Democrats Erupt Over Trump’s Iran Strikes

[IM2]

Democrats are weak. We plan to hammer that home from now until November.

You guys are going to take a whipping. If you think Trump and Mike Johnson is strength, you are sorely mistaken.

 

[IM2]

Everyone knows it is not about America to democrats. It's about power for the most radical party in this nation's history, including the Civil War. No matter the issue they will side against Trump. They are like toothless rabid wolfs howling for all to see. If it weren't for stupid this party would have ended with the Civil War.

Everything you say about Democrats is what Republicans are doing.

 

[IM2]

The Senate, huh? What’s their path to a +4 pick up in the Senate without losing any seats?

We might just see in November.

 

[Doc7505]

A federal agency said missiles that could reach the U.S. are years away​

The Defense Intelligence Agency released a missile threat assessment in May 2025 that said Iran could develop a long-range missile by 2035 if it chooses to pursue it.

"The U.S. intelligence community has been making a similar assessment (that Iran might have an (intercontinental ballistic missile) in a decade) since the mid-1990s," Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, told PolitiFact.

The White House did not immediately reply to PolitiFact’s request for comment about Trump’s statement that Iran could "soon" have missiles capable of reaching the U.S.

Richard Nephew, who worked for the U.S. government on Iranian issues during the Biden administration, said Iran already has missiles that can reach parts of eastern Europe.

Intercontinental ballistic missiles "are harder for Iran to achieve now and I have no reason to doubt DIA’s assessment," Nephew said. "Iran does have the ability to hit Europe and is working towards capabilities that could target the United States, but that those capabilities are still many years away."

These timelines don’t account for the possibility of other countries helping Iran develop or obtain this technology, said Michael Singh, managing director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Singh worked in the U.S. government, including the White House, from 2005 to 2008.

Trump launches Iran strikes with unproven statements

The US and Israel attacked Iran on Feb. 28. President Donald Trump said Iran could soon have missiles capable of reaching the US, but a 2025 federal government assessment said that’s years away.

www.politifact.com

Even before trump's war began the regime was seeking to muddy the waters on the facts.

Indeed, the Democrat regime has attempted to muddy the waters by refusing to stand with America for National Security, safe borders and safe cities where people can walk safely after dark.
Instead they petulantly and like children hold the gov't hostage by refusing to fund DHS, because Trump is ruining their open borders and deals with foreign belligerents like Iran, Russia and China.

 

[Doc7505]

You guys are going to take a whipping. If you think Trump and Mike Johnson is strength, you are sorely mistaken.

<~~~~~~~~~~>​

Southern Dad is correct... Democrats are seditious, feckless, ineffective, backstabbing untrustworthy, lying, left leaning Socialists.

 

[IM2]

<~~~~~~~~~~>​

Southern Dad is correct... Democrats are seditious, feckless, ineffective, backstabbing untrustworthy, lying, left leaning Socialists.

Everything that one of you MAGATS says about Democrats is what you Republicans are.

 

[Blisterfinger]

Day by day Trump is becoming another Putin.

Day by day you become more traitorous to the United States shitmouth.

 

[Blisterfinger]

A MAGA raaaaaant when Biden was POTUS:

"We bombed them for the Joooooz again"!

You a big Biden supporter shitmouth?

 

[Southern Dad]

You guys are going to take a whipping. If you think Trump and Mike Johnson is strength, you are sorely mistaken.

It is highly unlikely that the Republicans do lose the House, but I don’t see a path to a +4 in the Senate.

 

[Southern Dad]

We might just see in November.

In other words, you don’t see a path to a +4 in the Senate either and are living on hope.

 

[Etymology gaslight]

They're mad Obama or Biden didn't do it. Anything that makes Trump look good, and killing a high ranking terrorist does that, they are against.

Petty war envy

 

[mudwhistle]

Funny how the ONLY DEMOCRAT with a functioning brain right now is Fetterman. He stated this morning correctly that President Trump had a totally legal basis for ordering the attack on Iran. The Dramacrats are doing the only thing they can do. Marvel at the leader that they will never be while squealing like pigs.

Democrats figure their only option is to raise hell about everything Trump does.

Even if it means screaming bloody-murder every time he does exactly what they did in the past.

 

[martybegan]

Democrats figure their only option is to raise hell about everything Trump does.

Even if it means screaming bloody-murder every time he does exactly what they did in the past.

Or things that would be beneficial to the US in the long run.

 

[berg80]

The Law of Going to War with Iran, Redux​

This past June, I wrote a piece in Lawfare that anticipated and critiqued the legal arguments that the Trump administration ultimately put forward to justify its decision to join Israel’s earlier military campaign and strike Iran’s nuclear sites. Many of those arguments are now being deployed once again, but in a different context to justify a far more ambitious military campaign. This article updates my prior analysis to this new reality, both to shed more light on how the Trump administration appears to be justifying its recent actions and to situate those arguments against broader historical practice.

All told, Trump’s decision to use such broad military force against Iran pushes against the legal limits on his authority in almost characteristic fashion. His apparent international legal arguments lean heavily on permissive U.S. interpretations of when states may resort to the use of force, while his domestic legal arguments seem likely to focus narrowly on the limited risks to U.S. servicemembers without constraining how the president may use military force beneath that high threshold. While neither set of arguments are entirely without precedent, prior presidential administrations have generally approached their limits with a degree of caution; Trump and his advisors are instead leveraging them to the hilt. As in so many other areas, the end result is a clear vision of a president with few hard legal constraints, so long as he does not feel obligated to exercise his legal authority in good faith. Only here, the most severe consequences of these actions are not being felt by Americans, but by individuals in Iran and across the broader Middle East now caught in their wake.

The Law of Going to War with Iran, Redux

The Trump administration’s attack on Iran pushes even the executive branch’s generous understandings of the President’s legal authority to their limits.

www.lawfaremedia.org