If I Were A Senator

How would I vote?

Let's take count 2 first; obstruction of congress. Very weak. I agree with liberal, Democratic lawyer Jonathan Turley, (amazingly) called by Republicans to analyze (and refute) the House Dems charges. He pointed out the President had every right to go to court and attempt to block what the committee majority was attempting, he might win; he might lose, but he had those rights (as you and I do). The Dems chose not to go, because it might take too long. That is their judgment call, but it cost them Bolton, Mulvaney, and some others whose public utterances so far could have buttressed their case.
It's a weak unsubstantiated  charge. I would vote No.


Count 1 is a very different matter. By his own utterances, to the media and others, and in the transcript of his famous call to the Ukrainian president, he violated an important federal law. He asked a foreign government for help in his/our domestic politics.  (It is not a favor when the head of the world's most powerful nation asks a new head of a country under siege, and which needs our arms in a domestic civil war to assist in his campaign, and it is, and has been for years, against the law. The transcript is enough, but it is supported by much testimony, including 2 ambassadors, that Lt. Col., and even what Rudy G. has said on TV.) The president also sought Russian aid in 2016 as the Mueller report has strongly documented.  Mr. Trump also said in one of his White House driveway news conferences that he saw nothing wrong with asking the Chinese for similar help. That's three.


On Count 1 , as an impartial juror, based on the evidence presented, I would have to vote Yes.

I'm just sayin'...

It's A Mess!

Several decades ago I was in a group of American reporters invited to Israel on a press junket. On our first day there we were briefed (in the Cabinet Room!) by a young, hotshot spokesman for the Prime Minister. He said two things that I have always remembered. One was "this meeting is on such deep background (Nothing may be attributed to the government) that you are hallucinating if you think this meeting ever took place." The other was "you know as much today about the Middle East as you will ever learn." I have thought of that last remark many times over the years in contemplating news out of that much confusing, dangerous area of our world--and it came back to me considering the horrible events of recent days,

Killing that general was wrong. I'd never heard of him; had you? But it was more of a policy Americans should never back--political assassination. There's blood on my hands today--and yours--because of what our President did. It just justifies some other country killing him. Have we forgotten the conspiracy theories that because our CIA tried to kill Castro (yes, we did, several times) the Cubans, through a stooge named Oswald, killed JFK??

The "evidence" that the general was plotting to kill Americans hasn't been given us normal citizens, but many in Congress, including GOP members, who have seen it say it is not convincing. The administration owes us much more proof.

And the way this all started; an Iranian-backed group (inside Iraq) killed a "US contractor" (not a GI!) so we killed the general.  BTW, that "contractor" was an Iranian, who later became an American citizen. Ironic in the extreme. And the President's action put our troops in harm's way. Was it worth it?  No. Not In the short term, and certainly not in the "long" term--that is, starting another war.

For now, the US has backed down..after saying we don't think Iran "really meant" to kill GI's on that base north of Baghdad, which is pure malarkey.  It's the old "surgical strike" crap many US administrations have been putting out for years; the one intended to only kill enemy combatants that end up killing civilians instead, and it's still true for Iran, which probably breathed a huge sigh of relief that no GI's were killed in the 16 missiles they launched. Thank heavens.

Meanwhile, what do we do? Tell Barr and McConnell (and Paul who has been smart enough to oppose war actions there) we do NOT want a war in the Middle East, or anywhere else. (War is bad for all growing things, remember) We have given Iran international justification for attacks on us, and that is not only wrong, but just think of what would happen in the White House if Russia, or China, or North Korea would do something (anything) serious.  We would "know" it was Iran, not think twice, and off we go to WW 2.1 .

Killing that guy was wrong, badass he may have been, but this is not the way to settle international disputes, and Mr. Trump's actions have set some very bad precedents for our world. And even worse precedents for our Constitution which clearly and plainly says the President--and the Congress--keep violating that simple section on who and how WAR is declared. And the crap about invoking the War Powers Act (a way to amend the Constitution without amending it, which has never been tested in court) begets the point; America is also a badass, and the entire globe wonders if we will blunder into a war in the Middle East which in no way can be contained to that contentious part of our world.

It's a mess, and largely of our own making. Iran is hardly an innocent, but when you consider that in the last half century the US has: overthrown a democratically elected government in Iran (for oil, folks, oil,) then backed Iran against Iraq, then backed Iraq against Iran, then put the entire world on the brink of war over one man you & I had never heard of, well I wonder if the Trump administration really knows and understands the Middle East any more than I did decades ago on my visit there.
 
But, unlike me, in their ignorance could lie catastrophe for us all.

I'm just sayin'...