US President Donald Trump on Wednesday vetoed what he called a "very insulting" congressional resolution seeking to limit his war powers in Iran.
In a statement, Trump said he had used his veto because the resolution -- a rare bipartisan rebuke to the president approved in March -- was based on "misunderstandings of facts and law."
The measure stemmed from fears among both Trump's Republicans and Democrats that the White House was stumbling into war with the Islamic republic.
I was against this effort:
Congress is free to wrestle with the president on war powers. It is complicated. Not that Congress could override a Trump veto on the resolution preventing him from taking "any military action against Iran without Congressional approval. That is too broad to be sustained by the courts, I think, given the president's role as commander in chief of the military. And I think it is shameful to assert that Congressional right in defense of Iran, making the legislation Iran's first line of defense. But that's just me I guess. On the other hand, maybe it isn't so harmful if--and given Iran's threats is that realistic?--it encourages Iran to keep their military options dormant lest they do something that not even this Congress will ignore. Since economic squeezing is our main effort to defeat Iran, that would not be a bad effect, eh?
And I saw this Congressional effort as a gift to the mullahs, who we need to destroy because they have made America their enemy and not the other way around.
