After President Donald Trump killed Iran’s Quds Force terrorist leader Qassim Soleimani, House Democrats quickly expressed their concerns over how Iran would respond to the targeting assassination.
When Iran fired 16 missiles at two U.S. military bases in Iraq, Trump said he would retaliate, prompting Democrats to threaten to file legislation to limit his authority to use the military against any future Iranian aggression.
Why would House Democrats try to all-but handcuff Trump when it comes to responding to Iranian-based terror attacks?
According to Florida Congressman Al Lawson (D), even though the threat didn’t “mean that much to him,” his party’s leadership was still “real serious about” following through with it.
Rep. Lawson told The Floridian that he believed that the decision to limit the president was “because a lot of egos involved, and because "they didn’t get a call,” adding that he had to “tell the truth” about what he believes is behind the reason for Speaker Pelosi wanting to limit the president’s ability to use the military.
“A lot of them got rubbed the wrong way,” said Lawson
Lawson said that he was satisfied with the administration’s briefing over how and why they targeted Soleimani, saying that he was “ok with the briefing” and that nothing came up that “would indicate this a bad decision” to make.
Rep. Neal Dunn (R) echoed what many Democrats and Republicans have said about Soleimani’s death, that “Trump was exactly right,” adding that Soleimani “was killing Americans and allies all over the world.”
Dunn’s fellow Floridian colleague, Rep. Val Demings (D) doesn’t believe that anything was learned from the briefing.
Rep. Demings says Democrats are still waiting for the Trump administration to make the “imminent threat” case to them, saying that they (administration) was “still struggling to identify what the imminent threat was.”
