They tried to stop Trump from completing a very worthy cause.

Again, they failed.

"Democrats would rather obstruct President Trump than obliterate Iran's national nuclear program . Let that sink in. That's what the Democrats are trying to do. They want to use the war powers act as a partisan battering ram," Barrasso said.

Oh no.

No no no no.

I’m sorry, you do not get to say that.

We were all told, back in July, by the President - multiple times - that Iran’s nuclear program was already “obliterated.” The White House website is still saying it.

Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Have Been Obliterated — and Suggestions Otherwise are Fake News

President Trump : “Monumental Damage was done to all Nuclear sites in Iran, as shown by satellite images. Obliteration is an accurate term!

.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth : “Based on everything we have seen — and I’ve seen it all — our bombing campaign obliterated Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons.

.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard : “The operation was a resounding success. Our missiles were delivered precisely and accurately, obliterating  key Iranian capabilities needed to quickly assemble a nuclear weapon .”

Experts Agree: Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Have Been Obliterated

Those are quotes. So either Trump and company was lying then, or Barrasso is lying now.

You do NOT get to go around saying you are trying to obliterate Iran’s nuclear weapons program, 7 fucking months after you claimed loudly, and repeatedly that you already obliterated it.

FUCK RIGHT OFF with that shit.

You do NOT get to go around saying you are trying to obliterate Iran’s nuclear weapons program, 7 fucking months after you claimed loudly, and repeatedly that you already obliterated it.

The issue I have with this line is that you don't allow for the possibility that in the seven months Iran has started to rebuild the process. After all, they already have the knowledge and just bombing a site didn't eliminate that knowledge. There was a report the other day that Iran had 460 kg of uranium processed to 60%. How bad would it be if they just built some dirty bombs and smuggled them into Europe or here in the US? 

And yes, the Democrats are doing everything they can to obstruct Trump. It's obvious and it's a sad tale of where our politics has gone. I have no doubt if a Democrat were in the White House doing this to Iran the Republicans would be doing all the same shit. 

To be fair, Iran has been at war with the US (and Israel) since 79.  There have been several presidents who have stated that Iran needs to be dealt with, this is the first time that a president is actually doing it. 

The issue I have with this line is that you don't allow for the possibility that in the seven months Iran has started to rebuild the process.

I know what “obliterated” means. This is not a nuanced turn of phrase.

There was a report the other day that Iran had 460 kg of uranium processed to 60%.

Weapons grade is 80-90% enrichment, minimum. But if you just want to attach a high explosive to some uranium and hope for some radiation, literally anyone could do that, but you’d likely do more damage with the initial explosive.

the Democrats are doing everything they can to obstruct Trump

Not necessarily. The War Powers resolution would not automatically end whatever is happening in Iran. It just puts Congress in control of the larger details, which is how it’s supposed to be.

To be fair, Iran has been at war with the US (and Israel) since 79.

You don’t need to convince me. I am in favor of the kind of military action we are talking about in Iran. I.e., taking out ayatollahs, destroying missile production, etc. I think it’s overdue. How we go about it matters to me, though.

this is the first time that a president is actually doing it. 

Praise the Lord, put on a Hegseth work out video, pass the plate and fuck the Constitution.

Trump laments lost lives in between bribes at Mara Lago parties while ICE Barbie and Blondie try to see who can get away buying the best Mile High Club jet.

Remember this, that no matter who calls it a war, even the POTUS, it isn't a war because that would make it all illegal.

People keep thinking we can get to lasting good outcomes through acquiescence to Donald Trump. That will never happen.  He needs to be stopped not encouraged in any way. 

We never learn with this guy, and if he is allowed to, the damage to America will be endless. 

The total and complete corruption of the Department of Homeland Security has been laid out more than convincingly over the past two days.  What will be done? Nothing. Absolutely nothing until someone is willing to stand up to Trump and say "enough". 

The issue I have with this line is that you don't allow for the possibility that in the seven months Iran has started to rebuild the process.

I know what “obliterated” means. This is not a nuanced turn of phrase.

Doesn't mean they could not have started to rebuild after the sites were "obliterated". You seem to want to ignore that despite it being (as you stated) seven months since that attack.

Weapons grade is 80-90% enrichment, minimum. But if you just want to attach a high explosive to some uranium and hope for some radiation, literally anyone could do that, but you’d likely do more damage with the initial explosive.

Well duh...  I didn't say anything about them already having a bomb. I would hope you know that there is a difference however between blowing up any random piece of uranium and blowing up a piece of enriched uranium when talking about a dirty bomb. 

the Democrats are doing everything they can to obstruct Trump

Not necessarily. The War Powers resolution would not automatically end whatever is happening in Iran. It just puts Congress in control of the larger details, which is how it’s supposed to be.

That's not exactly true. It would have put a 30 day clock in which the administration would have to end all military action against Iran unless Congress voted to extend action. But of course for it to fully pass it would also have to pass the House and then be signed by Trump (which we both know he would not sign it but instead veto it). But my comment is more than just that Senate vote. Democrats are daily attempting to obstruct Trump in any way they can because of partisan politics. Agree or disagree with me really doesn't matter, this is my opinion.

To be fair, Iran has been at war with the US (and Israel) since 79.

You don’t need to convince me. I am in favor of the kind of military action we are talking about in Iran. I.e., taking out ayatollahs, destroying missile production, etc. I think it’s overdue. How we go about it matters to me, though.

So in your mind how should this be done? The action being taken right now, in my mind, is putting American service members in the least risk. Would you rather we be dropping nukes on them? Or do you want ground troops? What actions would you rather see done?

unless Congress voted to extend action

Exactly. Congress votes. That’s the Constitution at work. Why is that suddenly so objectionable to the party that claims to walk around with a copy of the document in their pockets?

which we both know he would not sign it but instead veto it

Yes, I’m aware. That, in itself is absurd. It’s supposed to work like this: Congress makes a declaration of war, which the president could veto and then Congress could override. It’s not supposed to be: President starts war, Congress tells him to stop, and the president vetoes it. The whole business is silly, and - in my opinion - unconstitutional.

Democrats are daily attempting to obstruct Trump in any way they can because of partisan politics. Agree or disagree with me really doesn't matter, this is my opinion.

I agree there is too much of this, but this is both parties and it goes back a good quarter of a century at this point.

So in your mind how should this be done?

I want a conversation between Congress and the Executive, like there is supposed to be. I have seen zero evidence that this attack was so urgent, we couldn’t have that. Additionally, I want a conversation between this country and both NATO and our allies in the region, more specifically. Say what you want about the Iraq war, but we at least had all of that going on.

That’s the Constitution at work.

That's Congress at work.  The Constitutionality   of the War Powers Act remains an open question. And since Congress has failed to exercise the act with regards to Iran, will likely remain so. 

The issue I have with this line is that you don't allow for the possibility that in the seven months Iran has started to rebuild the process.

That's like saying "The issue I have with this line is that you don't allow for the possibility that in the seven months Iran has learned destruction magic. Very powerful stuff we imagine, and who knows what they could do with it!".

Your "line" is pure fucking fantasy unless you have even a smidgen of evidence to support it. And of course, if the administration did it would be front page news, but they don't because there is no evidence, this is a fucking scam. No wonder Trump wanted the fucking dumbest most gullible people on the planet as his base, you know, those who actually still think the earth is like 6-9 thousand years old. He knew people who continue to think of the bible as scientific fact were the collective 'burnt bulbs' of America and were already open to his brand of fiction which they clearly bought into, hook, line and pussy grabber.

So here we are with his MAGA mental midgets proclaiming him the prognosticator of prognosticators and willing to take anything he says as gospel giving him a blank check to go 'wage war' against their Muslim foes. It's really fucking sick that the rest of us have to get dragged into this horse shit and that our sons and daughters will be the ones paying the price for this criminal [deleted][✘]

unless Congress voted to extend action

Exactly. Congress votes. That’s the Constitution at work. Why is that suddenly so objectionable to the party that claims to walk around with a copy of the document in their pockets?

Not objectionable, that's exactly what happened. Congress voted and the bill failed to pass. 

which we both know he would not sign it but instead veto it

Yes, I’m aware. That, in itself is absurd. It’s supposed to work like this: Congress makes a declaration of war, which the president could veto and then Congress could override. It’s not supposed to be: President starts war, Congress tells him to stop, and the president vetoes it. The whole business is silly, and - in my opinion - unconstitutional.

Did all the other actions taken by past presidents also appear to be unconstitutional to you? When Obama bombed Libya was that unconstitutional? Did you complain then? I hope you remember that the last time congress made a declaration of war was back when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. All other actions from Korea up to present day there was no declaration of war from Congress. Trump undertook the same actions that Biden did back when he authorized airstrikes against Iranian-backed militia groups in Syria and Iraq. Where you against those as well or is it only now because Trump is in office? 

Democrats are daily attempting to obstruct Trump in any way they can because of partisan politics. Agree or disagree with me really doesn't matter, this is my opinion.

I agree there is too much of this, but this is both parties and it goes back a good quarter of a century at this point.

Agreed. The best thing that could occur IMO would be for the two political parties to be removed. Admittedly it's not going to happen but that would be the best thing for the people of the US.

So in your mind how should this be done?

I want a conversation between Congress and the Executive, like there is supposed to be. I have seen zero evidence that this attack was so urgent, we couldn’t have that. Additionally, I want a conversation between this country and both NATO and our allies in the region, more specifically. Say what you want about the Iraq war, but we at least had all of that going on.

From what I've read, we've had the same conversations between those two branches that we've had for the past several Presidents. The only evidence that the attack was urgent has come from the Administration, but that's very similar to the reasons given by past presidents. The other piece of that is that we are not in the loop so you and I really have no clue as to any discussions with any allies that occurred prior to the attack. All we have is bits of information put out by main-stream media that, as I've made mention of before, I do not trust to tell the truth. 

Yes, it would have been nice if this hadn't happened, but it did. As I said above, Iran has been at war with us since 1979. We're the 'Great Satan'. We had negotiators with Iran where they could see all the military build-up and they refused offers. Had they agreed to give up uranium enrichment, we would have given them the fuel for their nuclear reactor. They refused. They have publicly declared that they wanted to completely destroy Israel, can you honestly say that had the built a nuclear bomb that they would not have shot it at Israel? Do you really think that the MAD doctrine would work with religious fanatics who believe in a paradise if they die in conflict against kifar? 

Did all the other actions taken by past presidents also appear to be unconstitutional to you?

All? I’m not prepared to review them all. That would be a lot. But most of them? Yes, probably. Going back to Korea. Vietnam. Granada. Desert Storm. Iraq the second time. Afghanistan. All bullshit.

When Obama bombed Libya was that unconstitutional? Did you complain then?

Yes. I did. Very much so.

I hope you remember that the last time congress made a declaration of war was back when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.

Oh, yes, I know. Consider that. An American naval base was attacked. Thousands killed. Several of our ships destroyed. There could not be a clearer example of America being directly attacked.

And STILL…President Roosevelt went to Congress and asked them to declare war on Japan. If it was good enough for FDR, it should be good enough for Truman and everyone who followed. We have been doing it wrong for 75 years.

Iran has been at war with us since 1979

Then we have had over 45 years to declare war on them. 45 years and there was no rush. No imminent threat. And suddenly, just a few months after allegedly obliterating their ability to produce nuclear weapons, we had to attack right now, without a declaration of war. Really?

As I said way back in @2.1.1, I am not opposed to military action against Iran. I just want it done the way it’s supposed to be done. Declare war. It’s what we are doing. We should be honest about it and own it.

Then Congress needs to take back the War Powers Act. Right now they're just a partisan aligned argument factory. Until they can do that, there's not much more to discuss. I see that the House also voted down a bill to halt Trump from continuing. My suggestion is they should look at this once the Iran issue is finished and settled. For myself I think the action against Iran is correct and based on history it is constitutional and legal for the Administration to go down this path. 

The House of Representatives narrowly voted to allow President   Donald Trump   to continue Operation Epic Fury in Iran on Thursday.

A bipartisan resolution led by Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., failed to pass after four Democrats joined most Republicans in sinking it, 212 to 219.

The legislation was aimed at blocking Trump from using the   Armed Forces   in the joint U.S.-Israeli operation in Iran, which would likely force the strikes to grind to a halt.

foxnews

Torpedoing a ship on the high seas without a declaration of war is a crime.

Doing it during shift change could have been a coincidence but doubtful. 

It violates Admiralty Law, U.N. law, and USA Federal laws.

We were all told, back in July, by the President - multiple times - that Iran’s nuclear program was already “obliterated.”

Yes. And we have evidence that Iran is trying to rebuild it.


Those are quotes. So either Trump and company was lying then, or Barrasso is lying now.

Why can't two things be true?

What proof do you have that we didn't destroy Iran's nuclear sites?

If  someone thinks  it’s reasonable to spend tens of billions of dollars and decades to build a block of train tracks, the concept of how quickly construction can occur when the goal is to work quickly cannot be easily grasped.  The reality of how much can be accomplished in a year is impossible for them to believe.

Clearly Iran was in the final phase of producing a nuclear weapon. Rational human beings don't put themselves in a position of being blackmailed by an insane radical regime.

And we have evidence that Iran is trying to rebuild it.

Do we, now? You are welcome to share that evidence.

Why can't two things be true?

The willingness to believe the unbelievable - because of politics - is truly awe-inspiring.

Two different things can be true. Like I am smart and good-looking.

Two opposite things cannot be true. Like a thing cannot be both obliterated and not obliterated.

What proof do you have that we didn't destroy Iran's nuclear sites?

President Trump told us we did. What more do you need?

Do we, now? You are welcome to share that evidence.

Here:

"Alireza Jafarzadeh, deputy director of the Washington office of the  National Council of Resistance of Iran  (NCRI), said newly released satellite images also prove the regime has accelerated its efforts to restore its "$2 trillion" uranium enrichment capabilities."



Iran secretly rebuilding nuclear sites after US strikes, opposition says | Fox News

wo  different  things can be true. Like I am smart  and  good-looking.

Two  opposite  things cannot be true. Like a thing cannot be both obliterated and not obliterated.

In this case the US destroyed something, and Iran is trying to rebuild it.


President Trump told us we did. What more do you need?

AKA the logic of the left.

AKA the logic of the left.

Yes, taking the Republican president and his cabinet officials at their word is a typical leftist thing to do, and it’s outrageous.

Yes, taking the Republican president and his cabinet officials at their word is a typical leftist thing to do

Not really.  It is the picking and choosing between saying he always lies and then quoting what he said to make a point that make many look like they are not  the sharpest tool in the shed.

When you have zero evidence that they are wrong, maybe you shouldn't be calling them liars.

Okay Vic! Do foreign governments pay Trump's tariffs, or not? I rest my case!

Gee, as someone who doesn't buy foreign imports, I don't pay tariffs, so I wouldn't know.

Gee, as someone who doesn't buy foreign imports, I don't pay tariffs, so I wouldn't know.

Is that an example of you winning debates on NT ?  ROFL. 

Except you do know. You know Trump lied! 

as someone who doesn't buy foreign imports, I don't pay tariffs, so I wouldn't know.

By your logic:

You're not a member of Congress, so you wouldn't know how the Senate voted on the War Powers resolution.

You've never been to Iran, so you wouldn't know anything about their government.

You probably don't buy too many American made products either since 48% of them are made with foreign-sourced inputs subject to Trump tax.

I thought it was the perfect response to an off topic question.

Think again.

1. You're not a member of Congress, so you wouldn't know how the Senate voted on the War Powers resolution.

I don't have to be a member of congress to know how they vote. It is a matter of record.


2. You've never been to Iran, so you wouldn't know anything about their government.

I don't have to live in Iran to know what the regime has done. Did you have to live in Nazi Germany to know all about that government?


You probably don't buy too many American made products either since 48% of them are made with foreign-sourced inputs subject to Trump tax.

I buy enough and am interested enough to know how much manufacturing we lost to China.

I've been gracious thus far. 

It is a matter of record, and common knowledge, that the American consumer pays for the Trump tax on foreign imports.

That is not what I was asked.

So we should listen to Trump? Or we shouldn’t? Which is it?

maybe you shouldn't be calling them liars

The typical snowflake response of today’s right wing. “Don’t call us names! Why is the Left so mean and ill-mannered?” When you can’t discuss the topic, whine like babies about name-calling.

To be precise, I didn’t call anyone a liar. I argued that one of them must be lying about this particular thing.

‘Is that an example of you winning debates on NT’
Far better than some who challenge others to a debate, then when the debate is accepted, the challenger goes straight to insults. 

I would rather take the word os someone’s personal experience than a coward.

It is the picking and choosing between saying he always lies and then quoting what he said to make a point that make many look like they are not

Don't you just love the hypocrisy of it all 

Don't you just love the hypocrisy of it all

And the predictability of what they will choose to believe or when he is lying.

IMO you should take anything a politician says with a grain of salt.

It is the picking and choosing between saying he always lies and then quoting what he said to make a point

Shhhh.  You weren't supposed to notice that.