle East. Acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller cited recent Iranian threats against President Trump U. S officials pointed to threatening comments from top Iranian officials made is the Pentagon initially announced that the Nimitz was headed home. The threats took on added significance on the one year anniversary of the death of top Iranian General Qasem Soleimani by U. S Air strike. Regardless, US. Officials described the decision to keep the Nimitz in the region as surprising and very
U.S. keeping aircraft carrier in Persian Gulf, after all
"S s aircraft carrier Nimitz to stay in the Mideast amid threats from Iran. In announcing the abrupt reversal to keep the carrier in the Middle East, Acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller cited recent Iranian threats against President Trump. U S officials pointed to threatening. Comments from top Iranian officials made is depending on initially announced that the Nimitz was headed home. The threats to gun added significance on the one year anniversary of the death of top Iranian General Qasem Soleimani by U. S airstrike. Regardless, US officials described the decision to keep the Nimitz in the region as surprising and very sudden, We Martinez ABC NEWS
Iran general warns US: Military ready to respond to pressure
"In Iran that even today vowed to avenge the death of the country's top military general Qasem Soleimani, was taken out by U. S airstrikes almost one year ago. Kiran tells the UN's nuclear watchdog. It intends to enrich uranium up to 20% purity. Ah, level it reached before the 2015 nuclear deal, which was scrapped by the Trump
Iran vows 'hit' on all involved in US killing of top general
"Becoming the hardest hit country. Threatening revenge for a U. S remote controlled killing. ABC is Lama Hassan, the head of Iran's Revolutionary Guard is threatening to target anyone who had a role in the killing of top General Qasem Soleimani, the chief saying. Quote Our Revenge for martyrdom of our great general is obvious. Serious and riel. Soleimani was killed in a U. S drone strike in
Iran vows ‘harsh’ response to killing of general; U.S. sends more troops to region
"Warning from Iran to the U. S. The chief of the country's Revolutionary Guard is threatening everyone who played a part in the death of a topper running in general, the guards website saying, quote Mr Trump. Our revenge for martyrdom of our great general is serious and riel. General Qasem Soleimani was killed in a U. S. Drone strike in Iraq back in January. America's listening to Fox News
Iran investigators blame shootdown of Ukranian flight on misaligned missile battery, no communication with commanders
"Investigators are blaming a misaligned missile battery and miscommunication between soldiers for the Revolutionary Guard shooting down of that Ukrainian jetliner in January, killing 176 people on board. The report, released late yesterday by Iran Civil Aviation Organization comes months after the crash. Plane was shot down the same night that Iran launched ballistic missile attack targeting US space in Iraq and that was in response to a U. S drone strike that killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani.
Iran issues arrest warrant for Trump that Interpol rejects
"There's an arrest warrant out for President Trump. It was issued by Iran related to the death of their top general Qasem Soleimani. He was killed in a drone strike in Baghdad last January. Iran and its allies condemned the strike is an assassination. Trump administration viewed Sulamani as a ruthless killer responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans. Iran has also asked Interpol to take action. In this case, it's unlikely that Interpol will grant that
Iraqi forces arrest men suspected of attacks targeting US
"Iraqi commanders have raided the headquarters of a powerful Iranian backed militia that the United States planes for a string of rocket attacks against its bases and interests in the country at least twelve members of the group could type has been law what arrested in the overnight rate in southern Baghdad Jessica McAllen reports Iran holds a powerful sway over Iraqi politics and is implacably opposed to the U. S. presence in Iraq tensions between the two countries if we completely played out on Iraqi soil the most high profile example of this with the American assassination of the Iranian general Qasem Soleimani in Iraq earlier this year Washington has been pressuring Baghdad to take tougher actions against Qatar Pensacola on Thursday's raid by elite Iraqi commandos is evidence that authorities are willing to
Iran's Guard says it launched satellite amid heightened U.S. tensions
"Iran's revolutionary guard says it has launched a military satellite into orbit amid wider tensions between the U. S. over its collapsing nuclear deal and after a U. S. drone strike killed guard guard general Qasem Soleimani in January after several failed satellite launches in recent months Iran called this a great
Defense secretary seems to contradict Trump on embassy threat
"The White House is still scrambling to explain why it launched the attack act that killed Iranian general Qasem Soleimani on face the nation a top trump administration official was asked about the timing of that drone attack defense secretary mark asper a knowledge Sunday that he saw no specific threat against for U. S. embassies by Qassem Soleimani contradicting president trump to earlier claim that's why he authorised to strike that killed the Iranian general but as for instance did the lack of hard evidence did not mean the president's assumption was wrong what I'm saying is I share the president's view that probably my expectation was a run to go after our embassies espers explanation Mears how other top administration officials have tried to explain how a threat can be both feminine and vague at the same time CBS news White House correspondent we
Trump authorized Soleimani killing months before deadly strike
"The trump administration is struggling to stick to the president's new explanation for that missile strike that killed Iran's top military commander the president said on Friday that Qasem Soleimani was killed because of threats to attack for American embassies defense secretary mark asper told CBS face the nation though he hasn't seen any hard evidence of those threats CBS news correspondent we see Jack reports from the White House Zhang is at the White House for us we should good more name what do you learn good morning Tony with the White House is adamant that solo money was about to carry out attacks on Americans and he had to be stopped but the secretary of defense cause confusion yesterday when he contradicted one of president trump's most specific claims about the nature of soul the money's threats I didn't see one with regard to four embassies defense secretary mark asper a knowledge Sunday that he saw no specific threat against for U. S. embassies by Qassem Soleimani contradicting president trump to earlier claim that's why he authorised to strike that killed the Iranian general I can reveal that I believe it would have been for embassies asper insisted the lack of hard evidence did not mean the president's assumption was wrong what I'm saying is I share the president's view that probably my expectation was that when you go after our embassies espers explanation Mears how other top administration officials have tried to explain how a threat can be both feminine and vague at the same time those are completely consistent box but it was very clear Qassem Soleimani himself was plotting a broad large scale attack against American interests the White House has a long wish list for changes in a Ronnie and behavior including curbing nuclear weapons development and stopping support for terror proxy groups national security adviser robber Brian said the tough stance on a Ron is paying off and hinted it could force potential negotiations Iran has been choked off around to have no other choice but to come to the table Democrats say the discrepancies between president trump and his inner circle add to their initial concerns that they hit until a monitor was not justified they are overstating exaggerating what the intelligence shows and when you're talking about justifying acts of might bring us into warfare with the Ron that's a dangerous thing to do president trump contradicted national security adviser Brian by tweeting he actually couldn't care less if the Ron negotiated the houses approved a resolution to limit Mr trump's military action against Iran in the Senate is considering a similar bill Gail to Republicans have already said they would support a measure to limit the president's war
Defense secretary seems to contradict Trump on embassy threat
"Defense secretary Marquez for meanwhile says he's been he's seen it no hard evidence that for American embassies have been under possible threat president trump has said Iran's Tom General Qasem Soleimani had been planning such an attack on those embassies and that's why the U. S. took him out
Iranian military acknowledges it shot down Ukrainian Boeing 737 jet by mistake
"Iran admits it shot down jetliner by mistake and if your Radharani Iran's revolutionary guard on Saturday the knowledge that it accidentally shot down the Ukrainian jetliner that crashed earlier this week killing hundred seventy six people on board after the government had repeatedly denied western accusations about evidence that it was responsible the plane was shot down early Wednesday hours after Ron launched a ballistic missile attack on two military bases housing U. S. troops in Iraq in retaliation for the killing of Iraqi general because some solar many Somali by the way they should also say general and terrorist Qasem Soleimani and in an American airstrike in Baghdad no one was hurt in the attack on the U. S. basis the admission raises a host of new questions such as what Iran why Iran did not shut down its International Airport airspace what was bracing for U. S. reprisal it also undermine the credibility of information provided by senior officials who for three days had adamantly dismissed allegations of missile of a missile strike as western propaganda Roger knowledge but also alters the narrative around its confrontation of U. S. in a way that could anger the Iranian people Iran had promised harsh revenge for soul monies death but instead of killing American soldiers its forces downed a civilian plane in which most passengers were Ronnie and and none survived general Amir Ali house the day I don't know the head of the guards aerospace division said he should accept full responsibility for the shoot down an address broadcast by CTV he said that when he learned about the downing of the plane I wished I was dead that's good which I wish you were dead too I he said he he raised the possibility to his superiors that its forces shot down the plane as early as Wednesday morning because the simultaneous occurrence of the launch of the crash was suspicious whatever the guy's name is said guard forces ringing the capital had beefed up their air defenses and were at the highest level of readiness fearing that the US would retaliate he said he suggested to Roger close its airspace but no action was taken he said the airlines pilot crew had done nothing wrong but officer made the bad decision opened fire on the plane after mistaking it for a cruise missile they mistake they mistake the plane a passenger jet with almost two hundred people wanted for a missile this is how bad their defense systems are in Iran come on do well man Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei you a real piece of garbage expressed his deep sympathy to the families of the victims are called on the armed forces to pursue probable shortcomings and guilt in the painful incident Ukraine's president does Lipsky said the crash investigation should continue and the perpetrator should be brought to justice he said a Roger compensate victims' families any request an official apology through diplomatic channels pretty near line not criticized Iran's decision leave their space open despite the hostilities so what really happened is Iran screwed up what really happened is Iran backed an attack of the US embassy in Iraq right Seoul money was behind the attack it was planning more as he sat in Baghdad Iraq not in his own country or run an American contractor was killed others were maimed and injured so we retaliated by taking out solo money and his sidekick dead Iran decided we're going to retaliate as well but it's just going to sort of be kicking dirt of the American shoes they could have probably killed Americans they wanted to they didn't wisely because you kill one American you see what happens we take out who you call a top general who we call a disgusting terrorist so they retaliate for no reason because they started it ed van they mistake a commercial jetliner for a missile come on man what are you talking about here and to the left of course this country including members of Congress have been blaming president Donald Trump for the Ukrainian airliner being shot down yes members of Congress have out now called the president out as as the person responsible for Iran now with meeting that shut down the jetliner little while ago I I posted over on Twitter which is a sure simple question with the far left lose now who are blaming president Donald Trump will be no apologize for being so wrong as Iran admits that they did it one eight hundred five zero one seventy eighty one eight hundred five zero one seven zero eight zero are you one of those who blame the president for a rod shooting got a commercial jetliner are you one of those who thinks he somehow has increased the hostility between us and Iran that is that is not the case are you one who believe that are you one who walks around believing that he for some reason is starting World War three although he's never been a war hawk he's a he was not a supporter of the Iraq war he's a guy who is restrained in his response to Iraq should be going over drones instead of killing hundreds of Iranians he backed off and said you know what let's not worth killing a bunch of people let's take out one of one of their drones are you someone who actually sat back and believed to that his response was out of control and somehow incompetent or you like be a do you say to yourself you know pretty measured what he's doing could be a whole lot worse but it's pretty measured you're taking out a terrorist that we've been looking for and we've got opportunities before just to do it take him out was smart they should around we know where you are no matter where you are and we can retaliate we can respond no matter where you are that can happen and in fact we just did so the money was not some had a state he was not as Bernie Sanders says some for dignitary he's not as the left says somebody who going after him provokes war because he was a let some for a member of the parliament he was the chief terrorism strategist for Iran the terrorism that is perpetrating with the money that Obama gave them and our president taking him out was the right thing to do because Ronnie shaking in his boots right now so much so that it sent a bunch of missiles over the didn't do anything and then shot down a commercial jetliner they're so out of sorts so whoever was that shot down the jetliner it's their fault his fault shortly Iran's fault for doing it no fault of the president but I really want to know if if some of you have been to convince route trump derangement syndrome and indoctrination this president somehow went from anti war guy to let's go start wars around the world there have been some this week who suggested to me he's doing it as a diversion because this will help him get reelected he's gonna get reelected anyway dummy look who's running on the
Iran Is Expected to Announce Cause of Ukrainian Jet Crash
"A senior Russian officials as Tehran was quote learn lessons from the Ukraine plane disaster after days of the Niles Iran now says it did shoot down that passenger jet after it left Iran CBS's scholar Henry Iranian state TV says Iran unintentionally shot down a Ukrainian jetliner on Wednesday killing all one hundred seventy six people on board citing a military statement blames human error the incident which Iran had denied a role in took place within hours of that country's retaliatory attack on US forces after the death of its top general Qasem Soleimani are Elizabeth Palmer is at the side of the plane crash in says about much investigating a Ronnie is moved nearly all the planes wreckage from the site within just two days Iranian teams immediately collected the bodies and then move the plane parts to the airport where you craning investigators have begun to look at them Ukraine's foreign affairs minister by dean for stucco well Millicent the pieces over the body of the plane went allows it to buy the soul full control Iran also says it will share the contents of the black boxes those on the plane were around again Canadian and
Trump says Iran general targeted four embassies in planned attack
"President trump and his top officials are offering a string of fresh explanations for this week's US military action in the Middle East trump says Iranian general Qasem Soleimani and others were planning major attacks on for US embassies but trump and secretary of state Mike Pompeii continued to ripoff questions about what they mean when they say those attacks were
Trump's evolving account of Soleimani's 'imminent threat'
"Turns out for American embassies were targeted this is the eight thirty report on Matt Rees breaking now president trump is telling fox news that Iranians were planning to attack for American embassies before the U. S. killed a rants top general Qasem Soleimani secretary Pompeii told reporters here at the White House that the president was correct there was a specific information about an imminent threat and that quote those threats included attacks on US embassies full stop he said that information was shared with Congress but several senators who were briefed on this say that neither Pompeii nor any other member of the president's national security team said anything about embassies
"qasem soleimani" Discussed on WBBM Newsradio
"You up next who was a Ronnie in general Qasem Soleimani he provided advice to the supreme leader on all sorts of issues both foreign and domestic so credibly important person an Iranian context and a guy who had real popularity Iran on the CBS news special report crisis in the Middle East yes news on the hour I'm but Michigan we have movement on the impeachment front from house speaker Nancy Pelosi CBS news correspondent bill rate Carlos he is asked Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler to be ready to bring to the floor next week a resolution to transmit articles of impeachment to the Senate speakers held on to those articles in a standoff with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell over the inclusion of witnesses in the trial Loyola law professor Laurie Levenson there may be just the transcripts of the prior witnesses or it's possible more witnesses would be heard president faces impeachment on charges of abuse an obstruction over its actions toward Ukraine bill Rakoff CBS news Washington I'm Stephen Portnoy at the White House aides say the president will be represented in the Senate chamber by a team of four lawyers headed by White House counsel Patsy baloney two deputies Patrick Philbin and Mike per per will take part along with one of the president's personal lawyer is Jay Sekulow whether all for trump attorneys will get to address the Senate remains to be seen and ultimately will depend on the length of the trial the question is still being asked in Ukraine Canada and around the world did Iran shoot down a civilian airplane in its own airspace Iran denies the allegation display video showing an apparent explosion likely caused by two surface to air missiles CBS news correspondent Elizabeth Palmer in Tehran says most of the plane's debris has been taken from the site which remains on guarded and open to the public how's that for an air accident investigator.
"qasem soleimani" Discussed on We The People
"Would be a not a proper cloth authority for the current operation but was mentioned by. Why am O'Brien and so that may be an effort to head off that possible argument? So what exactly is going to happen with these. We don't know how far they're going to get again. We are not sure they will get through the house almost. Certainly whatever PLO see supports will get through the house but then all land in a Republican Senate on it and You know it's not clear whether leaving a vote in the Senate and then even if it gets through the Senate it lands on the desk of the president who almost certainly only veto it so hard to see these actually making it into law and less something significant changes though. It's I suppose you know. Never say never but that seems unlikely at the moment John last question and then we'll have closing arguments. Can you imagine a scenario where a Republican Senate passed. house restriction on Presidential Authority as. We're speaking senator. Mike Lee has just tweeted. It's not acceptable for officials within the executive branch of government to come in and tell us that we can't can't debate and discuss the appropriateness of military intervention against Iran. It's un-american it's unconstitutional and it's wrong strong words from a strong constitutionalist is there enough of constitutionalists constituency among Senate Republicans that you could imagine restrictions actually passing. Well you put your finger girl on People like Mike Lee Rand Paul. Others I mean there are a number of Nine interventionist Republicans in the Senate who are concerned about the president's unilateral use of force For variety of reasons and You know bottom line. I think the votes are probably not there in the Senate but I don't think that Either those non interventionist Republicans like Rand Paul or or even a Republicans in the middle. WanNa get into a conflict with Iran in in an election year or at any other time I think with with few exceptions Sion's I think most of the Republicans relies a a a a war with Iran would be devastating for both countries. And I don't think that the Senate Republicans would actually vote to prohibit the use of force but I personally would like to see them Put the president on a bit more notice that the that the Senate would not support the use of force against Iran to get into WHO a larger conflict and The president himself seems to be backing down a bit And if the Congress would actually put him him on notice maybe if it were not actually a prohibition on use of force but a requirement for a consultation before any broader broader use of force That that might serve notice upon the president. Well it's time for closing statements in this really wonderful conversation station and the question is the obvious one. Do you believe that. The president's strike against Soleimani violated domestic and international law and the first statement is stone. Well I don't believe that It was lawful. I believe that it was a violation of both domestic and international law at first under domestic law. The constitution first and foremost gives the power to Congress Not to the president to make the decision about whether to wage war. It did so for a good reason. The founders didn't want to embroil the United States and endless wars. They wanted to be cautious about getting US involved in for interventions or wars at home and they intentionally decided to create a constitutional structure their required consensus across the political branches before getting US involved in any significant can't military conflict. That was a good idea that was that was the right structure. Not only is it with the constitution mandates. But it's also politically wise when we get into wars where there's not a national consensus behind. It were much less likely to be willing to do what's necessary to see that war and and if the president can take a war on his own whenever he thinks it's a good idea that puts us in a very dangerous position. Were much more likely to be adventuring. Venturing Wars that are not well thought through that are not in the best interest of the country and and that's particularly true a moment where the president who's making the a decision about whether to wage war is facing impeachment and an impeachment trial and a president in that position may have an interest in waging a war. That's really not in the best national interest so under domestic law. I think it's pretty clear. President can't launch a war without consulting and forming and in fact getting the consent of Congress unless there really is an imminent attack that requires action without first consulting Congress us and then second under international law again there's no authority to act The president can only act under international law. He she has a Security Council resolution which he doesn't or if he has the consent of the host state but she doesn't or last if it's a self defense action that is necessary to prevent an imminent attack. They have kind of given up on the whole idea of saying anything about imminence so it seems to me that even even the trump administration is not arguing that there was an imminent attack nor that killing salamone was necessary to preventing whatever attack. Might have been coming Rather they seem do pointing to generalize concerns about Iran concerns that have been around for decades It's not clear there's anything particularly new here. And that means that the president could have and should have gone to Congress gone to our allies and tried to build a consensus if he thought that a war was the right way to deal the problem I think what he would have been told as or is a really bad idea and that is not in the national interest is not an interested international community unless figure out a different way of doing cygnus and unfortunately he didn't seek that now hopefully he's backing off and hopefully the pushback that he's received heads delivered a message That he shouldn't be a beginning another Mideast War And that in fact what we should be doing turning to diplomacy and I'm hopeful that that his speech today indicates that he is making that turn and that would be great and would at least had often a future. Unlawful actions ends towards Iran and John. Last word is to you please tell. Are we the people listeners. Do you believe that. The president's actions against Sulejmani were legal under domestic mystic or international law or not so as a matter of domestic law. I think that was clearly constitutional although likely unwise The President has broad authority under the constitution to use force when he determines that it's in the National L. Interest President Obama did that in Using Force in Libya without Congressional authorization and did that for a number of months wants presents both parties have done that And the attorneys general of of both Democratic and Republican would tell you. The president has a broad authority to use force in the national interest based on his authority as Commander in chief and Chief Executive Congressional authorisation Not Required now. This is not a war it could lead to a war but it's not a war and so Where I agree with is I do agree that if the president is going you just start a war and start a conflict that he thinks is very likely to be a war and I said this in my testimony about Year and a half ago when look I like the president might be starting a war with North Korea if he had started bombing North Korea and raining fire and fury down on North Korea. That would very likely have started ended. War will start at the North Koreans launching missiles that the South Koreans and killed you know hundreds of thousands if not millions of people you know For the president to start a war more than that does bump up against Congress's Article One powers to declare war but for the president to Watch a strike against the lemani because he determines events in the national interest. I think that was clearly constitutional Although perhaps unwise as a matter of international law I think it's dubious at Lee so far the president and the White House have not shown that there was a imminent threat from Sola Mani. They've used those words that it was imminent but they've not Shown anything to suggest. That attack really was eminent and If they're the president did not use force to prevent an imminent threat than it would be unlawful under international law. I hope that the administration will be able to put out some intelligence that will show Joe as as at least Secretary of defense. Esper- suggested that maybe Soleimani was in fact planning or directing something but I haven't seen it yet And therefore the strike could be law unlawful under national law and I can say is a former legal adviser for the State Department. That's a bad thing. When the United States uses force I in violation of international law it sets a bad example for other countries I gave a long speech at the Supreme Court a year ago. Oh two years ago The Lloyd Cutler Lecture on rule of law in which said that the president and vice president pence need to learn the law of war and and we're powers and they need to learn the rules and they need to abide by them I would like to hope that the president's advisors Sir the Secretary of State Sector Defense the Attorney General The White House counsel are all counseling. Him On what. The law requires both under the constitution. Itution the war powers resolution and international law that the president will follow the rules so just to echo something that That that owner said the president it did seem to be a little bit more conciliatory today. let's hope that after the Iranians responded by launching Missiles that are basis that the president realizes that if he didn't counter-attacks we really could get ourselves into a war And maybe at this point both sides will begin to back down. Thank you so much which John Bellinger and ONA hathaway for civil illuminating and really educational discussion about the legal and constitutional dimensions of the recent strike against General. So Amani John Ona thank you so much for joining. Thanks for inviting me thank you. The today show was engineered by Greg Shetler and produced by Jackie. Mcdermott research provided Solano. Rick and Robert Black please. Rate Review and subscribe to we the people on Apple podcast and recommend the show to friends colleagues or anyone who is hungry for a weekly dose of constitutional institutional debate and who of us is not and always remember here. We the people friends as the New Year begins that the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit. We rely on the generosity. The Passion and the engagement of people like you across the country during fired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional education and debate. Why not send a New Year's message to let me know what you think of we the people and which side you are more persuaded by in today's debate about.
"qasem soleimani" Discussed on We The People
"Secretary of defense recently said well within days while maybe within weeks so People do differ international lawyers do differ on how imminent imminent has to be the Obama Administration in defending its drone strikes was at pains aims to say you know. We don't think that the strike has to be you know tomorrow. That imminence is a broader standard when it comes to terrorism but but it can't be just that's all the money was generally a bad guy so The under international it could be lawful if Sola the money was impact Planning Him at attacks. But like ONA I haven't seen that yet. The administration is not laid that out they are required under the UN charter under article article. Fifty one which authorizes the use of self defense They have to notify the Security Council if they use force in self-defence normally through a letter to the Security Council so we should all look for that sometime soon. I hope the administration will send up that ladder and explain why they felt that. This was a justified justified and action under international law. Just very quickly I I agree with the assassination ban. I think is not triggered here The last four presidents President Clinton President Bush President Obama and I assume now although without knowing The President Trump have concluded that a use of force against an individual a targeted killing of an individual in another country in self defense is not not an assassination. The Clinton administration concluded that in launching T- lambs against particular Al Qaeda targets the Bush administration concluded that when it was I I started using drone strikes and the Obama administration continued that And that that a targeted targeted killing of an individual is not an assassination If the determination is that the That the government is acting acting in self-defence so although the word assassination has been used a lot with respect to Sulejmani I can certainly assure you that a US government lawyers. I would say that the assassination ban in US law in particular Executive Order one two triple three would not be triggered for an action in Self-defense. Phone will turn in a moment to possible congressional responses. But before we do I want to ask if citizens our governments agreed read with you that the Sulejmani strike is illegal under international and domestic law. Are there potential judicial remedies. Are there any. US Court decisions that have enjoined the similar strikes and are there. International bodies where redress could be sought. Well this is actually one of the real challenges is in the area of war powers is We may agree about what the law does and doesn't require or we might disagree But the question is where's the recourse if there's an illegal action and the answer is there isn't much so when it comes to domestic declaw what happens if as in my view The has happened here. The President on constitutionally uses military force without not seeking congressional authorization. What could happen well? One thing that can happen is that Congress can press back and we'll talk about in a moment sort of how Congress is trying the press back through enacting resolution but that is limited in. It's a fact by the fact that the president can veto any legislation that comes out of Congress Congress- Congressman also refused to pay for it. But the problem is that these days appropriations acts are so huge and cover so many different things that it puts congress in a very difficult position because often in the position of having to basically hold up the entire national national defense budget to address a problem that it has with one small part of it or even an important part of it but it it it very difficult for for it to limit A piece of the of the appropriations without holding up the entire package although that nonetheless is still one tool that it has when it comes to going to court and that is really difficult for Congress so in the past Members of Congress have tried to sue do for what they thought were violations of their constitutional war powers Bhai usurpation of authority to go to war by presidents and A. and they've either individually or a small group of them have sued and the courts have invariably kicked it out onto grounds. One is is standing grounds. They say look individual members of Congress. You just don't have standing. You have another way of dealing with these problems which is through your legislative capacity you. You shouldn't be coming to the courts we don't. We don't want to interfere here. So that's one One way in which these cases have been pushed out the second is is political question doctrine. That's basically where the courts say. Look this really is a political matter. You're the political branches. You fight this out politically. This is not something. That's really a legal matter so much as it is political and we just don't want to get in the middle of this fight so these are two different ways in which courts can kind of get out of even having having ever reached the merits and so chances are good that if a member of Congress or group a member of Congress were to try to challenge this in court vote it would take awhile but also you know the smart money would be that the court would never reach the merits. There are some possible ways in which institutionally Congress might able to overcome the standing impediments. But that would take some time and you know. Chances are good. The courts are not going to weigh in so it does leave congress in a bit of a pickle. It has limited tools to press back against the president. And it's one reason. I think that that this episode ought to get US thinking about more serious war powers reform. Thanks so much for that and thanks for reminding us of these two judicial doctrines standing in the political question doctrine. That you argue would make it unlikely for courts to hear disputes between the branches involving were powers and you mentioned standing and that's the requirement that there'd be a alive case or controversy a dispute for courts to here and then the political question doctrine and we the people listeners can check out baker versus car voting rights case which sets out the standards for a political question which include a lack of judicial discoverable manageable standards and the impossibility. Of course resolving the question with out Out expressing a lack of respect for Congress in the President John. Do you agree that courts are unlikely to hear these disputes. And if you do. What tools does congress for restricting the president so I thought Owner had set a ride. The courts do not get involved in these fights over war powers That kick them all out and those really have been in in with respect to longer conflicts. Where there really is actually something more to complain about a a a conflict? That's going on for a long period of time. You know for the Sulejmani strike that we're talking about right now. Oh I don't think Congress would even Try to challenge that for just one off a use of force and the courts for definitely kick that out. here I don't think Congress really is going to be able to do anything even really going backwards. Cords here I think what they can do though. Congress does have an important role and I think they can do what they've already started which is to demand manned more information from the executive branch about The reasons for this strike. Why did the president was in the national interest and legal basis for it The White House may have explained both of those things in the war powers report. It's set up over the weekend but they have not said those things publicly again. I find it really rather baffling that. They did not send up a unclassified war powers report that at least reported the strike and gave the legal basis even if it had a classified annex that might have explained precisely what they thought Sola Mani was doing wing so I do think it's incumbent on the White House and the administration Dukes give the legal basis for this strike and Congress should Hold a hearing into demand information about why and the legal basis Going forward They can't really. I mean if they wanted to censure the president for the Strike Congress could certainly do that if they had the votes. But you know that they're they're not I think I don't think even the Democrats I would do that in the house and it certainly not going to happen in the Senate but going forward in this is I think where the action is in onus been following this more closely than I the The Congress and I think both Republicans and Democrats are concerned that the president might be lurching into an armed conflict conflict with Iran by by starting this and congress. Kim Say there that the president may not use further force against Iran Or start a conflict with Iran without congressional authorization. The House had a passed a provision that essentially said that in the National Defense Authorization Act. Last year said the president could not use funds to use force against Iran except in response to an attack or an imminent threat but then that was stripped out in the conference. And I think there's going to be an effort now since we could possibly be lurching towards towards some sort of a conflict with Iran. I certainly hope not that. Congress could say Look it was bad enough to take a hit at at at Sola money but but no more no no you. You may not start a conflict with the ring and Without Congressional authorization. So what can congress do I I don't think suing is I. I don't think they're going to do that. I don't think it would work. They should ask for more information about the reasons for the past strike and then if they've got the votes they can see if they they can try to tie the president's hands a bit on terms of starting a more major conflict with Iran. Oh no you have indeed been closely following the congressional actions moving forward. Tell us more about the resolutions. That Speaker Pelosi is considering bringing forward that might restrict the president's ability to spend money and to deploy troops in the Middle East so Nancy Pelosi has announced that she she intends to bring forward At a minimum one may be more resolutions on this so one is a resolution. That's going to be led by a congresswoman Elizabeth Plotkin That should go to the floor. On Thursday January ninth and that resolution we haven't seen the taxed yet as of our recording here but apparently his pattern on an earlier resolution that was put forward by a cane and that resolution then a lot of it's time sort of reiterating the constitutional role of Congress in its findings so it's finding section in is very long and it lays out in great detail The constitutional provision and start off by saying it's Congress has right to declare war Not The president and then it goes on to say that Any action against Iran would not be consistent with the two thousand one or two thousand and two authorizations stations were used to military force that we were just mentioning and then reiterates in greater detail that both the statute and constitutional provision. And it has. It's a very short operative provisions that basically says that if the president That within thirty days after enactment of this joint resolution the president has to withdraw troops within thirty days from hostilities with Iran. Now I think that that that obviously vissel has this idea that in fact already our troops involved in hostilities with Iran and so in that sense it's it's not typically a factual instead of heading off any future conflict other than if one hasn't yet happened I suppose the fact that says within thirty days they have to be taken out of if he hasn't put troops in the that that thirty day limit still applies. I think the second resolution that's been put forward my recently by a Congressman Enrichment Khanna More explicitly kind of goes to the core of it by saying basically. The president can't spend any money on a war with Iran without first going to Congress So so uses appropriations power is much more clear that no operations against Iran are permitted without an express authorization so that It sounds like both of those may eventually go to. The floor of the SLATKIN resolution is supposed to go first and again. We haven't seen the exact text of it so it's possible the two will be combined in some way or some of the language from the Khanna resolution will be brought over and then apparently they're also considering going forward forward with a resolution that Congresswoman Barbara Lee has put forward many times to repeal the two thousand and two Iraq authorization for us to military force which again we mentioned earlier which I agree with John..
"qasem soleimani" Discussed on We The People
"But they're playing a role which is to put Forward a position of the executive branch on what the executive branch authorities are and these positions have not been tested in court. Hardly at all no Oh court has signed off on this national interest idea and meanwhile if you actually read the Constitution the Constitution gives Congress not the president the the power to declare war it gives Congress power to raise and support armies. It doesn't give the president those powers yes. The president is commander in chief of the Military Terry but that doesn't give him the right to launch. Wars and the founding generation was extremely clear that that was not what they intended they did not want to have a president who was a king who'd be waged war without congressional authorization. They intentionally gave that power to Congress so while I agree one hundred percent that their office a legal oh counsel memos and the Department of Justice who say what John says. I just think that that's not fair. Read of the law. All Things considered wonderful Wonderful in the sense that we have vigorous disagreement and now we the people listeners have a chance to make up their own minds about whether or not these. We'll see. Memos are persuasive so John can you tell us anything. More about the cases on which the oil C- memo's rely in asserting that the president can use force when he determines that it's in the national interest I can and a point sure listeners to a couple of things to look at themselves up to three do things one. I did a short piece on the council on Foreign Relations website. which is currently the lead piece on council relations website on whether the strike was was lawful I testified last year and longer At the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and whether use of force without congressional congressional approval against North Korea would be lawful and I was the joint witness by both Republicans and Democrats laying out the law and that's available on the Senate harm relations committee website But what I said there was that in fact presidents of both parties going back Really deep decades and decades and decades may be more than one hundred years Have used force without congressional authorization in other countries he's A based only on a national interest determination. There's a good congressional research service piece That lists it's all of the examples of presidents of both parties deploying troops using force and other countries based only on the president's Constitutional Institutional Authority And again I'm not really trying to lay out an expansive view of the President's authority. I think can I. I was both the legal adviser for the National Security Council and legal adviser with the State Department. I was always the first to say it's better to get Congressional Authority but the president does have broad authority under article too And that's really been exercised by presidents of both parties The memo's most by the office of Legal Counsel by Assistant Attorney Generals of both parties have laid out. You know these these long examples of presidents Using force because has the president is commander in chief and is chief executive and really he. He alone is the one who determines what is going to be in the national interest when he is deploying forces. This is You know not everything counts as a war. There's a lot of things that below that level but the president can use force That doesn't result in War and again may not be a good idea. But that's what the the president is chief executive and commander in chief for thanks so much for that and if you were argue against the reasoning of the office of Legal Counsel Nemo such as the Obama memo saying the president didn't need congressional approval for military operations in Libya in two thousand eleven What would you say and of course of that? Maybe a little more about why you wrote in the Atlantic that even within the scope of previous unilateral presidential actions this action in by President President trump is arguably unprecedented. Yeah so I think I would point to as the Constitution itself which is extremely clear about where the allocation of authority lies. It lies with Congress for some foremost Not with the president second I would point to the fact that when things got out of whack in Vietnam and with the super bombings in Cambodia Congress came back with passing a law the war powers resolution in nineteen seventy three after the revelations about the secret bombing campaign reasserting its constitutional authority and requiring presidents to to report when they introduce US armed forces and toss still ladies at requiring that presidents consult with Congress breast before introducing armed forces requiring them to get the ascent of Congress before continuing significant hostilities. And that that is a reaffirmation of the of the constitutional roles which is that the president should not take us into war without getting congressional authorization. Authorisation and while presidents have many of them not all of them but many of them have refused to accept that as a constitutional provision starting with President Nixon who vetoed it and it was was enacted over his over his veto still have reported quote consistent with the powers resolution and they have consistently Acted as if they don't think they have unlimited authority So if you look at since two thousand one And the authorization Thursday tion of use military force in the days after the nine eleven attacks all of our counterterrorism operations nearly all of them have been justified under that two thousand and one law now. Some of those have been legal backflips. I'll be honest To sort of shove things within the two thousand one authorization for use of military okay forced that perhaps don't belong there but president after president has argued that all these counterterrorism operations are fall within the authority granted by Congress to the president in two thousand one. Why do they do that because they know that? They don't have the constitutional authority to act entirely on their own. When President Bush wanted to intervene review against Iraq in two thousand two he went to Congress and got an authorization for use of military force before doing so and when President doesn't Obama wanted to intervene against Syria after the chemical weapons attacks? He said. I can't do it without Congressional Authority. And Congress said no and he didn't and now he was criticized by that of about that because he had said there was a red line but Congress said No. We don't want to go and start another another war in the Middle East and he respected that so president after president has not acted as if they saw themselves as having an unlimited authority to wage age were in the national interest. And that's a good thing because we have engaged in a lot more wars. If that was the case John Would you think is the relevance of of the two authorizations to use military force that Congress passed in the wake of nine eleven is the administration in booking them and do a strengthen its legal hand or not so let me May a respond to a couple of things owner just said and then and then Address that So one with the war powers solution I think if anything were powered by solution proves the reverse of what was saying because it says that the president it has to withdraw forces after sixty days. If there's not a congressional authorization so the implication there is that that in fact. The president can use force under his article to authorities Provided that he reports within forty eight hours and then needs to stop after Sixty days unless the congress has authorized it so that seems to be an implicit recognition that the president has broad authority to use force but has to stop if the Congress has an authorized it I was involved in drafting of both the two thousand one in the two thousand and two. You're the math when I was in the White House and agree completely that when Oh president is going to seek Something that clearly is going to be a war or major conflict. Both of the invasion of Afghanistan invasion of Iraq were certainly major conflicts and wars that the president should and indeed as is required wired to seek congressional approval so was both a right and constitutionally required I think for the president to to seek those authorizations authorizations but the Sumani strike is not a invasion of country again. It's a very serious thing and it provoked Iran and may get US kicked out of Iraq. Jack and I'm not sure that it was wise and it could provoke a war But you know it's not the same. As the an invasion of Afghanistan or the invasion of Iraq that required you no authorizations to use military force but pivoting and moving forward Because this is a big issue here is Will will the administration here tried to argue that in addition to the president's constitutional authority that he was also relying the on one or both of those two am APPS. We don't know that yet because very strangely the war powers report that the the trump administration sent up on over the weekend was classified in its entirety and did not therefore state in in a public way what the authors of what the legal basis was for the use of force which a war powers report normally state so. We don't know what authority the president was relying on. He was certainly relying at least in part if not wholly on his constitutional authority. But we've seen a couple of officials including the national security adviser Robert O'Brien Suggests that he was also relying on the two thousand and two A. M. F. to use force in Iraq If if the administration to try to do that I personally think that would be a big mistake and would be a bridge too far. I don't you know again. I was involved in the drafting of authorisation. It's eighteen years old. It was intended to Allow the authorization to use force against Saddam and the threat posed by Iraq although administrations of both parties have relied on it for some continuing operations in Iraq against Isis I think it would be a bridge way too. Far suggest that that two thousand two authorization to use force against the threat posed from Iraq authorized the use of force against the visiting Iranian Iranian A military official in Iraq So I I really just don't think that authority is there and I think it'd be very provocative for the trump administration to claim. Did in fact. This strike really was authorized. So I hope they don't do it I think it's better just to rely on the president's constitutional authority so at this point in in this excellent conversation I hear you both agreeing. That the two authorizations of military force don't provide plausible justification for the action but disagreeing about the legal standard with John Embracing the national interest standard. That the office of Legal Counsel has embraced an arguing for a more restrictive self defense Manson imminent attacks standard. Now going to ask on whether there are any other legal authorities that might be invoked against the strike strike and one is the ban on assassination president Gerald Ford. I adopt the assassination ban in nineteen seventy six and the current version of the ban is codified codified in executive order. What constitutes assassination and could the Sumani Strike Qualify well I think that I'm the question there is whether it was an unlawful in a sense. It's sort of brings us back to the question of whether the strike itself was lawful or not And that turns both on the question of domestic law and on the question of at International Law and while we've talked talked about the domestic gone. I think we have somewhat differing views about whether this could be justified as a matter of self defense Under domestic law or whether the president simply could act in the national self-interest national interest of the of the United States doesn't even have to offer a self defense justification under under domestic law under international law. I think John and I might be an closer agreement That in fact there is an obligation Russian Under international law to demonstrate that there was an imminent threat. And that really is. What's more important here than the executive order her on assassination because executive order? Frankly it's an order that was has been issued by president. It's been trimmed back and trim back to the point where it Tamai mind. Kind of ineffectual and really turns the bigger questions are under the constitution and the statutory framework for war powers and under under international law the UN Charter and other rules of international law governing. Use of force is this legal or not My view is that under both. It's illegal well and and you know that's that's what really matters. John do agree that the assassination ban doesn't impose restrictions more broad than those imposed goes by international law. And then do that international law requires imminence. An self defense and do you think the international law standard is matter so let me take take them in reverse order. I agree with what I think you and I are probably Either one hundred percent her ninety nine percent on the same page with respect to international law so for your listeners owners to remind at the UN Charter and international law prohibit the use of force in or against another country Unless the the country has consented The Security Council authorizes it where it is an action in self defense in response to an armed attack or a a threat of an imminent attack so since there was no security council authorization no Iraqi consent the only possible legal basis for the US under under international law to have used force in Iraq would be self defense and it seems to be what they're saying but that would require since They're not actually been a attack at that point. Although there had been these These Attacks interacted had killed Americans American contractors that this would be an action in self defense against an imminent attack And his own said earlier the administration has been all over the map on whether this was was imminent or not the secretary of state for said that it was a To prevent an imminent attack. If that were true that would be actually lawful under international law. That's was is is the basis for the Obama Administration's nearly six hundred drone strikes against terrorists that those were to prevent imminent attacks by certain terrorists So if Sulejmani was in fact planning imminent attack against Americans in Iraq or elsewhere a least under the US analysis lawful under international national law. But as ONA said Administration officials have started backing off of that. And saying well you know. He's done things in the past and he might do things in the future her and it's Not necessarily anytime soon. But then. The.
"qasem soleimani" Discussed on We The People
"I'm Jeffrey Rosen. President CEO of the National Constitution Center and welcome to we the people weekly show of constitutional national debate. The National Constitution Center is a nonpartisan. Nonprofit chartered by Congress to increase awareness and understanding of the constitution among the the American people last week a US air strike killed Iranian military leader. Kassim stolen any in Baghdad. The airstrike has raised a series of questions about war powers the law and the constitution and what constitutes an imminent threat and self defense and more joining us to explore the legal and constitutional ramifications. Ends of the airstrike are two of America's leading experts on war powers and the constitution. Hathaway is the Gerard See and Bernice Latrobe Smith professor of International National Law. And Counselor to the Dean at Yale Law School. She's also a professor of international law at the Yale Macmillan Center and the Jackson Institute for International Affairs and a professor of political science. She's a member of the Advisory Committee on International Law for the legal adviser at the US State Department own. Thank you so much for joining. Thanks so much for having me and John. B bellinger is partner at Arnold and porter where he heads the firm's global law and public policy practice he previously held several senior presidential appointments the US government including as legal advisor to the Department of State Under Secretary State Condoleeza Rice and his legal adviser to the National Security Council. John Great to have you with US great to be here. Let's begin with the question of the domestic legal authority for the strike. Tell us about under what conditions domestic law allows for strikes not authorized by Congress when they are taken in self defense and when an attack is imminent. So there's a fairly narrow exception. The constitution makes the president the commander in chief breath but it gives congress the power to declare war. And there's long been understood an exception though to that power to declare war which is if the country's country's under attack the president clearly can defend the nation. He doesn't have to wait for Congress to convene to debate to give him authority The president can can respond as necessary to address the threat but that means that there has to be a real threat and the response has to in fact be necessary to address it and so that those are the conditions that we look for here. Did he really have to act without going to Congress. Did he really not not have the opportunity to consult with Congress to seek Congress's input and to seek Congress's assent to strike John. What can you add to the legal standard? And can you tell us about the sources either in case law or in statute for these exceptions for for defense against him and attacks. Sure and I think own and I have known each other for a long time and she. We serve on the secretary of State's advisory together so I think we are largely on the same page but just look at things sort of slightly differently So the president has very broad broad constitutional power article two of the Constitution as both commander in chief and chief executive to direct the armed forces to use force Jason Deploy Force And the standard really is simply a national interest standard the the president of of both parties democratic and Republican have ordered the use of force deployed forces As long as as they determined that it is in the national interest so he's got wide latitude to use force He couldn't use force forced to defend a trump golf course. I don't think anybody would think that would be in the national interest And at the upper level as ONA said Ed if he were to use force to actually start a war or something. That was clearly going to be a war. prolonged sustained conflict or conflict. That was clearly going to Cause harm to many Americans or to other something. That was clearly be a war than that. Mike require presidential or congressional approval. But everything in between my view is that the president has got broad authority to use force in the national interest And it's up to him to decide what is in the national interest as chief executive commander in chief. So let me quickly say here. I am speaking speaking. Here is a legal matter. Not You know whether this is a wise use of force Personally I have A great Ah Apprehensions about whether this was in fact wise and was in fact in the national interest but as a legal matter I think The president has wipe thirty here and he could have reasonably concluded that using force against Sulejmani who Both had blood on his hands in the past and was likely plotting. Generally in the the future of that the president decided that that was the national interest. I think that's pretty clear under the constitution phone up in your article. The SULEJMANI strike strike defied the US Constitution published on the NCC Atlantic battle for the Constitution website which I urge we the people listeners to check out because it's publishing great pieces like us you know to statements. The Department of Defense issued a short statement saying the attack was justified as an act of self-defense aimed at turning future Iranian attack plans and secretary state pompeo later claimed the strike was disrupting an imminent attack. You expressed skepticism about both of those claims based on news reporting from the New York Times concluding that the evidence suggesting there was an imminent attack against American targets is razor thin. Tell us more about whether or not you think that this can be justified as self defense against an attack. So I don't think that it can And I have to add the usual caveat here that I haven't seen the intelligence. It's but what I have read and heard is the statements from those who have and members of the Congress The Senate have been coming out of classified hearings and saying that they received the the intelligence they received briefings and the administration and they are not persuaded that in fact there was any imminent attack and that the intelligence just simply doesn't doesn't support it and the truth is the ministration has been all over the place here early on it. Didn't say anything about imminence at sort of vaguely alluded to the idea that there might might be some future attacks then the next morning Palm Peyot use the word imminent for the first time probably because his lawyers counseled him that that's what they needed needed to be saying Than when he was pressed later on it he really couldn't give any details. SORTA seemed to back off the idea that it was imminent and trump's speech Explaining the strike and the plans for moving forward didn't seem to suggest that there was in fact in concrete imminent threat that was necessary to respond to so all the information that were seeing And that's coming out in public really seems to support the idea that that there was no imminent attack. There was sort of a generalized concern about Iran. But that's been true for decades It's hard to see what's new here. And the administration really bears the burden of explaining that to the American people because as a matter of both domestic and international law. The president really doesn't have the authority to go forward unless he can show that it was necessary to defend the nation and he just simply really hasn't hasn't yet done John in the NPR piece. Was it legal for the. US to kill a top Iranian military leader. You were quoted as saying it's clearly early lawful. It's clearly an exercise of the president's Constitutional Authority as Commander in chief and chief executive to use force in the national interest in applying that standard entered the national interest standard or. Is that different from the imminent attack. Self-defense a standard and do you think this can be justified as self defense against an imminent attack or are you think more broadly than it was in the national interest so I agree with about ninety five percent of all of the words that own adjust said except that All of that in my mind is only relevant to the international law analysis whether this was whether the strike was lawful under international. I agree completely that the administration has been all over the map That they I said at that was imminent. And then they backed off and they have not showed food That was imminent and that raises real concerns about whether this strike was waffle Under international law and we can talk about that in a moment but the imminence standard And Self Defense. Standard is not relevant to a domestic Constitutional analysis basis The president has broad authority to use force including striking in another country if he determines that it is in the national interest And so the issue of whether there was a Imminent attack or an imminent threat. is is not relevant into the Domestically analysis you'll recall President Obama as a candidate said what ONA said which is that. The President doesn't have authority ready to use force without congressional approval except in the face of a attack or an imminent attack But as president he acted completely differently and he acted as all previous presidents have and what Congress has acquiesced in which is that the president has broad authority to order the use of force without Congressional Authority if he determines that it's in the national interest again. They're gonNA be some things that are so Small I use you know. Defending the trump golf courses not being in the national interest but Taking a shot at a Iranian leader. WHO's been responsible for the deaths of many Americans who maybe threatening more even if it's not imminent you know? The president could reasonably determined that. That's in the national interest again. I will say I disagree. I personally think that that was not the right thing to do as a policy matter but it it. The constitution does not require Ah I don't think presidents of either party has historically thought and the office of Legal Counsel under presents of both parties has not thought that the president may only use force I without congressional authorization in the face of an imminent threat. The imminence requirement relates to using force under international law when we now have a disagreement and ask for your response. John says that national law unlike international law only requires that the President Act in the national interest interest. Not that there be a response to an imminent threat in self-defense On what basis do you disagree. And and and what are the legal sources from which you derive the self defense imminent standard from domestic law. Thank you for pointing that out. You're absolutely right that this is the one point on which I think we have the sharp disagreement and what I will say is that John is right. That the off Salil Council memo's say say that the president can effectively act in the national interest As long as the nature scope and duration of the intervention is is not Leading it to be wore in the constitutional sense. What exactly that means? It really doesn't explain but that those Oh lc opinions and the most. It's recent version of this. That many point to is caroline crassus. Twenty eleven memo in the early days of the Libya intervention her bench and where the question was put to all see. Can the present President Intervene in Libya joined the coalition fight. again in Libya Libya without first seeking congressional authorization and she wrote a memo saying yes because there was a Security Council resolution and US has a national interest in enforcing National Security Council resolutions and there was a humanitarian interest in. It's in the national interest to protect against humanitarian catastrophes. Astra fees and the like so. There's no doubt the obsolete council. Memo's say that but I think we have to put these wilsey memo's into context. These are memos written by the president's lawyers no one Other than the president's lawyers has any say on what goes into an LLC memo now they're great lawyers and there. There's some of my good friends. I including Caroline crass who I think is really a brilliant lawyer..
"qasem soleimani" Discussed on WTVN
"All right let's listen to the president briefly go right ahead Qasem Soleimani and ended his rampage through not only that part of the world but much bigger parts of the world he was all over he was a bad guy he was a blood thirsty terra and he's no longer a terrorist he's dead see the red Chevy express outrage over the germination this and you know instead they should be outraged by Solomon is savage crimes and the fact that is countless victims were denied yes is for so long yeah he was the king of the road side bomb you know the road side bomb and then they got bigger and he'd send them over to Afghanistan Iraq and when you see our friends and our great wounded warriors and a great warriors when you see them without their lakes without an arm and was so much damage it's most likely that he caused that damage because that's what he like TI love to planting the roadside bomb so now he's got and that's Anders raising has condemned the US military struggling Solomonic the world's top terrorists they give it a whirl soft errors and we're having people like Nancy Pelosi has a real you believe that one Nancy residents and what is the guy butchered civilians all over her and military whoever was in his way and we have thirty and Nancy Pelosi we have a ball the role trying to say how dare you take him out that way you should get permission from Congress you should come in and tell us what you want to do you should come in and so that we can call up the fake news that's back there and we can that's a lot of direction back there for so they want me so you know these are split second decisions have to make a decision so they don't want me to make that decision they want me to call up maybe go over there let me go over the Congress will come on over to the White House is talk about when did you make it well I will be able to make it today Sir how about the listed a couple of things all sure come on over now we got a cool we heard where he was we knew the way he was getting there and we had to make a decision we didn't have time to call up and see who is not operating with a full deck no they won't can you imagine Colin Adam Schiff visual yeah Seiji how you doing listen we have the world's number one terrorist killed thousands and thousands of people would like to set up a meeting so we can discuss his execution what would you be willing to make well I will be able to make it this way well you know he's traveling fast we get out of line you little pencil necked he is the symbol is that this is no we got a blind we got to take this guy out we're not going to have another shot at a baby ever again but what I can make it now because of trying to impeach from right even though we did nothing wrong by the way did you said did nothing wrong they don't even know what the hell is going thank you so weak she doesn't want to put in the articles are so weak there's so that a this soap is that in so they will all of them no Jeff is a big leaguer you know he likes to crazy see an issue with the little red light on not too many people watching CNN what is so we'll say the an hour on the record I got to hurry up because everyone's watching me the whole way of myself off the record they've got the number one turns to the world Solomon me and they're gonna get in they're gonna take a in the next ten minutes please don't tell anybody I told you but the so we have we have breaking news president trump within the next twenty twenty five minutes looks to be taking a terrorist general Charlamagne he's going to do what should be happening about the next twenty minutes nineteen eighteen seventy we get back to the battlefield how did no Sir he disappeared I don't know what I they want they want us to tell them so that they can really get to their friends in the corrupt media you can say though that's a lot of media right that's the way the Academy Awards used to look what it was successful then they started hitting us all the time and it became on successful I love it I love action they have some really bad ones some real sick ones then one good one by the way one but Sir Ben's the very dishonest people and we have some great would still we have a we have some great journalists gray reporters but you've got a tremendous number of dishonest media people like I have never seen in my life before they write things that they know are wrong they write if you watch for the last three years think of it and then they get Pulitzer prizes but it turned out to be all wrong how do you do they get Pulitzer prizes the Pulitzer Prize does it mean this is why they hate him because of the chest exposed I mean I'm going to tell you about the Nobel Peace Prize I'll tell you about that I made a deal has saved a country and I just heard that the head of that country is now getting the Nobel Peace Prize for saving the country I said what did I have something to do with it yeah but you know that's the way it is as long as we know that's all that matters okay I say the big warm saved a couple of but under my administration we will never make excuses for America's enemies we will never hesitate in defending American lines and we will never stop working to defeat radical Islamic terrorism nobody's done it like we've done and is only as we it's not me and so we had the whole movement there is by the way never been a moment like this you know outside I don't know what this place so we will we will return here in there the president's rally in Ohio it's historic the things he's saying the way he's conducted himself the media want you to think it's clownish amateurish it's on presidential to rash it's none of those things this one of the most consequential presidents in modern American history.
"qasem soleimani" Discussed on NewsRadio 1080 KRLD
"Qasem Soleimani hometown of Kerr mon and his burial has now been postponed leader of Iran's revolutionary guard is threatening to set fire to place is supported by the United States CBS is mark Liberman according to a report by the semi official Tasnim news agency a Ron has worked up thirteen sets of plans for revenge for sue Amani's killing the report quoted the secretary of Iran's supreme National Security Council said that even among the weakest of those threats it would be a historic nightmare for the US congressional leaders will be brief today top Senate Republican Mitch McConnell your college rush blame our own government before even knowing the facts rush to split hairs about intelligence before being briefed on it CBS news update I'm Deborah Rodriguez president trump's former national security adviser John Bolton says he's ready to tell what he knows about the Ukraine scandal if the Senate wants to hear it Bolton says he'll testify in a Senate impeachment trial if he subpoenaed in a statement Bolton said quote I have tried to meet my obligations both as a citizen and as former national security adviser I am prepared to testify witnesses testified during house impeachment hearings that Bolton had opposed to president trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani's interactions with Ukrainian officials and that bold and directed them to report their concerns to White House lawyers that CBS correspondent Skyler Henry still no word of course on when that Senate trial might begin because the house still hasn't sent over the articles of impeachment this portion of the news for taxes mutual insurance Facebook has announced a ban on digitally manipulated videos known as deep fakes which often involve making the person appear to say things they never actually said one of the most widely seen altered videos depicts house speaker Nancy Pelosi sounding if if she's drunk this is done with a rather simple manipulation of adjusting the tempo of an audio track but there are far more sophisticated types of deep faith which can put people in the places that they've never been or with people that they've never been around and saying things that they've never said and some of these can be very difficult to detect the CBS tech reporter Larry Magnus band does not cover all doctored videos however Facebook says that doesn't extend to content that is clearly a parody or satires more fallout from Boeing's decision last month to suspend production of the seven three seven Max jetliner CBS correspondent but Michigan says it involves one of Boeing's biggest suppliers spirit aerosystems gets more than half its revenue from the production of seven thirty seven aircraft components on Monday the company offered voluntary layoffs to eligible employees in Wichita Kansas and Tulsa and McAlester Oklahoma the Wichita eagle reported the company's CEO sent a letter to employees citing a lack of clarity on the timing of the return of Max production and a firm schedule when work on the plane does resume the letter doesn't specify how many jobs will be lost but warns of quote many difficult decisions in the days and weeks ahead but Michigan CBS news here in North Texas a mandate garland who charged at police with a machete is behind bars this morning after being released from the hospital overnight police got the call late yesterday about a man swinging a machete at cars along south third street but just a few blocks north of Miller wrote the yesterday afternoon lieutenant Pedro Barrientos says the suspects starting yelling at the officers when they arrived on the scene with the subject he does charge of the officers and one officer fired his weapon the suspect was transported to the hospital at the time of transport he was a lot thirty eight year old Scott Norris says been booked into the garland detention center on a charge of aggravated assault against a public servant the officer who fired he is on leave while garland police internal affairs and the Dallas County district attorney investigate no one else was hurt in the incident five thirty five A. K. A. R. L. leave you have an accident on northbound thirty five before why cliff just north.
"qasem soleimani" Discussed on The President's Inbox
"Had An American can general send a letter saying repairing leave which the department offense is now said was draft in a mistake. Never should have gone out. Are we looking at the. US Redraw oil from Iraq. And if so good thing bad thing pardon me I was thinking about baseball metaphor. F- this one but I I couldn't come. I couldn't come up with went so I'll just directly answer your question. I think that the Iraqi political situation has changed dramatically as a result of what happened last Friday from the beginning of October through December number Iraqis were in the streets demanding a new political system and part of that was they were demanding that the Iranian influence in their country come to the United States was not part sort of these protests. The United States was not even part of anybody's conception of an influential country in Iraq any longer despite huge embassy in unsown and so forth the killing of money has now flipped that narrative around much to the benefit of Shia political parties in ship militia leaders and who are often often leaders of those political parties and even people who we've considered partners of the United States like the now caretaker. Prime Minister have been put in a position where they have to demand that the United States leave it strikes me that now that the opponents of the United States can really framed the terms of the debate the politics they really take off. Now the question of whether it's worthwhile wild to leave Iraq or not I think after seventeen years in God knows how many billions or trillions of dollars spent on Iraq as I said before the country is in terminal collapse. APPS it's chaotic if not for UN. Unless you just there. In December of now for UN agencies and their local partners it really would be medieval in parts of the country country we have American diplomats. Who can't move? We're there to fight isis yet. Our partners in Iraq have done everything possible for a resurgence of Isis. This this dysfunctional government anywhere. You go in Iraq. People say that the central government cannot be trusted. The central government is rife with corruption and graft and Iranian influence in this in time will grow isis once again. We are only partners if there was a partner or the Kurds. But they're quite weak so the question is what is it that we're trying to accomplish in Iraq with regard to a rock. I can understand the fight against the Islamic state or keeping the pressure on the Islamic state but when it comes to Iraq. I'm not quite sure what it is that we're trying to accomplish accomplish their ray would a US departure Marach help or hurt the Iranians ill crystallize a lot of problems that they would have to undertake I think if Iraqi the government today your are in fair to say an impossible position because for a long time you have to try to balance your relationship between Iran and the United States and even mediate the differences between them. You don't have. I suspect that still the direction they want to go. They don't want to be a battleground between the United States any raw and I suspect they're saying that's obviously clearly ready to the Americas but I suspect they're also saying that primarily city arrhenius. I do think there are a lot of relationships that Iraq has with the United States. That are important to it. will in terms of a segue today international national commerce community both in terms of security services both in terms of diplomatic relations bought in the sense that the benefit of having a relationship with the United States so they suspect they don't want to discard. How are they going? I manage this situation if this conflict places self out in Iraq with all this fragile it remains i. It's a it's going to be a very difficult. Balancing Act for government that has not been able to to have effective balancing Aksu history. So they're going to have to do a lot of thinking about this and I do think both the United States and Iran would be wiser not to have their confrontation play soften Iraq Syria because that's collapsed country. How more skin Syria yet? What is a wildcard out? Here is the trump administration has demonstrated straighted whether you're renting is understand that not that attack on Americans via proxies is unacceptable. We'll see if they get. That message remains to be seen what happens if the Iranian regime attacks American proxies Saudi Arabia Israelis can handle themselves. Is that GonNa Elicit an American. What hasn't to this point? We had the attack on the Saudi. Won't it means in this sort of the attack of September I believe on Saudi oil installation actually did result in three things that have not been amplified in the western press. There will sit assassination attempt against General Sulaimaniyah in October. Number of people have gone trump for it. There was an attack on Iranian tanker and the Iranians claimed over subject to cyber tax. Now I don't know who's responsible for those speculation as to who is. I have no idea but the idea that nothing happened. After that strike is not entirely true now fair pointed uh-huh Surf perhaps as a deterrent but if the Iranians attack American proxies with the United States response in the same dramatic way. That's the wild card out. There feel ridden news. One of the reasons Sulamani was going to Baghdad apparently was to talk to Iraqi officials who were serving as interlocutors between Tehran and Riyadh so I guess first question is water people in Riyadh making of all that happened in the last week and are they sleeping better at night or are they staying up later. they're definitely not sleeping better and you read that on the news because the Iraqi prime minister said so and I also came from somewhere. That's good which I think came to. The surprise of a lot of people told that I mean there were plenty of other plausible reasons for Sulejmani to be arriving in Iraqi. Goes all the time but it was weird notion that he was actually delivering a letter in the Saudis involved. I don't know anything independently on that. I do know that the Saudis are staying up at night because they have a lot to lose. And that's actually one of the interesting aspects of this. Is You know the Saudis have been in the forefront of leading the charge for tougher for policies on Iran they welcomed president trump coming in they welcomed the sanctions. Welcome leaving the nuclear deal. They welcome maximum pressure. They've been begging. They were regretful. At Obama didn't stand up enough to the Iranians Manian but this recent escalation including stuff blowing up in their country. You know it tends to concentrate the mind and they have a lot to lose and their neighbors in the emerets a a lot to lose as well. So we're actually. It's it's quite striking. We're hearing noises about the need for de-escalation and calm and outreach and actually has been some outreach with Saudis as an Emirati is and Iranians beyond what there was before so I think they're nervous because they if any of the sort of nightmare scenario we've been discussing playout. They're the ones that's who suffer and in some ways. Iran is more prepared to escalate because they have less to lose in the sense that they're already under massive sanctions. Their economy's mess. They're trying a break out of this thing was the Saudis Camrys for whatever troubles they have. They're selling oil. They're making money. The Saudis are trying to transform their economy. So they're worried and even after the strike in the Saudi the office where I mean ray was rightly talking about this perception that president trump didn't stand up for them. The Saudis were not asking the United States to strike Iran. Because they worried about the collation. Stephen you spent a lot of time thinking about Saudi Arabia. How do you assess what's happening? First of all the Saudis have said that the idea that customs lamantia was carrying some sort sort of message for Iraqi interlocutors. They say that that's not true now. Of course they have no interest in saying it's not true just as much as the Iraqis have an interest in spreading disinformation saying that in fact custom solutions. So it's it's actually really hard to know what is happening. I do think though that the Saudis particularly since the September fourteenth attack on ABC cake and Horace or the two oil facilities dismayed by the American response. The deal has long been that the United States would look after their security not because the United States love Saudis but because oil is important to global prosperity and they have subsequently I think it's clear sought to de-escalate on number a number of fronts. I think what they're hoping right now is and this goes for the Maroney's as well as that whatever blowback comes that it's not in Saudi Arabia and not in the united it Arab Emirates They've been very very quiet on this issue. Of course no not your has been shed in Riyadh for Casa Monica but certainly one of the things that they have have learned from the trump presidency that he speaks very loudly but often he's carrying a very small stick and if that means that's GonNa make them vulnerable they're going to pursue their interests in a way that's different from the United States and try to reach out to to the Iranians. But that's if I might do that is precisely what they're worried about is sort of worst of all worlds that's exactly right from his is making threats and doing provocative things and taking strikes like this but if you really do. That's right America I I you know. I've heard your your your war at one point. He said they they didn't strike us. They start the Saudis right. And I I think the took the Saudis by surprise. This was not what they're expecting when he was elected in November twenty sixteen. And I think we've heard it from as as many Saudis in Emirati that we've been in contact with that this is after the string of episodes since May of two thousand nineteen through the strikes in September that they're very wary wary of the president being provocative and unpredictable because they fear the consequences will be at their doorstep Phil. America's other major ally in the region. That's Israel Israel. How is the strike being viewed from Jerusalem? I think largely positively prime minister. Netanyahu was quick to say we had nothing to do this we. We weren't involved. which makes sense but I think the Israelis have long seen Salamone as just a direct threat to them Hezbollah? They're applauding for the most part and in Europe I have to ask you about Europe. Given the fact assistant insanitary state responsible for Europe the opposite the Europeans are nervous. They're worried about not just consequences for the nuclear deal which they have all supported but the prospect respect not just for general instability but for responses in Europe there have been Iranian plots and Actions that have killed Europeans so they are calling for de Escalation but frankly Jim I think they. They are also feeling helpless. They weren't able to salvage nuclear agreement. They weren't able to escalate. They're on the sidelines. Lesser to take it right now from sort of where we are if you had the opportunity turning to advise the trump administration to advise people who hope to succeed president trump as president. What advice would you give them for how to structure? US foreign policy toward Iran specifically. But I think toward the region more broadly which takes her to the first crack resume. You WanNA maintain contain the maximum pressure strategy. I don't think they have an option but to do that. I do think that the president would have to recognize that. His stated goal of getting involved in negotiations with Iran at this point is foreclosed at least for the remaining year if he gets reelected Iranians. We'll have to reassess that so you think that Theron on strategy right now be to wait him out. They are not at this point. Going to engage in negotiations with the United States. I think over some sort of new arrangement on the nuclear issue that that was always the president stated goal any if he's successful reelection than they have to reassess and what negotiations would look like now where where there is for all practical purposes no longer. JCP to go back to strengthen or whatever the term. Sorry that's going to be. That's going to be one of the challenges particularly as the Iranian nuclear capacity city begins to increase which it has since May of two thousand eighteen. Where every sixty days? They announced another departure in that sense. One consequence of the trump national policy is to move problem. We knew we were going to confront ten years or fifteen years..
"qasem soleimani" Discussed on The President's Inbox
"Because of all the internal problems because of all the regional problems that is experiencing because the depletion of the Treasury because of the fact that just two weeks ago so they had to kill between four hundred fifteen hundred of their own people and not just their own people but members of the lower working classes in whose name the revolution was initially the instigated. And who have been venerated from various podiums of the Islamic republic for the past forty one years. And if I'm a parent of one of those killed I WANNA know why we're having a three day a morning for Awesome Sulamani but I have to pay to get the body of my son back and I'm not allowed to bury him and more handcast calendar bring fill in here on this question of whether it it was the right decision. Yeah so we're all framing. I think rightly in terms of costs and benefits and everyone sort of agrees there some of both for me the likely costs vastly Asli outweigh the likely benefits. Most of the focus of discussion since his killing has been on cost less than I'm benefits and they have been enumerated. There's the risk of retaliation. We don't know what it will be bought. I agree with Stephen that it is likely they will do something. And the menu is vast right. I mean they've already chauvinists. They're willing to hit tankers in the Gulf to use their proxies. To blow up Saudi oil facilities pipelines have shut down a US drone in the past. They've committed some horrific terrorist attacks. They've gone after our troops in Iraq. These proxies this all started. This latest cycle started with a missile attack back or artillery attack on our troops that are in Iraq so I think there will be a cost in that space the political consequences in Iraq's even mentioned this as well. We Pretty Ironic Ironic if one of the costs of killing salamone is fulfilling his dream of getting. US troops out of Iraq leaving Iraq under the influence directly of Iran. And there's also the spill bill over into other areas which we haven't talked about yet but even the nuclear deal which has been living on. A thread was already in jeopardy and Iran was already gradually breaking with its provisions in response response to U. S. pressure but I think this tip them further and we saw they announced just this week that they're no longer going to abide by the restrictions so in the cost area. We don't know exactly what it'll be but it seems to me it could be quite high. We've already had to send another few thousand troops to the region because we're worried about this. That's been widely discussed. But I think it's fair to also ask you know it was so really muster a benefit for this. That's not the same question is was he a bad guy on that. There's a consensus. But I as talented as he allegedly was and his charismatic and well connected it in the region. Nobody is a replaceable. I reminded of de Gaulle's comment that the cemeteries are full of era for a couple of people place of all people. And we've seen this time. I'm in time again. Where we take out a leader hoping that somehow that dramatically changes the adversaries interests and capabilities and it turns out you know look at Hezbollah Hezbollah leaders have been knocked golf and then replaced and then knocked off and then replaced again? So I am on balanced. It doesn't seem to me to be a close call the only it's usually pitched in terms of reestablishing deterrence attorney. And that's what Ray referred to. This seems to me it only quote unquote works if killing him. We'll have the effect on around at the Iranian. Say Boy. Now we're in a different ballgame. We're going to stop supporting these proxies and conducting terrorist attacks and expanding on your program. You know anything's possible. But I'm that to me. That's the only way on this okay. Flakes makes sense by referring to deterrence. Fill you put on the table a question that certainly hit twitter within minutes of learning of the drone strike in that is are we headed to war with Iran and again you know. President Trump tweeted out. This wasn't meant as a move to take us toward war but basically to stop one. I think implicitly saying this is about deterrence so I'd like to give me a sense. Maybe I'll start with you ray as to whether you think we are on the road to understand. It's very dangerous. Make predictions especially about the future but I want for people sort of trying to make sense of the news coming out of Washington sort of what direction we think we're headed. Well thought out by saying whether General Selemani is easily replaceable. If all sprayed was a basketball team he's Kevin Durant. There's not that many guys on your bench that can score forty and twenty how the clutching your big NBA. There are some guys who are one in a million guys in a country like that you can come up with another one but they don't grow on you worry that you would get someone replace him. Who's not as competent net incompetence companies can create? Its own set of problems. He has a replacement there is his deputy has been replaced and his deputy was mostly as Wellman Afghantistan repression of Kurdish rebellion early and domestic domestic repression at home. So we'll see what the competence level is. But this is a basketball team without Kevin Durant. You can ask almost four years in Brooklyn Nets whether they're better off without them whether they can looked to the bench we met our quota. NBA Metaphors for the show. Now are we heading to war. I don't think so I don't think that Islamic republic has always been impressed by American power and they're also have never quite figured out how to deal with presidential his unpredictability has unsettled them. mm-hmm this offers of negotiations. There's a military strike. There's a maximum pressure strategy which has been economically quite successful in terms of the inflicted. Pain is inflict so they. I've never quite figured out how to deal with unpredictable. Precedents there have been occasions in the past and past may not be prologue when they have new president has come in and and they haven't figured out how to deal with them Ronald Reagan in one thousand nine hundred George W Bush two thousand to three initially usually during the time. When you can't figure out what this guy's all about and with his propensity is you lay low on their back foot in the near term and also I think it's very important to differentiate this episode with previous confrontations nations? Because this comes at a time when the regime is quite fragile politically and economically Stephen based on what ray has said and others have said. It's seems is quite unlikely that we're going to have a direct confrontation war between Iran and the United States. That has played out. In the desert Iraq the Iranians have proven over the course Orissa four decades that they work best in those grey zones working who proxies asymmetric warfare as defense exactly asymmetric or for now of of course. There's the unpredictability of escalation spirals. If the Iranians kill Americans in the process of responding if there is a trump doctrine it seems to be. If you killing American the United States will respond with overwhelming force and then you could be off in a situation that no one No one wanted in that Known actually predicted not on this question of deterrence. I don't think will really know until we see what the Iranians do. They say that they're taking their time. But I have to take seriously the idea that the Iranians never imagined that the United States was going to kill him slowly money in the darkest days of the Iraq war where he was overseeing efforts to kill American soldiers. The Bush administration go didn't go so far. The Israelis have not gone so far as to do that. So we'll see the Iranians seem to be on their on their back. Just last point on this question of costs and benefits fit and then clearly the costs are it it. The weight is on the cost side of the scale but there are some benefits and the benefit is the Iranians being on their back heels. The United States doing something that the Iranians never expected that customs really money is. He's not irreplaceable. But was a unique lear. Also I think that if it precipitates in American withdrawal from Iraq it might actually be a benefit. I it wouldn't be a bad thing to hang a rock around the necks of the Iranians Janis as I said before. This is a country. WanNa come back to that because I'm not so sure that things will play out so neatly but still want to give you a chance to thanks. Jim I'm I guess. More concerned learned about this risk. Then raise and even even Steven on the indispensability point. I know you wanted to ban the basketball metaphors. But the key difference among all the PODCASTS. PODCAST is getting none of. It won't take this too far but you know that's one out of five players right. I mean football would be a little bit closer. You can replace one out of eleven but we're talking about with. Iran is a vast network with thousands. The lineup is fifteen. But you see my point this is one cog in a vast network of proxies. Rg Forces a country of eighty million people. A government And by the way when that team you referred to lost their coach Steve Kerr they were still pretty darn in good lost one. NBA Force but on your question. Jim About the risk of war. The reason I'm worried I completely agree. Neither side wants a war. The United United States and president trump doesn't wanNA work around certainly doesn't want a war with the United States. They would pay an enormous price for that. But you know it's not just miscalculation I think rain mentioned the notion that Iran can't afford a war right now in a sense they can't afford a war but that's not how war start I mean Saddam Hussein couldn't afford a war with the United States. It's Assad couldn't afford award with United States Qaddafi couldn't afford a war with the United States and yet they all somehow found themselves at war with the United States. The United States has vastly more military terry capability but Iran arguably has vastly higher pain threshold. This is about their existence and what feel is a threat to the state. And what what I worry about is that they will be prepared to say to the United States. You WanNa play by our local rules. Let's see who has a higher threshold for bloody citizens and tit for tat and if if they're wrong about that in the trump administration actually is willing to use massive force to stop it. That's how you get an award. Would I didn't hear you mention was. JCP away the joint comprehensive plan of Action Action Iran nuclear talks. I thought what you might say. As one of their ways of retaliating is they're going to break out of the Iran nuclear deal. I mean they've I guess since the killing of announced announced in essence. They're done with it but they haven't actually taken the sort of steps that you would regard as sort of breakout toward a nuclear weapon. But are you worried about that. And what do we do about that. Yes look look you characterize it right. They said they're no longer going to abide by some of the operational limits that they had agreed to in the deal. They haven't said exactly how or if they plan to to exceed those limits they just don't respect them. Honor them anymore. That could also lead to the same sort of confrontation. NEURONS NOT GONNA break out in dash for bomb. That would be crazy and they would bring a likely military response by the United States. I think they'll approach that issue. Just as they've approached the confrontation more generally cautiously gradually slowly even alleged tactics. That's what they've been doing since we did this. Maximum pressure campaign. They didn't start lashing out and blowing stuff up. Very careful. Hit some tankers. Don't kill anyone. Avoid major casualties but gradually angelique ramp. It up and that's what they'll do on the nuclear side as well which they've already done little bit exceed the limit on the stockpile of enriched uranium a little bit more research on advanced centrifuges exceed seed the limit on the degree to which you can enrich install some more centrifuges and dare the trump administration to act. But the problem will be without those limits at a certain point point like boiling a frog. Those creeping gains leads to a potential breakout capability for a nuclear weapon which could lead to a decision to use military force to stop it. And can you think killing Sulejmani risked retaliation the repercussions about some strikes on. You know major Iranian facilities killing lots of people. I want to turn now to the question of the consequences. Quences of decision for the region America's role in the Middle East and Stephen. I want us to joy a bit more on on Iraq I guess questionable one would be. We had a vote by the the Iranian parliament which was barely made a quorum because against the Kurds and Sunni politicians boycotted it it was a non-binding resolution calling on the Americans to leave..
"qasem soleimani" Discussed on The President's Inbox
"Welcome to the president's inbox Assia for a podcast about the foreign policy challenges facing the United States. I'm Jim Lindsey Director Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Today's episode is part of the Special Election Twenty Twenty series on the president's inbox each week between now and the Iowa caucuses focuses. I am sitting down with experts different views and how the United States should approach the foreign policy challenges. It faces hope that the contending views will give you a fuller understanding what the candidates are in art saying on the campaign trail. This week's topic is to killing of Qassem Suleimani With.
"qasem soleimani" Discussed on PRI's The World
"By dough from entering. It was a stunning scene. That is the actual moment when Guido attempted to scale a fence around the National Assembly yesterday a while wearing a well-cut blue suit they got to the top of the tall pointed iron gate but then security men pulled him down as a result a medusa supporter order was elected speaker inside parliament while Guido was later reelected by members of parliament outside really dramatic. Yefimov Zubiaga is head of the Venezuela Zoa Working Group at the American Society Council of the Americas. That's a nonprofit aimed at a better understanding of Latin America. I asked him if one Guido was still speaker of the Venezuelan wayland National Assembly or not. I believe so Michael. I think that he's position was so relevant because he was deemed as the only legitimate democratically chronically elected represent that leader of the institution which was a National Assembly and yesterday we have seen a lot of statements from the international community. Munity saying that. What occur yesterday was you know a sham election that it was impossible for the majority members of the opposition to get into parliament so so far I think Russia has been the only international actor that has accepted the results? I haven't seen what China has said. But you know the European Union. The United States of course also notably other countries in the region like Argentina and Mexico have denounced the procedures that happened yesterday. asked for a free and fair election in parliament. Where do you think the real power lies right? Now because Venezuela has two men claiming to be President Nicholas Nicholas Maduro and Juan Guido and also two men claiming to be speaker of the assembly and one of those is also one Guido. So where's the power. Well I mean and there's two two aspects of power one of course is the de facto power so that lies of Audie in the executive branch in the military. I mean we saw the military yesterday physically. Basically impeding the members of parliament from growing inside the parliament. So that's our right there. However there's the other side of power which is legitimacy international legitimacy and also seems to be increasing on.
"qasem soleimani" Discussed on PRI's The World
"Want to pay for your kids. That's a good thing as long as someone has the documents they're going to leave. The school keeps copies of all. Its students documents. co-director Sarah Friedman says Moster from immigrant. Regret families kind of standoffish like well. Good luck with that horrible situation. You're going through. You wouldn't be nearly fifty attorneys here to help. Parents appoint went guardians. Friedman says some parents stay away from these sessions out of fear. It'll somehow tip off. Is the school's Administrative Manager Maria duquet Says they've done drills to prepare in case they do see ice officers around but the drills make her uneasy doesn't feel good doing that because it could be me wasn't documented for many years so I had to walk the same path that they are working right now and he's he's not easy easy Maria. The mother at the the beginning of the story lives here in Central Falls Rhode Island and her two children are students at learning community school. She came to one of the information sessions and she's appointed. Did her brother as her kids guardian if she and her husband or detained she knows they can be a handful though so she's also pointed a backup guardian a neighbor whose family when Maria told her son and daughter about her preparations. They weren't happy you are music caring. They begged her to never go. Go Away Maria says she tried to tell them that. Sometimes things happen that you can't control. They still don't understand but Maria says she feels better amid everything happening. She feels lucky to be in a place where she has helped to control. At least one thing the most important thing the safety of her children for the world. I'm Rupa she knew. In Central Falls Rhode Island. There's still lots going on outside of Washington in the Middle East. For example there was dramatic news out out of Venezuela this weekend for the past year president. Nicolas Maduro has been in a political standoff with one Guido the speaker of parliament there Guido. Also last last year declared himself the legitimate president of Venezuela but yesterday the Armed Forces surrounded the National Assembly building the parliament and blocked.
"qasem soleimani" Discussed on PRI's The World
"He was killed last Friday in a US drone strike in Baghdad in Iraq it was ordered by President trump. The reverberations from souleyman early Monday killing could potentially be enormous for the Middle East. The United States and the world Iran now says it's pulling back from the two thousand fifteen nuclear agreement in in Iraq. The government is taking steps toward demanding that American troops leave the country. We're GONNA start our coverage today with the Wilshire Jafari. Sharon tell us more about what you've been seeing. Mm from Tehran today. Like you said Mark. The crowd in Tehran was huge today. From what I've seen on social media as well as Iranian state media some people have compared impaired the number of people out on the street today to the size of crowd that we saw back in one thousand nine hundred thousand nine when the previous Supreme Leader I Follow Khameini Khomeini passed away and today people were chanting slogans. Were carrying pictures of Awesome Soleil money and a lot of them said they wanted answers from the US so today the general's remains were paraded through Tehran. What do we know about what happens next today? His body was taken to Tehran University. Where the supreme need? They prayed over the coffin. The footage from the funeral shows the supreme neither weeping and what happens next is that solely money's remains will be taken to the the city of on. That's a holy city about two hours drive from Tehran. And tomorrow his coffin will take into his hometown of Cayman and that's where he will be laid to rest. What have you been hearing about why the US carried out this attack? Well we have heard several explanations so far one which was announced pretty quickly on Friday was that the US officials had credible intelligence that awesome so they money was planning attacks against American can diplomats and armed forces in Iraq and other countries in the region. And that this drone attack was about self defense. Are they still offering some kind of information. Information or explanation though the explanation shifted and it turned into will awesome so they money was a bad actor in the region and that over the years he she had ordered or planned many attacks against the US and its partners so so far there are various explanations. And what has Iran been saying about. Its it's response in Iran. One Ward has been repeated in the past few days and that's revenge. Iranian officials have said that Iran plans to respond for sure and maybe even militarily but they haven't given any more details today at the funeral procession Theron simply money's daughter gave a fiery every speech and she said her father's blood was not spilled in vain Ameri Kaba sped on Shahad that's more oh Jeb Guardia beach on Michael. She also said that her father Skilling will bring Iran Iraq closer together and what about Iran's government how they responded they run in government says it will no longer comply with some of the terms of the nuclear deal that it signed with world powers in in two thousand fifteen president trump walked away from the deal last year but to be clear. Iran is still going to let inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency to come in and inspect its nuclear facilities because it continues to be a member of their empty right around still in the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. So talk of revenge in Tehran and the US is sending more troops. It sounds like the. US is sending about twenty five hundred Marines to to the Middle East. The Pentagon won't say when or rare these forces are GONNA be deployed at the same time. US says it will pause its operations against as long state in Iraq and in Syria. That's out of caution. For the safety of American personnel NATO has also said it will suspend its mission against Isis Isis. Here's what Jens Stoltenberg NATO's secretary general said today. The safety of our personnel is paramount. A search for the time being suspended our training on the ground who are taking all precautions necessary to protect take our people so both the US a NATO have now paused their operations against Isis. And it's not clear how long that will last. The the Wilshire and Jafari thanks very much for the update problem Markelle next door in Iraq. Tensions are also rising in the aftermath. Sola Monday's assassination. Several rockets landed ended in Baghdad. Last night one in the Green Zone near the US embassy. Those missiles were likely launched by Iraqi militia groups who revered Sulejmani that's according to raise razer. He teaches international relations at Shaheed Beheshti University in Iran and those Iraqi militia is easy says may have bigger plans for retaliation. I think we should expect kind of twofold revenge to come on. That's Irani's talking ability to come in a kind of calculated and not necessarily quick manner but the teams that we are witnessing now in Iraq in terms of for example. There's rocket attacks. Listen these things. This is the second aspect of revenge which is coming from. Goals are group's which considered money as on commander. There's now been a vote in Iraq parliament to expel. US troops. It's nonbinding still. President trump responded with threats for Iraq sanctions and a hefty bill billions means of dollars to repay the US if it has to withdraw. It's troops. So I called. Shams is a member of Iraq's parliament. I reached out to him in the city of Sulaimaniya Iraqi Kurdistan. Can I ask James if he cast a ballot to pull out. US troops no. I didn't participate day boycotted a rejected the whole bill and the whole notion of the take steps toward destroying relationship with United States. So that's something that we do not want that and we want to have a peaceful relationship with birth United States and Iraq. Mrs James I'm in your in the Iraqi parliament. How seriously is the parliament taking trump's threats of sanctions and this giant bill for for? US troops that have served in Iraq that he's talking about publicly threatening Iraq while you are considering Iraq as a partner while you have your soldiers in Iraq fighting Isis alongside Iraqi soldiers and you do not find a diplomatic channel or at least calling the Iraqi prime minister to better understand that bill under steps that the Iraqi government is going to who think just on twitter dispassionate Iraq is getting to be even worse for that relationship with full damage relationship even fed well. US troops are are still in Iraq the prospect though of US troops leaving. Are you worried about your country breaking down further into Shiite Sunni and Kurdish enclaves. Absolutely this is the fear that we are trying to avoid and the this is the consequences of a forceful expulsion of the US forces if it's peaceful it's based off that Marshall Andrew Standing based on request and then we negotiate their represents again through diplomatic channels and by talking to our leaders to do the White House. This is something else but this would the way that is being handled and it looks like the militias at continued to threatening the US embassy and other embassies at the Green Zone that we have most of their for nemeses. There have been bonded every night like last night. We had rockets targeted at the US embassy. This is going to really make Iraq. A war zone and other Syria will really gave rise to radical groups to exploit exploited so with presidents Bush and Obama there was a kind of consistency to their policies. Even if some say those policies were misguided does donald trump confused the Iraqi parliament. Exactly we do not understand Inet states these days. It's very hard to understand United States. We hear something from their diplomats. How much they deal with Iraqi institutions with respect even some of these militia leaders? They had some meetings with the US diplomats but it was expecting Iraq and and ignoring Iraq by the president and Era Iraqi leaders. Not having them in the White House so far not invited to the White House and just Seeing Iraq through the lenses of their anonymity with Iran is really something that we we do not see that the US seem to value of partnership with Iraq. They owned he co about Iraq when there is a crisis with Iran while we have over on interest and we have happened to the West and the north which occurs under Sunnis. They want to have a peaceful relationship with the US and also the moderate southern employees the sheer empties. They also want peaceful relationship with the United States but without accusing Iraq against Iran. This is something we cannot accept and Iraq cannot really taught rate that meanwhile I'm wondering what all of this will mean for the grass us route protesters in Baghdad who've been demonstrating since October. They were very upset as you know with corruption in Iraq. What are their feelings about Iranian influence in Iraq they will they are already starting campaign saying the parliament does not represent me which means that decision yesterday by forceful expulsion of the? US forces does is not representative. Will they know that you an. US is withdrawing when US Iraqi guy scutts out will means more delicious and that means it's all of the gains they had. The reforms is going to be over and there will be no space for peaceful assembly. That's really very sad. And I am in communication with them on daily basis. They are arrogant to take action to do something to save the relationship. Would they night stage for the sake of Iraq but that's really very helpless because just a very few. MP's indirect bottom. They have the courage to publicly. Say That publicly say that we need to save the relationship with the United States but we also need need to start doing a successful negotiation with the United States how to avoid confronting Iran on the Iraqi cycle chums a member of Iraq's parliament. But he's been speaking with us from Sulaymaniyah in Iraqi Kurdistan. Thank you very much thank you. It's red carpet season last night. The Golden Globes leading off a parade rate of upcoming entertainment awards the Globes sponsored by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. So maybe it's not too surprising that the festivities nodded to the world beyond Beverly Hills right out of the gate in fact with hose. Ricky's your vase pointing a finger in his opening monologue at one big company funneling money into the movie business apple rode into the eighteen.
"qasem soleimani" Discussed on 10 10 WINS
"Lincoln tunnel no problems getting in better out but on the Holland tunnel in down minor slowdowns inbound outbound that is nice and clear in the Brooklyn Bridge on you in Brooklyn you've got slowdowns American is ours our next report at eleven thirty one on ten ten minimalism twenty two sobering warning from the White House today the message for members of Congress according to CNN that Iran expected to retaliate quote within weeks in the wake of the strike the kill Qasem Soleimani an elite Iranian leader this on the same day mourners any rock chanted death to America funeral procession for him tonight tweets from the present that read in part let this serve as a warning that if Iran strikes any Americans or American assets we have targeted eight fifty two Iranian sites representing the fifty two American hostages taken by Iran many years ago some of the very high level important to Iran and the Iranian culture in those targets in Iran itself in all caps will be hit very fast and very hard the USA wants no more threats exclamation point well remains is on the mind of some Iranian leaders in the wake of the killing Iranians press Iran's president spoke with Solomon aids daughter the daughter asked them and said if my father were alive he would take revenge for something like that who's going to take revenge for the killing of my father than house and raw honey the president of this nation who by all right respect is a is a moderate here in Iran's political culture he said don't worry everyone will take get revenge for the killing of your father and then also said that he believes that the US didn't even understand the scale of the mistake that it had made ready plight can reporting representative Peter king Republican from Long Island former chair of the house homeland security committee gave his assessment of ten ten wins well run make a direct attack or perhaps proxy organization since that that personal a rent can't win secondly just to survive around does not want to risk an all out conflict the knight states because even though they could have resisted for a while in fact is they know in the end they will be defeated I nobody wants to what nobody wants that to happen what a ran once it that they want to survive in the Senate we gets back to work we have to deal with a Senate Democrat led resolution from Virginia's Tim came to block the president from further increasing hostilities with Iran and today the New York times says the White House telling Congress that would send formal notification under the war powers act of the drone strike the notification required by law within forty eight hours of such an action protests anti war protests here in the city and elsewhere at the DC demonstration.
'His reign of terror is over,' says Trump after the killing of Qasem Soleimani
"His reign of terror is over president trump has just spoken to reporters about his decision to launch a drone strike against Iranian general Qasem Soleimani solidarity has been perpetrating acts of terror to destabilize the Middle East for the last twenty years what the United States did yesterday should have been done long ago a lot of lives would have been saved secretary of state Mike Pompeii said the risk of doing nothing was enormous the White House doesn't plan to brief congressional leaders on the operation until next week democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden I hope the administration I pray the administration sought through the second and third order consequences of what they have chosen American lives in global stability are at
"qasem soleimani" Discussed on The Daily 202's Big Idea
"Number one will a US. Air Strike killed. Raanan cuts force commander Kassem Sulejmani in Baghdad on Thursday. The Pentagon said it's a dramatic escalation of tensions between between the two countries that could lead to widespread violence in the region and beyond Defense Secretary Mark Esper- said the Pentagon had taken decisive defensive offensive action against Sola money. He was revered military figure who is closely linked to Toronto Network of armed proxy groups across the Middle East and and according to the United States he bore responsibility for hundreds of American deaths in a statement. asper said General Sulejmani was actively developing plans is to attack American diplomats and servicemembers in Iraq and throughout the region. This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans earlier Iraqi militia officials and the country state TV channel announced that Sulejmani had been killed in an airstrike top Iraqi militia leader just outside the country's main main airport. The Iraqi Jamal Jaffar Ebrahimi. Who is better known by his nom-de-guerre Abu Madi Alma Handy's is closely associated with attacks on the US dating back to nineteen eighty to a video circulated by Shiite militia groups showed the crumpled wreckage of the vehicle in which Sulejmani was purportedly traveling accompanied by the sound of whaling? A photograph claim to show his bloodied ash strewn hand wearing the same blood. Red Ring seen earlier photos of him. Alive senior your officials with the popular mobilization forces an umbrella organization of Iran backed paramilitary groups lamented the death in messages circulating on WHATSAPP. May God accept them as martyrs in his vast mercy the chief spokesman of the P. M. F. said a US official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the record said the attack was conducted by US drone in struck a two-car convoy carrying Soleimani. And at least half a dozen others. Here's an access road near the Baghdad. International Airport the Iraqi government did not make an immediate comment about the attack despite a long period of increasing tension in between Iran and the trump administration. which has vowed a tougher stance on Toronto support for proxy groups? The attack against such a key figure in Iran security establishment and came as a surprise for many analysts in part because it was seen as likely to ignite a significant Iranian response number two in the weeks since a heart attack put his political future in doubt Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has reignited his presidential campaign. He's now making in a direct and sharp case against former vice president. Joe Biden in the final stretch. Before next month's Iowa caucuses in an interview in Des Moines. Sanders told my colleague Robert Costa that Biden's record and ties to the political establishment. Make him ill suited to defeat trump in November. Sanders urged urged Democrats to value voters appetite for sweeping change over Biden's perceived electability Sanders said quote. It's just a lot of baggage that JOE takes into a campaign which isn't going to create energy and excitement. He brings into this campaign a record which is so weak that it just cannot create the kind of excitement site and energy that is going to be needed to defeat Donald trump sanders focused on biden comes as sanders has recalibrated his efforts in Iowa where the February third caucuses will be a make or break moment for many campaigns. Not long ago few party strategists predicted sanders stood much of a chance at all with attention instead on Biden Mayor Buddha judge and Senator Elizabeth Warren but the seventy eight year old sanders has rolled out a new approach he favors town halls over the raucous rallies that defined his two thousand sixteen campaign. There is a little less talk of revolution. There is far more engagement with minority voters and everywhere he goes. He emphasizes voters anxiety about healthcare costs. If Sanders can pull off a win in Iowa his team believes he would storm to the New Hampshire primary with a burst of meant. wintom then carry that two Super Tuesday whereas campaign has made the California primary a priority positioning Vermont independent for possible long and bruising race against Biden has become increasingly central to sanders planning in part because his advisors see a fight for many of the same voters in the interview Sanders. Sanders said Biden's past backing of military intervention in Iraq would hurt him with young voters. He also cast Biden as part of the political elite cozy with Wall Street and unable to confront major financial institutions because of his support for the bank bailout in two thousand eight. The Biden campaign declined to comment finally number three president. Trump's decision to engage directly with Kim Jong UN was premised on the bet that three decades of US policy failure failures to contain North Korea's nuclear program could be reversed by skipping over lower-level diplomatic talks and starting at the top of its authoritarian regime but nineteen months after the two leaders first summit. The negotiations have broken down along the same. Sticking point past efforts that is how much sanctions nations relief. The United States is willing to offer in exchange for how much of its arsenal Pyongyang is willing to dismantle now. Pressure is mounting on trump to acknowledge college that his strategy has failed and to change course amid renewed warnings from Kim. This week that the north would soon unveil a new strategic weapon which analysts analysts said could mean a long range ballistic. Missile test diplomatic engagement has been dormant for months and the Kim regime frustrated by the stalemate has publicly rejected elected trump suggestion that the two leaders could soon meet for a fourth time for trump. The growing tensions on the Korean Peninsula suggest that Kim is increasingly in the driver's seat as the president has sought to promote his North Korea strategy as a foreign policy triumph in an election year through a flurry of short short range. Ballistic missile tests in the second half of two thousand nineteen and in a lengthy speech on New Year's Eve. The young dictator has made clear. He has continued to prioritize prioritize. The Nation's defense capabilities despite having announced a strategic shift toward economic development in two thousand eighteen in recent weeks trump's critics six including former national security adviser John Bolton and senators from both political parties have faulted his approach and implored him to take additional steps ranging ranging from new economic sanctions to pursuing an interim deal with Kim so far trump has refused to alter his course professing his personal rapport four with Kim remains positive and urging the North Korean leader not to violate that trust his mar-a-lago Golf Resort in Florida trump told reporters. I have a very good relationship with Kim Jong Un. I know he's sending out certain messages about Christmas presents and I hope his Christmas present is a beautiful wonderful vs as opposed.
"qasem soleimani" Discussed on Newsradio 1200 WOAI
"Qasem Soleimani we have all become general Soleimani I don't mercy be upon is the soul of general Sunday in the name of god and still monies vehicle was struck on an access road near Baghdad International Airport in a rock Ron supreme leader has promised a harsh retaliation is waiting for America and some Democrats are condemning president trump for authorizing the attack Bernie Sanders tweeting this when I voted against the war in Iraq in two thousand two I feared it would lead to greater destabilization of the region that fear unfortunately turned out to be true the US has lost approximately forty five hundred brave troops tens of thousands have been wounded and we've spent trillions entry Yang tweeting war with the rain is the last thing we need and it's not the will of the American people we should be acting to de escalate tensions and protect our people in the region meanwhile South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham told fox news this morning president trump's actions send a message to America's enemies around the world come after Americans on president trump's watch you do so at your peril all the things that fool fool money had done in the past for real but he's not there today because of what he did in the past is there today because he miscalculated for president trump would do regarding future attacks the US embassy in Baghdad is urging all Americans to leave a rock immediately the state department also issued a warning telling Americans not to approach the embassy in the Iraqi capital president trump tweeted this morning Arron never won a war but never lost a negotiation it's not exactly clear what the president meant by the tweet keep right here for the very latest on this developing story it is a pivotal day in court for the trump administration and its efforts to keep its former White House counsel from testifying before Congress as Democrats are demanding a three judge federal appeals court panel will hear oral arguments today on the justice department's claim that former White House counsel don McGann has absolute immunity against having to testify the ongoing inquiry into the impeachment of president trump the democratic led house won the case at the District Court level but is now trying to fend off efforts by the justice department to overturn that decision at the lower court level an appointee of president Obama ruled that completely excusing began from testifying would give president trump for any president monarch like powers that the framers of the constitution did not envision it's the news many cowboys fans have been waiting for ESPN reports of the Dallas Cowboys have decided to enter the twenty twenty season without Jason Garrett as the team's head coach a formal announcement is expected no later than tomorrow San Antonio may only have one to one major league sports team but the city is quickly cornering the market on major events the US army all American bowl which features the best high school players in the country has signed on for another four years in the Alamodome Iran Nierenberg says it reinforces San Antonio's images a destination city the most important challenges that any city has overcome when.
"qasem soleimani" Discussed on WRVA
"On the strike last night the rocket attack on the Baghdad airport from a U. S. drone that killed Qasem Soleimani who is the head of the Iranian National Guard an organization that the US considers a foreign terrorist organization that strike also killed the Iraqi militia commander and is being criticized today from by Democrats including Cory Booker whose running for president let's hear what Cory Booker had to say about the strike last night I have a lot of concerns right now is this is unfolding about that standard to the use of military force and I have a lot of concerns about a president who's already shown to have no strategy for the larger challenges we have in the Middle East especially around Iran that's Cory Booker us speaking on television last night a lot of the candidates for president will probably be out today we haven't seen on television appearances yet at least I haven't seen one by Joe Biden but I he has issued a statement saying that the president trump's actions were over the top he likened it to our tossing a stick of dynamite into a tender box and Nancy Pelosi says that this should have been the strike shouldn't have happened without the consultation of Congress she says American leaders highest priority is to protect American lives and interests but we can't put the lives of American service members diplomats and others further at risk by engaging in provocative and disproportionate actions she called it a dangerous escalation of violence a lot of people saying now that trump has started a war you know this is been said before many times and we have not seen that happen so on the Republican side there are of you know rally around supporting the decision by president trump to act decisively and in a way that he said he would he says that let's see let's talk sue is see what Marco Rubio said he he called on president trump's decisions to be appropriate and he says that he exercised admirable restraint while setting clear red lines and the consequences for crossing them also senator Jim Risch of Idaho who's the Republican chairman of the foreign relations committee in talking about the general who was killed says that his death presents an opportunity for Iraq to determine its own future free from Iranian control as you you know as we know I Iran has been controlling a lot of things in Iraq including those demonstrations that we saw at the US embassy you know those were not I rate in I ran wasn't doing that Iraq was behind that is from but by all accounts which is why they stopped when when they were told but the those the US embassy attack which didn't kill anyone was quite serious the the the gate was breach they were there for two days or fire sat there were they were ramming a protesters were ramming the bullet proof cracked glass and certainly trying to get in and the US had to send in troops to fortify its protection of the US embassy there will be learning more about this at the top of the hour but we know that it's these things are turned political a very quickly especially in an election season when we're entering twenty twenty with the you know the election less than a year away of those candidates for democratic candidates for for office are going to be weighing in and it'll be interesting to watch those arguments unfold because you know while they are making those arguments they need to stand out from their own competitors in the democratic field how are they going to do that how are they going to you know to deliver a message that resonates with their own constituents and and I I would I I for me I think one of the questions that I want to ask Dan gore about next is going to be what what is the plan of that they might provide if they think this is the wrong way to handle it what would they do if they were the president shoes and were elected you know how would they handle some of those some these ongoing issues in the Middle East our we'll find out a little bit more about that that'll be coming up next also later in the the the next hour we'll be talking with Mike mail to find out what's new in theaters Pierce homers coming up as well who's the chairman of the citizens commission that studied the navy help project and and he's going to be sharing a preview of what they're going to be presenting to city council Richmond city council on Monday that's next first let's check.