Some Democrats are telling lies about America and President Trump is exposing those defaming the country, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Thursday.
Comparing
U.S. border detention facilities to Nazi concentration camps and
denying America is "great" -- as the president's slogan declares -- are
two top examples of such, Gingrich told host Laura Ingraham on Fox News'
"The Ingraham Angle."
"The
number of lies being told right now about the United States is
astonishing," he said. "But all Trump is doing is, he's drawing to the
surface the deep hatred which on-campus had certainly began by the
middle of the 1960s and has grown and grown like a cancer."
"If
you are a Democrat today and go to a normal Democratic meeting and
start talking about how wonderful America is, how great the Founding
Fathers were, how remarkable the Constitution is, you'd be booed off
the stage."
"If you are a Democrat today and go to a
normal Democratic meeting and start talking about how wonderful America
is, how great the Founding Fathers were, how remarkable the
Constitution is, you'd be booed off the stage." — Newt Gingrich, former U.S. House speaker
Ingraham pointed to several examples of Democrats she considered to be defaming America.
In one clip, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo appeared to criticize President Trump's 2016 campaign slogan, "Make America Great Again."
"We're not going to make America great again. It was never that great," the third-term Democrat said.
In another clip, Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., claimed, "There are things that are savagely wrong in this country."
Gingrich claimed Trump is able to fire up his opponents by using slogans like "MAGA."
"I
think it's amazing that President Trump has this knack for framing
things in such a way that his opponents go crazy," said the former
Georgia congressman, whose books include "Trump's America" and
"Understanding Trump."
The president says, 'I'm proud to be an American,' the left says, 'I'm ashamed to be an American'." — Newt Gingrich, former U.S. House speaker
"You
now have, for example, the president says, 'Keep America Great,' which I
think is a great campaign slogan for next year. The Democrats promptly
say, 'No, keep America weak.' The president says, 'I'm proud to be an
American,' the left says, 'I'm ashamed to be an American'."
The U.S. may be closer to a military conflict with Iran now more than ever.
But
this also means that Congress could be the closest it’s come in years
to considering a new resolution to authorize the use of military force.
Such a proposal could end the old authorizations Congress approved in
2001 to fight in Afghanistan and a 2002 blessing to invade Iraq.
Three presidents, including President Trump, have employed these
Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs) for a panoply of
military interventions spanning nearly two decades.
The
operations have gone beyond the scope of just Afghanistan and Iraq. The
U.S. has used those AUMFs to deploy military might in the Philippines,
Georgia, Yemen, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia and Niger.
In fact, the House just approved a defense spending plan with a
provision to extinguish the old AUMFs within 240 days of the measure
becoming law.
Protesters hold signs spelling out, "No War," outside the White
House, Thursday June 20, 2019, in Washington, after President Donald
Trump tweeted that "Iran made a very big mistake" by shooting down a
U.S. surveillance drone over the Strait of Hormuz in Iran.
(AP)
Democratic leaders emphasized this
point when summoned to the White House Situation Room Thursday afternoon
for a briefing on Iran.
“We make it very clear that in order to
get engaged in any military activities, we must have a new Authorization
of Use of Military Force,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. “That is clear in our caucus.”
When
asked if members of the Trump Administration agree that the existing
AUMFs lack rationale for attacking Iran, Pelosi replied “No. They didn’t
say anything. They didn’t say yes. They didn’t say no.”
“We told
the room that the Democratic position is that Congressional approval
must be required before funding any conflict in Iran,” said Senate
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. “One of the best ways to avoid
bumbling into war - a war that nobody wants – is to have a robust, open
debate and for Congress to have a real say. We learned that lesson in
the run-up to the Iraq war.”
That’s
the fundamental difference here. The Administration of President George
W. Bush made a concerted case in 2002 and 2003 that Iraq harbored
weapons of mass destruction. In the shadow of 9/11, President Bush
argued that the U.S. needed to strike Iraq pre-emptively to stave off a
catastrophic terrorist attack. As it turned out, the U.S. relied on
faulty intelligence to appeal to Congress and the public for war. Less
than two years later, Congress concluded a post-mortem on the reasons
given for seeking war. Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., chaired the Senate
Intelligence Committee at the time. Based on what lawmakers learned
later, Roberts doubted that the Senate resolution to approve the Iraq
war could garner the 77 Senate yeas it commanded in 2003.
This is
why Congress has been reluctant to modify or refine the existing AUMFs –
let alone adopt new ones. Lawmakers know they lack the votes to get
everyone together to approve a modern AUMF. That would then leave any
presidential administration one option: go it alone. And if an
administration opts against acting? The U.S. could be vulnerable to
attack and lack the appetite to initiate justified reprisals.
So,
an administration could decide to send in military forces without a
Congressional blessing. Sure, lawmakers may howl that the president is
ignoring the Constitution. But at least Messrs. Bush, Obama and Trump
can point to some Congressional, tacit endorsement of war: the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs.
Even if it is a stretch…
In other words, had the Bush Administration not leaned on defective information to start a war, lawmakers today may have more confidence in building a case for battle under the proper circumstances.
But the Iraq experience was so onerous that many lawmakers lack the
conviction to cobble together a coalition to either endorse or oppose
the war option. Congress then reverts to relying on the old AUMFs.
Lawmakers diminish their own power, ceding authority to the executive
and incapacitated to legislate.
But no one is sure what is coming
on Iran – if anything. The Trump Administration again finds itself at a
familiar locus. It’s called the brink.
President Trump declared Thursday “you’ll soon find out” if the U.S. intends to strike Iran militarily.
Nearly
two years ago, the President warned North Korea it had better shape up
or Pyongyang would “be met with fire and fury like the world has never
seen.”
It wasn’t that long ago that Trump was threatening to slap devastating tariffs on Mexico.
Democrats may demand an AUMF. But many Republican leaders are more than willing to defer to President Trump.
House
Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said it was “unacceptable”
for Iran to shoot down the American drone. But when asked what the U.S.
should do to retaliate, McCarthy replied that “the President will have
options before him.” When asked if the U.S. should use force, McCarthy
said “I will leave that to the experts in the military and those in the
intel community.” McCarthy reiterated that Trump “has the current
authority” to wage war if necessary, based on the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said that the Trump Administration should proceed with “measured responses.”
The
Senate aims to begin debate next week on the annual defense policy
bill. Sens. Tom Udall, D-N.M., and Tim Kaine, D-Va., have long implored
their colleagues to trash the calcified AUMFs and draft something new.
Udall and Kaine have prepped an amendment to the defense legislation
which would require Congressional signoff before going to war with Iran.
Of
course, this touches off the age-old question. What defines “going to
war?” Congress has only formally “declared war” five times against 11
nations. The last such declaration was against Romania in 1942. But what
constitutes “war?” If the U.S. bombs Iranian defense facilities or
engages Iranian aircraft and ships at sea, is the U.S. “at war?” Was the
U.S. “at war” in Niger when four American soldiers were killed in an
ambush two years ago? Few Americans even knew the U.S. had
forces in Niger. That’s why Democrats and some Republicans demand
Congressional consent. If the U.S. is going to be involved somewhere and
lawmakers are expected to foot the bill, they’d like to vote. That’s
because Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the
authority “to declare War.”
And,
if military action is unpopular politically or with the public,
lawmakers always to know why an administration is involved militarily
somewhere without Congressional imprimatur.
“I cannot
really predict what actions the White House will take,” said Pelosi
after returning to the Capitol following the White House briefing. “They
did consult with us today.”
But consultation is different from
the adoption of an AUMF or a declaration of war. And that’s something
Democrats are demanding if President Trump decides to strike.
Fox News' Sean Hannity didn't hold back Thursday night, calling out Democratic presidential frontrunner Joe Biden for his racially insensitive past.
"Now,
there's a pattern here because crazy uncle Joe came out hard against
busing...integration of public schools in the 1970s; he made
inflammatory comments when pushing the Clinton crime bill; he used the
phrase 'predators on our streets' talking about urban crime; he even
made excuses for segregationist Strom Thurmond calling him a product of
his time," Hannity said.
Biden faced criticism Wednesday
from his Democratic primary rivals for invoking his ability decades ago
to work with two segregationist southern senators to “get things done.”
“Apologize
for what?” Biden told reporters Wednesday night when asked about the
criticism over his remarks. “Not a racist bone in my body. I've been
involved in civil rights my whole career. Period. Period. Period.”
Hannity also talked about the presidential candidates 'flexible' opinions.
"Biden's
advisors are actually now even publicly begging him, stop talking about
your political past because it is a massive liability. He has no core
ideas, no solutions, eight years of failure. Willing to say and do
everything to try to appease the radical Democrat socialist party, but
is anyone buying it. Remember his Anita hill apology tour, the
flip-flopping on the Hyde amendment? He held that position for 40 years,
having to pander to the real speaker of the house, Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez," Hannity said.
The Fox News host blasted Biden for his current positions and his campaign chaos.
"And
he's adopted, yes, the crazy new green deal climate change nonsense,
he's averaging about a flip-flop a week making the campaign spin and
spin in a million different directions," Hannity said.
"Someone
with no plan for our future and he has to run on the Biden-Obama
record. $150 billion to mullahs in Iran, 13 million more Americans on
food stamps, 8 million more on poverty." Fox News' Alex Pappas contributed to this report.
President Trump acted responsibly after Iran shot down a U.S. Navy drone over a key strait in the Middle East, a former top National Security Council official told Fox News Thursday.
Former NSC chief of staff Fred Fleitz told "Tucker Carlson Tonight." that the president does not want war with Iran but is not afraid to defend American interests,
"I
don't want a war with Iran," Fleitz said. "I know that this president
was elected to get us out of wars and not to start new wars. The
president was right to pull us out of the fraudulent nuclear deal with
Iran.
"But the use of force is on the table if Iran threatens our interests."
Fleitz,
who also served as chief of staff to current National Security Adviser
John Bolton, claimed some observers believe they can fault Trump if Iran
uses violence in response to the U.S. withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear
accord.
"There's people saying right now [that] the president is
responsible if Iran responds with violence because we withdrew from that
deal," he said.
"That is a fraudulent argument. We don't stay in
an agreement because the other party threatens to respond with
violence. The president has responded with restraint. He has given
[Iran] an opportunity to deescalate the situation, and I think he
handled it right today."
The former CIA analyst added that the Trump administration beefed up American forces in the Middle East because he wants to defend American interests, not go on the offensive.
"It
doesn't mean that the president's going to do this, but the
president can't ignore clear intelligence that Iran is planning to
respond with violence to his policies," Fleitz said. "This president is
not going to give in to blackmail but he does not want to use force if
he doesn't have to."
The downing of the drone by a surface-to-air missile is only the most recent Iranian provocation in
the region. Thursday's incident comes on the heels of a disputed
attack on a pair of oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman last week. U.S.
officials say Iran was behind the tanker attacks, however, Tehran has not claimed responsibility and even suggested American involvement in the incident.
Similarly,
Iran claimed the U.S. drone shot down Thursday was over Iranian
airspace, but American officials stated unequivocally the incident
occurred in international airspace. U.S. Central Command said in a
statement that a U.S. Navy Broad Area Maritime Surveillance ISR
aircraft, known as a BAMS-D, was shot down at approximately 7:35 p.m.
ET Wednesday. Fox News' Edmund DeMarche and Lucas Tomlinson contributed to this report.
NBC "Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd called out U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for
doing migrants “a tremendous disservice” by comparing U.S. detention
camps at the U.S.-Mexico border to Nazi concentration camps.
Todd
said Wednesday that Nazi death and concentration camps are “not
comparable in the slightest” to what’s going on at the border.
“You
can call our government’s detention of migrants at our southern border
many things depending on how you see it. It’s a stain on our nation,
maybe. A necessary evil to others,” Todd said. “But do you know what you
can’t call it?” he asked, before airing a clip of Ocasio-Cortez’s
controversial remarks.
Todd said the New York Democrat's use of
the term “concentration camps” only distracts from the debate on how to
resolve the humanitarian crisis at the southern border.
Todd also
criticized other Democrats, such as House Judiciary Committee Chairman
Jerry Nadler of New York, who were reluctant to condemn Ocasio-Cortez’s
remarks.
“One of the lessons of the Holocaust is ‘Never Again,’
Nadler tweeted Tuesday. “We fail to learn that lesson when we don’t
callout such inhumanity right in front of us.”
“Why are we so
sheepish calling out people we agree with politically these days?” Todd
asked viewers. He claimed the issue exists on both sides of the aisle —
among both Republicans and Democrats.
"Are
we really so ensconced in our political bubbles, liberal versus
conservative, that we cannot talk about right versus wrong anymore? Some
things are bigger than partisanship, or at least they used to be."
When President Trump kicked off his reelection campaign in Orlando, two of the three cable news networks chose to blow it off.
MSNBC
didn't air any of the speech, and CNN dumped out of it after a few
brief minutes (just as Trump started bashing the press and the crowd
chanted "CNN sucks"). Instead, they had their own pundits and
prognosticators talk throughout the event and spent yesterday critiquing
the speech that they decided not to share with viewers.
This is an important moment.
In
passing up the speech (which was carried in its entirety by Fox), the
networks were, intentionally or otherwise, making a statement. They were
saying that what we have to say is more important than letting you hear
from the leader of the free world as he makes his case for a second
term.
That, in my view, plays into the old Steve Bannon charge about the media acting as the opposition party.
I'm
not saying that the cable news channels need to air every Trump rally,
even though Fox carries many of them. And the Orlando speech did turn
out to be highly partisan, with the president ripping not just the media
but the Mueller "witch hunt," "18 angry Democrats," "Crooked
Hillary," and "radical" Democrats "driven by hatred, prejudice and
rage." That's how he chose to frame his launch, with little about what
he'd do in a second term.
So run the speech and then your anchors,
reporters, commentators, and analysts can rip it any way they want. If
it's important enough to cover on program after program, why isn't it
important enough to air?
Can anyone imagine CNN and MSNBC not
carrying Barack Obama's reelection launch? When he held his first
official 2012 campaign rally in Columbus, they covered it, along with
Fox.
When
Hillary Clinton gave her 2015 kickoff speech on New York's Roosevelt
Island — I was there and part of the coverage — Fox carried it live
along with the other news channels.
(In a mirror-image move, South
Carolina Democrats have barred CNN, Fox and even C-SPAN from covering
this weekend's party convention, giving exclusive rights to MSNBC. This
is a dumb move that will limit the exposure of the 21 presidential
candidates who are slated to speak.)
The
whole question of air time and balance is going to be a tricky one for
television networks and the press as this campaign unfolds. That's
because Trump's mighty media megaphone is such a powerful force — and a
dilemma for the Democrats.
The Washington Post has just documented Trump's dominance:
"Through
the first five months of the year, Trump has received about three times
as much Google search interest in the United States, on average, as all
his Democratic rivals put together.
"He has been having about
75 percent more social media interactions on Facebook, Twitter and
Instagram than his rivals combined since February.
"And when it
comes to CNN, MSNBC and Fox News Channel, Trump was mentioned nearly
twice as often as the 23 Democrats last month."
The Democrats, the paper says, are trying to figure out how to get higher ratings, even if they're not at Trumpian levels.
The
highest-rated town hall — Bernie Sanders on Fox — drew over 2.5 million
viewers. But that pales next to the 24 million who tuned into the first
debate between Trump and other Republicans, also on Fox, back in August
2015.
During that campaign, according to a Harvard study cited by
the Post, Trump drew 63 percent of the primary coverage in a field of
17 candidates, and 15 percent more than Hillary Clinton that fall. I
said over and over during that campaign that even negative coverage
benefits Trump because it means he's dominating the agenda.
Guy
Cecil, chairman of an anti-Trump super PAC, is quoted as saying: "We
have a culture that rewards the clown show at the expense of real
issues." But that's been true for decades, and successful politicians
adapt to the culture.
The current crop of 2020 Dems is doing plenty of interviews, but these are diluted by the sheer size of the field.
They
will have one advantage in the coming months: the Democrats will be
engaged in a race, with no contest on the GOP side. But they'll still be
competing for ink and air time with an incumbent president who can make
news at will. Footnote:
Donald Trump has called much of the media fake, dishonest and
treasonous, but he was outdone in Orlando by his "spiritual adviser."
Paula
White said, during an opening prayer no less: "Let every demonic
network that has aligned itself against the purpose, against the calling
of President Trump, let it be broken, let it be torn down in the name
of Jesus."
Do we really need this kind of demonizing, literally, in the name of religion?
Fox News' Sean Hannity
unloaded on the mainstream media Wednesday night for their coverage of
President Trump's Florida campaign rally warning them that they are
underestimating the concerns of the president's supporters.
"The
Americans who showed up last night in flip-flops and cargo shorts, they
will be the people who choose the next president, they are the ones who
were right in 2016 and all of you were wrong," Hannity said.
He
was reacting to a montage of media clips from CNN and MSNBC that showed
hosts and their guests mocking those who attended the Orlando rally.
Hannity
accused the media of ignoring the impact of the Obama administration's
policies and noted that the president's supporters did not "buy into"
the Russia investigation.
"The forgotten men and women in this
country, the one that suffered the most under Biden-Obama, the people
who make this country great every day. They didn't buy into your lies,
your conspiracy theories," Hannity said.
Hannity also blasted CNN's Don Lemon for comparing Trump and Adolf Hitler Tuesday night while arguing that such "bad people" shouldn't be given a platform.
"You let your 'journalist' Don Lemon say this on your network last night? You should be ashamed of yourself," Hannity told CNN boss Jeff Zucker.
The Fox News' host accused CNN of being unable to take the criticism responding to Lemon's comments.
"What
really happened was this. When the president was 6 minutes into the
speech last night, said all of those fake news people in the back and
the crowd started... telling the truth about fake news CNN, that CNN
sucks, CNN couldn't take the criticism and they turned it off," Hannity
said.
A U.S. high-altitude drone was shot down Thursday by an Iranian surface-to-air missile over the Strait of Hormuz amid heightened tensions in the region after last week’s attacks on two oil tankers, a source told Fox News.
A
commander for Iran's Revolutionary Guard said the shooting sends `a
clear message' to the U.S. He said while Iran has no intention of war
with anyone, it's "ready for war."
The U.S. Navy’s MQ-4C drone, ,
which has the same wingspan as a Boeing 737, was over international
airspace at the time and about 17 miles from Iran, the source said.
Capt.
Bill Urban, a U.S. Central Command spokesman, declined to comment on
the reported attack when reached by the AP, but he said no drone was
over Iranian territory.
IRNA news agency, the country’s state-run
news arm, identified the drone as an RQ-4 Global Hawk. Iran’s
Revolutionary Guard confirmed the shooting and said it occurred when the
drone entered into its airspace in southern Iran’s Hormozgan province.
The U.S. said Iran fired a missile at another drone last week that responded to the attack on two oil tankers near the Gulf.
Another senior U.S. official told Fox News last week that an MQ9 Reaper drone was fired on by the Iranians shortly after it arrived at the scene where the MV Altair tanker sent out a distress signal.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has blamed Iran for the "blatant assault" on oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman.
After
the tanker incident, Pompeo said his assessment was based on
"intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed to
execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and
the fact that no proxy group operating in the area has the resources and
proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication.” Fox News' Lukas Mikelionis and The Associated Press contributed to this report
Protesters hold signs spelling out, "No War," outside the White
House, Thursday June 20, 2019, in Washington, after President Donald
Trump tweeted that "Iran made a very big mistake" by shooting down a
U.S. surveillance drone over the Strait of Hormuz in Iran.
(AP)
