Another in an ongoing series.
Dear Senator;
I am a resident of Pennsylvania and a constituent of yours and I'd like you to answer a question or two.
About Iran, Reuters reported:
"It’s not politically correct to use the term, “Regime Change,” but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!" Trump wrote on his social media platform.Trump's post came after officials in his administration, including U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, stressed they were not working to overthrow Iran's government."This mission was not and has not been about regime change," Hegseth told reporters at the Pentagon, calling the mission "a precision operation" targeting Iran's nuclear program.Vance, in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press with Kristen Welker," said "our view has been very clear that we don't want a regime change."
So which is it?
And PBS reported:
Tulsi Gabbard left no doubt when she testified to Congress about Iran’s nuclear program earlier this year.
The country was not building a nuclear weapon, the national intelligence director told lawmakers, and its supreme leader had not reauthorized the dormant program even though it had enriched uranium to higher levels.
But President Donald Trump dismissed the assessment of U.S. spy agencies during an overnight flight back to Washington as he cut short his trip to the Group of Seven summit to focus on the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran.
“I don’t care what she said,” Trump told reporters. In his view, Iran was “very close” to having a nuclear bomb.
So, which is it?
President Trump just sent B-2 bombers halfway across the world (in what might be an illegal violation of either the War Powers Act or the Constitution itself) and yet the administration can't get its story straight.
And given that The War Powers Act begins with this:
It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
Shouldn't Congress have been notified of this attack? Or is the War Powers Act just another law that President Trump can ignore?
I'll await your answer, Senator.
