What Now?

I was born about the time that LBJ pressed the accelerator on the Vietnam War. 1965 was a turning point, an escalation that really caused a rift in American society, and started shock-waves that still reverberate to this day.

I was aware of the end of our involvement, but I didn't really understand. Not a surprise for a 6 or 7 year old. I do remember Nixon's fall, and resignation, but the import of that event wasn't really registering to the 8 year old me.

It was at this time that the thing being bantered about was passed, and overrode the veto by Nixon, the War Powers Act.

As we enter the fourth day of the war with Iran, we have a lot of our politicians twittering[1] about the breaking of decorum, the illegality of the action without the approval of congress, and their stern words.

But, regardless he just did it, putting the lie to the guardrails constraining the executive once and for all.

Still, the audacity is gobsmacking. It is wholly in character for the tangerine tyrant to just do it. Alas, from my marketing background, we have a three word phrase that describes this perfectly: Ready, Fire, Aim.

And it does appear that Trump has put as much thought into this operation as in any of his efforts. Shoot first, ask questions later. And once again, I will pull from HCR's March 2 post[2]:

The Economist’s Middle East correspondent Gregg Carlstrom noted that Trump appears to be workshopping the causes for his attacks on Iran and his goals for the war by talking to journalists.

As Meidas Touch summarized Carlstrom’s argument, he said: “[Trump] doesn’t sound convinced by any of it. He’s throwing spaghetti at the wall. Ultimately I suspect he just wants to say he ‘solved’ a problem that has vexed every American president since Jimmy Carter. But there’s no clear idea what that looks like and no plan for how to get there. And there are plenty of possible scenarios in which Trump declares victory and leaves the region with an absolute mess.”

This is spot on, and while it is impossible to verify with five 9's of certainty, it sure fits the priors.

Then the Fox hosts have been egging Trump on, and if there is one thing we we can be sure of is that Trump consumes an unhealthy amount of Fox News.

But, I am not here to talk that through, as I don't practice public onanism.

No, today, I am going to go back to last week's TFG: Tom Nichols.

The Constitutional Question

First, here's the article, it was the Monday "Atlantic Daily" email newsletter:

Last week I posted about Nichols as being shocked that his vaunted Republican Party has become a welcoming home for the growing Nazi cohort in America.

In that, he was balancing his inner NeoCon priors with how his worldview was rocked by this revelation that a lot of what was his comfort zone was really a lot more nazi-adjacent that he ever realized.

I never thought I would have to write again so soon about this fucker, but here he is. He is taking an interesting interpretation of the War Powers Act (WPA) that I mentioned above, but applying to it to a Constitutional perspective.

Many of his critics are focused on the claim that the war is illegal under both U.S. and international law—and they are probably right about that. But Trump has already floored the accelerator and driven off the cliff. What are the options for Congress and the American people—the majority of whom do not support this conflict—to regain some control over a president conducting a war as if he were a medieval prince?

This is fine, but his hedge on the "... and they are probably right about that." is the through-line.

He follows that with a sort of Pottery Barn statement, the "you broke it, you bought it" approach. Yet he rightly notes that there are not great options for the Congress to rein this in. And he begins letting his NeoCon priors air:

Unfortunately, the few legal options available are laden with their own risks. Congress could decide to cut off funding for the war, which at this point could be as reckless an act as starting one. Men and women overseas did not choose to go, and they should at least be allowed to conduct their operations without worrying that Congress will simply turn off all funding. It could pass a resolution demanding an immediate end to hostilities—also a risky move.

Side note: this is the one good thing about Trump (I can't believe I said that,) that he has exposed all the weaknesses of the Founder's original work in constructing our government. All these high and mighty "norms" that I am told that "conservatives" care about are really about as sturdy as a candle flame in a hurricane. It is also depressing that I doubt there will be a restoration of the norms within my lifetime. Bummer.

Back at it though, Mr. Nichols does talk about the WPA. It is clear that he has disdain for it (a disdain that I suspect would be shared by most if not all the NeoCons) and that it was a reaction to Nixon's hubris, not particularly well thought out.

If you read the Atlantic piece, he does a two paragraph "Cliff's Notes"[3] explainer, but in short:

Unless Congress declares war or passes some law, or the United States is attacked, the president cannot send U.S. forces into harm’s way.

He then goes on to pooh-pooh it, calling it irrelevant. And in a way, he's mostly right. The cheat code for presidents to circumvent this is the (roll the drums please) "national emergencies".

Originally inserted to allow the president the flexibility to react to an exigent circumstance (like nuclear tipped ICBMs are inbound). But, as we have learned, the word "emergency" seems to be the only coherent word Trump can use.

Nichols:

The problem is that the War Powers Resolution is both too weak and too strong. On the one hand, it requires that the president “consult” Congress only if possible. On the other hand, the resolution sets a firm clock on military action: Within 60 days of notifying Congress, the president “shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted” unless Congress declares war, extends the deadline, or cannot meet because of enemy attack. (That’s a Cold War provision—Congress can’t meet and approve military action if it’s been vaporized by a nuclear strike.)

I will concede this. The shame is that it could be fixed, but it would require congress critters to actually come together and stop their pontificating for the cameras and write a statute with teeth and spedificity.

And Jessica Alba is ringing my doorbell to whisk me away for a week in French Polynesia.

He goes on to list his quibbles:

• The time limit - it signals to the foes that there is a time limit and that if they can wait the US out for 60 days, they might be able to back us off.

Ok, there was really only one quibble. His blindspot from his priors was that he couldn't imagine a rogue president. Uh, really? In any case, in that situation it was to kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait and then to stop, so it wasn't an issue, but Bush I was so determined he didn't care if he was impeached and removed.[4]

But ...

Right now, Trump has no such worries of impeachment—the GOP controls both houses of Congress, and he has an iron grip on his party (at least until November). But the question remains of whether Congress has any ability to restrain Trump, who has used force more times in more places in just one year than any of his predecessors.

Alas, I think Tom is just frustrated that his favored action (bombing the shit out of Iran) is happening by a president he detests.

The rationale roulette

If you are old, you might remember a phenomenon called "Chat Roulette", that was really a crap shoot whether you found someone to talk to, or some dude jacking it.

The various justifications were just as chaotic. First it was because the Iranians were threatening US assets in region (it wasn't), or that it was "weeks" away from a nuclear device (it wasn't), or that their ballistic missile program would soon be able to reach the US Mainland (it isn't even close).

But it appears that Lil' Marco let the cat out of the bag. Apparently Israel was going to launch an attack, and we had to join in, or well, FOMO. So, if you had the "Bibi Netanyahu played Trump and the clown car of our negotiators (Kushner and Witkoff) and forced the issue, take your bow.

But, there's also the powerful undercurrent, the discovery of documents missing (but documented) of 4 interviews with an Epstein victim who answered questions that Trump had assaulted her at the ripe old age of 13. Sure, it is alleged, and not proven, but it was clearly convincing enough for the FBI in 2019 to interview her four times, and document it. That 53 pages of interview transcripts must really be inflammatory.

Oh well, who could ever know the truth?

Last Licks

I am glad that there is some noise in Congress to attempt to raise visibility, and possibly clip the wings of the administration, but I am doubtful that it will do anything concrete.

Watching the drunk Hegseth chest beat, and talk about the end times is horrifying. It is clear that the strikes last June was a wakeup call for Iran, who then distributed strategy and plans to a wide array of military units, insulating them from a decapitation strike.

The ongoing attacks are affecting targets in the region, shutting down airports, stranding US Citizens (note: they were told to leave by any commercial flights the could find. Uh, that is hard with the airports shutdown. At least the Brits are mobilizing their military to extract their citizens. America! Fuck Yeah!)

There is so much to read and write about, and it is frequently enraging.

1 - in the sense of birds, not of the social media site

2 - https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/march-2-2026

3 - as I typed this, I wondered how many of my readers remember the Cliff's Notes

4 - how novel, a President who might have been removed via impeachment.