Captain Crazy blows up the leadership from Iran and that Iranians need to take control of the leadership.. what if they can't? What if the current administration is holds up in a few places to stop an overthrow of the current government?

The Democrats’ Instant ‘No’

A savvier party would have waited before lashing out against the attack on Iran.

By Barton Swaim
March 4, 2026 5:12 pm ET


On Saturday, Donald Trump became a wartime president. The conflict in Iran will likely dominate his attention from now until he leaves office in 2029. Some of his extracurricular fixations - personal vendettas, online foolery - could get less attention. Whatever the war’s outcome, by authorizing a direct attack on a dangerous regime, Mr. Trump has given his remaining time in office to a president’s highest duty—protecting America’s homeland, military bases and allies from menace.

Liberal commentators and Democrats on the Hill responded to this momentous turn of events in precisely the way they would have responded if Mr. Trump had done the opposite: with imputations of incompetence and foul motives. If the president hadn’t called a massive fighting force to the Persian Gulf and launched an attack, his despisers would have accused him of wasting resources on - fill in the blank - and ignoring the real threat in Tehran.

Democrats, with a few brave exceptions, accuse the administration of proffering a variety of “rationales” for the war, with the implication that it acted in pursuit of some hidden goal. They ignore the possibility that an administration might have more than a single reason for assaulting an enemy.

The Iranian regime’s enduring malignity, together with its people’s demonstrated desire to be free of it, makes the administration’s explanatory duties easier. Anyway, as our experience in Iraq reminds us, it’s possible to overexplain and overplan. What’s more interesting is the Democrats’ instantaneous and intense hostility to the operation.

Their stated reasons are basically three. First, it’s “illegal” and “unconstitutional.” Second, the threat from Iran wasn’t “imminent.” Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, writing for the Journal on Sunday, combined these two: “As a member of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees... I can state plainly that there was no imminent threat from Iran to America sufficient to warrant committing our sons and daughters to another war in the Middle East—especially without the congressional debate and vote that the Constitution requires.”

Hooey. If the Constitution requires congressional approval, there’s no “especially” about it. The senator has seen the long list of war-making decisions taken by presidents of both parties in the absence of congressional votes. As for his denial that the threat was “imminent,” I wonder what the word could mean: Iran has attempted to assassinate assorted American dignitaries, including the president. It funds terror groups across the Middle East and slaughtered 30,000 demonstrators a few weeks ago. Its rulers express Nazi-like ambitions of annihilating its enemies, even as they don’t bother to hide a mad hunger for long-range missiles and nuclear technology. For Mr. Kaine, I guess, imminence would mean the ayatollah’s finger poised above a red button labeled LAUNCH.

The third stated reason for opposition, this one invented on the fly, has to do with Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s supposed admission that Israel dragged the U.S. into war. In context, Mr. Rubio was explaining why the launch happened on Saturday, Feb. 28, instead of some other day, not why it happened at all. But parts of the Democratic base will thrill to the claim that Israel made us do it.

Those are the stated reasons for Democratic hostility. The unstated reasons?

The Democrats’ reaction to the attack on Iran arises partly from the pusillanimous urge to avoid all friction with the progressive left. That’s the same urge that led the Biden administration to modify its Mideast policy in deference to the Muslim vote in Michigan, which Kamala Harris lost anyway.

Then there is the experience of Iraq. In 2002, 81 House Democrats and 29 Senate Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, voted to authorize force in Iraq; six years later, Barack Obama defeated Mrs. Clinton and won the presidency on the strength of having opposed the war. Democrats have internalized that lesson.

The differences with the Iraq war are several. The obvious one is the absence of a ground invasion in Iran, but others deserve a mention. Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons in the past, and his need to represent himself as a Middle East bad boy prevented him from proving he didn’t have the weapons anymore. In 2026, the Khamenei regime hasn’t managed to get a deliverable nuclear device, but for years it has advertised its aim to get and use one.

Which takes us back to Mr. Obama. He premised his foreign-policy outlook on the proposition that the George W. Bush administration had everything exactly wrong. This led him to hold Gulf allies and Israel at arm’s length and to embrace Iran. In one of history’s great displays of educated gullibility, legions of foreign-policy experts accepted the belief that Iran’s rulers would learn the benefits of civilian-use nuclear power and join the community of nations. That delusion more than any other prevented U.S. policymakers for more than a decade from acknowledging Iran’s constant, active malevolence.

A savvier opposition than today’s Democrats would have practiced some circumspection in the early days of Epic Fury. Now they’ll benefit only if America fails.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-demo...nt-no-23876a3e

The Democrats’ Instant ‘No’

A savvier party would have waited before lashing out against the attack on Iran.

By Barton Swaim
March 4, 2026 5:12 pm ET


On Saturday, Donald Trump became a wartime president. The conflict in Iran will likely dominate his attention from now until he leaves office in 2029. Some of his extracurricular fixations - personal vendettas, online foolery - could get less attention. Whatever the war’s outcome, by authorizing a direct attack on a dangerous regime, Mr. Trump has given his remaining time in office to a president’s highest duty—protecting America’s homeland, military bases and allies from menace.

Liberal commentators and Democrats on the Hill responded to this momentous turn of events in precisely the way they would have responded if Mr. Trump had done the opposite: with imputations of incompetence and foul motives. If the president hadn’t called a massive fighting force to the Persian Gulf and launched an attack, his despisers would have accused him of wasting resources on - fill in the blank - and ignoring the real threat in Tehran.

Democrats, with a few brave exceptions, accuse the administration of proffering a variety of “rationales” for the war, with the implication that it acted in pursuit of some hidden goal. They ignore the possibility that an administration might have more than a single reason for assaulting an enemy.

The Iranian regime’s enduring malignity, together with its people’s demonstrated desire to be free of it, makes the administration’s explanatory duties easier. Anyway, as our experience in Iraq reminds us, it’s possible to overexplain and overplan. What’s more interesting is the Democrats’ instantaneous and intense hostility to the operation.

Their stated reasons are basically three. First, it’s “illegal” and “unconstitutional.” Second, the threat from Iran wasn’t “imminent.” Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, writing for the Journal on Sunday, combined these two: “As a member of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees... I can state plainly that there was no imminent threat from Iran to America sufficient to warrant committing our sons and daughters to another war in the Middle East—especially without the congressional debate and vote that the Constitution requires.”

Hooey. If the Constitution requires congressional approval, there’s no “especially” about it. The senator has seen the long list of war-making decisions taken by presidents of both parties in the absence of congressional votes. As for his denial that the threat was “imminent,” I wonder what the word could mean: Iran has attempted to assassinate assorted American dignitaries, including the president. It funds terror groups across the Middle East and slaughtered 30,000 demonstrators a few weeks ago. Its rulers express Nazi-like ambitions of annihilating its enemies, even as they don’t bother to hide a mad hunger for long-range missiles and nuclear technology. For Mr. Kaine, I guess, imminence would mean the ayatollah’s finger poised above a red button labeled LAUNCH.

The third stated reason for opposition, this one invented on the fly, has to do with Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s supposed admission that Israel dragged the U.S. into war. In context, Mr. Rubio was explaining why the launch happened on Saturday, Feb. 28, instead of some other day, not why it happened at all. But parts of the Democratic base will thrill to the claim that Israel made us do it.

Those are the stated reasons for Democratic hostility. The unstated reasons?

The Democrats’ reaction to the attack on Iran arises partly from the pusillanimous urge to avoid all friction with the progressive left. That’s the same urge that led the Biden administration to modify its Mideast policy in deference to the Muslim vote in Michigan, which Kamala Harris lost anyway.

Then there is the experience of Iraq. In 2002, 81 House Democrats and 29 Senate Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, voted to authorize force in Iraq; six years later, Barack Obama defeated Mrs. Clinton and won the presidency on the strength of having opposed the war. Democrats have internalized that lesson.

The differences with the Iraq war are several. The obvious one is the absence of a ground invasion in Iran, but others deserve a mention. Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons in the past, and his need to represent himself as a Middle East bad boy prevented him from proving he didn’t have the weapons anymore. In 2026, the Khamenei regime hasn’t managed to get a deliverable nuclear device, but for years it has advertised its aim to get and use one.

Which takes us back to Mr. Obama. He premised his foreign-policy outlook on the proposition that the George W. Bush administration had everything exactly wrong. This led him to hold Gulf allies and Israel at arm’s length and to embrace Iran. In one of history’s great displays of educated gullibility, legions of foreign-policy experts accepted the belief that Iran’s rulers would learn the benefits of civilian-use nuclear power and join the community of nations. That delusion more than any other prevented U.S. policymakers for more than a decade from acknowledging Iran’s constant, active malevolence.

A savvier opposition than today’s Democrats would have practiced some circumspection in the early days of Epic Fury. Now they’ll benefit only if America fails.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-demo...nt-no-23876a3e Originally Posted by lustylad

That’s a Wall Street Journal opinion column arguing a particular view of the decision to strike Iran. Opinion pieces can be interesting to read, but they’re still arguments rather than evidence.

The column basically boils down to saying Democrats reacted too quickly and that Iran represents an obvious threat. But the questions people are actually debating are things like whether the threat was truly imminent, whether Congress should have been involved, and what the long-term consequences of military action might be.

Simply calling those concerns “hooey” doesn’t really address them. It mostly just tells us which side of the argument the writer prefers.

That’s a Wall Street Journal opinion column arguing a particular view of the decision to strike Iran. Opinion pieces can be interesting to read, but they’re still arguments rather than evidence.

The column basically boils down to saying Democrats reacted too quickly and that Iran represents an obvious threat. But the questions people are actually debating are things like whether the threat was truly imminent, whether Congress should have been involved, and what the long-term consequences of military action might be.

Simply calling those concerns “hooey” doesn’t really address them. It mostly just tells us which side of the argument the writer prefers. Originally Posted by fd-guy

Of course it's an opinion piece. It's a WSJ Op-ed. "Op" stands for opinion. Did you read it? The author specifically addresses two of the questions you cite - "whether the threat was truly imminent, (and) whether Congress should have been involved". He doesn't call those concerns "hooey". Feel free to counter his arguments intelligently. Go ahead and define "imminent". Then go ahead and explain why Congress didn't need to be involved (per Nancy Pelosi) when Obama launched a bombing campaign against Libya in late 2011 that dragged on for 7-1/2 months.

As for the "long-term consequences of military action", nobody can predict that with any degree of certainty. This is the Middle East, and we're only 6 days in. Prudence and circumspection would seem to be the wiser course, but those qualities have vanished among TDS-crazed Democrats. The author does an excellent job in explaining the "unstated reasons" why Dems have reacted with such "instantaneous and intense hostility to the operation". And the last sentence tells us the sad truth - "now they'll benefit only if America fails". That's not the side of the argument I would choose to be on.

Of course it's an opinion piece. It's a WSJ Op-ed. "Op" stands for opinion. Did you read it? The author specifically addresses two of the questions you cite - "whether the threat was truly imminent, (and) whether Congress should have been involved". He doesn't call those concerns "hooey". Feel free to counter his arguments intelligently. Go ahead and define "imminent". Then go ahead and explain why Congress didn't need to be involved (per Nancy Pelosi) when Obama launched a bombing campaign against Libya in late 2011 that dragged on for 7-1/2 months.

As for the "long-term consequences of military action", nobody can predict that with any degree of certainty. This is the Middle East, and we're only 6 days in. Prudence and circumspection would seem to be the wiser course, but those qualities have vanished among TDS-crazed Democrats. The author does an excellent job in explaining the "unstated reasons" why Dems have reacted with such "instantaneous and intense hostility to the operation". And the last sentence tells us the sad truth - "now they'll benefit only if America fails". That's not the side of the argument I would choose to be on. Originally Posted by lustylad

Yes, I read it. It’s an opinion column — which means it contains the author’s argument, not proof that the argument is correct.

If op-eds settle factual debates, I can easily find several arguing the opposite.

If the case for imminence and bypassing Congress is solid, there should be something stronger than “a WSJ columnist says so.” What evidence are you basing it on?

Yes, I read it. It’s an opinion column — which means it contains the author’s argument, not proof that the argument is correct.

If op-eds settle factual debates, I can easily find several arguing the opposite.

If the case for imminence and bypassing Congress is solid, there should be something stronger than “a WSJ columnist says so.” What evidence are you basing it on? Originally Posted by fd-guy

Wow, you disappoint me again. I just acknowledged it's an opinion piece, got that?

You don't always "prove" an argument is correct. Sometimes you have to listen to both sides of an argument, and weigh which is more persuasive. If you can't offer intelligent counter-arguments, you'll usually "lose" the debate in the minds of impartial judges and listeners.

Bottom line - simply dismissing an argument with a flippant "aww... but that's just your opinion" is intellectually lazy and utterly unpersuasive.

You still haven't defined "imminent" or explained why it was ok for Obama to bypass Congress when he bombed Libya back in 2011. (There are other precedents too. Does the requirement only apply to Republican Presidents?)

got to love the lefties on the democratic team

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...dd571263&ei=60

Wow, you disappoint me again. I just acknowledged it's an opinion piece, got that?

You don't always "prove" an argument is correct. Sometimes you have to listen to both sides of an argument, and weigh which is more persuasive. If you can't offer intelligent counter-arguments, you'll usually "lose" the debate in the minds of impartial judges and listeners.

Bottom line - simply dismissing an argument with a flippant "aww... but that's just your opinion" is intellectually lazy and utterly unpersuasive.

You still haven't defined "imminent" or explained why it was ok for Obama to bypass Congress when he bombed Libya back in 2011. (There are other precedents too. Does the requirement only apply to Republican Presidents?) Originally Posted by lustylad

Your disappointment doesn’t really belong in the argument, and it’s not meaningful to me one way or the other. You may want to save it for someone who’s motivated by that sort of thing.

An opinion column presents an argument; it doesn’t settle the factual or legal questions on its own. Those still depend on the underlying evidence and legal reasoning.

The Libya example you keep raising is a red herring — basically whataboutism that shifts the conversation away from the current situation. The 2011 Libya intervention involved a multilateral NATO operation backed by a UN Security Council resolution and framed as a limited air campaign. Whether people supported it or not, it’s clearly a different situation from the one being discussed here.

At this point it just sounds like you’re trying to drag the conversation into a completely different debate because the current one isn’t going the way you’d hoped.

Your disappointment doesn’t really belong in the argument, and it’s not meaningful to me one way or the other. You may want to save it for someone who’s motivated by that sort of thing.

Relax. It just means I expected a better argument from you. You should be flattered. My expectations for most eccie posters are way lower.


An opinion column presents an argument; it doesn’t settle the factual or legal questions on its own. Those still depend on the underlying evidence and legal reasoning.

Why do you keep railing against "opinion columns"? None of the columnists I read on a regular basis present arguments devoid of facts or reasoning. That's what makes them persuasive or not. You can't always expect to "settle" every argument. Evidence can be presented by both sides. Then the question becomes which side presents stronger evidence in support of more persuasive opinions.



The Libya example you keep raising is a red herring — basically whataboutism that shifts the conversation away from the current situation. The 2011 Libya intervention involved a multilateral NATO operation backed by a UN Security Council resolution and framed as a limited air campaign. Whether people supported it or not, it’s clearly a different situation from the one being discussed here.

Lol. A "red herring" is an irrelevant distraction. The 2011 Libya intervention is directly relevant here. There are lots of other examples too. Google this - "examples where US Presidents took unilateral military action without seeking Congressional approval". You will find all kinds of recent historical precedents, involving both Republican and Democratic Presidents.

Here are ten (10) of them for you:

• Korean War (1950) - President Truman deployed troops to Korea without congressional authorization.
  
• Vietnam War (1964) - President Johnson escalated military involvement following the Gulf of Tonkin incident, bypassing Congress.
  
• Invasion of Grenada (1983) - President Reagan ordered military action in Grenada without prior congressional approval.
  
• Bombing of Libya (1986) - President Reagan conducted airstrikes against Libya without seeking congressional consent.
  
• Bosnia and Kosovo (1990s) - President Clinton engaged in military operations in the Balkans without congressional authorization.
  
• Military Action in Syria (2014) - President Obama initiated airstrikes against ISIS in Syria without congressional approval.
  
• Drone Strikes in Yemen (2010s) - President Obama authorized drone strikes against Al-Qaeda targets without congressional consent.
  
• Libya Intervention (2011) - President Obama intervened in Libya's civil war without explicit congressional authorization.
  
• Military Operations Against ISIS (2014-present) - Various military actions against ISIS have been conducted without formal congressional approval.
  
• Afghanistan (2001) - While initially authorized by Congress, subsequent military actions and expansions were often conducted unilaterally.

So... are all ten of the above examples "red herrings" or irrelevant distractions?

Regarding your Libya answer, why should NATO and/or the UN supercede the powers enumerated in our US Constitution and/or codified in legislation such as the 1974 War Powers Act? Do all 32 NATO countries need to participate in a military action, or only a handful of them, in order to exempt a US President from seeking Congressional approval, in your humble opinion?


At this point it just sounds like you’re trying to drag the conversation into a completely different debate because the current one isn’t going the way you’d hoped. Originally Posted by fd-guy

Not at all. Democrats are steering the debate, not me. They keep insisting the Iran attack is "illegal" and was unnecessary based on the absence of an "imminent threat". I'm just trying to help them flesh out their arguments. The only time the debate doesn't go the way I hoped is when Dems try to avoid explaining themselves.

got to love the lefties on the democratic team

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...dd571263&ei=60 Originally Posted by oldman2525

At this point it appears the Ayatollah has more support among Democrats than he does with the Iranian people.

TRUMP HAS A LIST. IRAN WAS #1. CUBA IS #2. AND YOU’RE NOT READY FOR #3.

Day 7. Iran is burning. Khamenei’s bunker — destroyed. Their navy — sinking. Their air force — gone.

And today, Trump looked into a CNN camera and said five words that made every dictator on Earth lose sleep:

“Cuba is gonna fall pretty soon.”

Not a threat. Not a warning. A promise.

⚡ THE LIST

There is a classified document inside the Pentagon — signed by Trump on January 22, 2025 — two days after inauguration. It’s called “Operation Sovereign Dawn.”

Seven countries. Seven regimes. Seven dominoes.

#1 — IRAN �� IN PROGRESS
Supreme Leader eliminated. Military destroyed. Unconditional surrender demanded. Day 7.

#2 — CUBA �� NEXT
Trump told CNN today: “Wait a couple of weeks.” Marco Rubio has been briefed. The USS Gerald Ford carrier group is already repositioning toward the Caribbean. 90 miles from Florida. The last communist regime in the Western Hemisphere has weeks to live.

#3 — VENEZUELA ⏳ LOADING
Maduro has been in secret communication with Chinese intelligence since February. He knows he’s next. Three Venezuelan generals have already defected to Colombia with classified documents. The oil fields will be liberated. The people will be freed.

#4 — [REDACTED] ��
The fourth country on the list has not been publicly identified. But intelligence sources say it’s a nuclear-armed nation whose leader has been secretly cooperating with Iran’s weapons program for 15 years. Think carefully.

�� THE UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER

Today Trump posted: “There will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER.”

The last American president who demanded unconditional surrender was Franklin D. Roosevelt — from Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. 1945.

Trump just put himself in that category. Not by accident. By design.

He’s not negotiating. He’s not compromising. He’s not asking the UN for permission. He’s telling every tyrant on Earth:

Surrender. Or be next.

⚡ THE DOMINO EFFECT

Since the Iran strikes began 7 days ago:

— Cuba’s government held an emergency midnight session. For the first time in 65 years, they discussed democratic transition.
— Venezuela’s Maduro cancelled all public appearances and moved to an underground bunker built by Russian engineers in 2019.
— Nicaragua’s Ortega sent a private message to the State Department: “We are willing to talk.”
— North Korea went completely silent. No missile tests. No propaganda broadcasts. No statements. Nothing. For 7 days. That has never happened before.

The world is watching one man reshape the global order in real time.

No committee. No coalition. No permission.

Just Trump.

⟁ Iran was first. Cuba is next. The dominoes are falling. Share this — the world needs to see what’s coming.

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldT...87586876366061

BOOM

Newsflash - Maduro and his wife have been sitting in jail at the Metro Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York since January 3. He's not in an underground bunker and he's not in "secret communication with Chinese intelligence" lol.

Newsflash - Maduro and his wife have been sitting in jail at the Metro Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York since January 3. He's not in an underground bunker and he's not in "secret communication with Chinese intelligence" lol. Originally Posted by lustylad

You have to get up pretty early in the morning to get one past you!!!!!

JUST IN — PRESIDENT TRUMP ON IRAN: "Their army is gone. Their navy is gone. Their communications are gone. Their leaders are gone. Two sets of their leaders are gone. They're down to their third set. Their Air Force is wiped out entirely. Think of it."

"They have 32 ships. All 32 are at the bottom of the ocean!" ����

"And other than that, they're doing very well!" ��

JUST IN — president trump ON IRAN: "Their army is gone. Their navy is gone. Their communications are gone. Their leaders are gone. Two sets of their leaders are gone. They're down to their third set. Their Air Force is wiped out entirely. Think of it."

"They have 32 ships. All 32 are at the bottom of the ocean!" ����

"And other than that, they're doing very well!" �� Originally Posted by bambino

That douchebag also said he "completely obliterated" Iran's nuclear capability last summer.

As usual, trump and MAGA using words they don't know the definitions of.