Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) on Monday came out against a bipartisan war powers resolution to prevent U.S. intervention in Iran, a show of support for President Trump as dozens of lawmakers question the weekend strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.
Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a libertarian and progressive pair, introduced a war powers resolution last week that would direct Trump to “terminate the use” of U.S. armed forces from Iran unless Congress authorizes such involvement. Massie said Monday the effort has 57 cosponsors, and he vowed to bring a vote on the legislation.
Asked Monday if he would allow the bipartisan measure to come to the floor for a vote, Johnson demurred, suggesting it was a political endeavor, and noted presidents in both parties had authorized military strikes without congressional approval.
Mike Johnson opposes bipartisan war powers resolution to authorize Trump’s Iran strikes
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) on Monday came out against a bipartisan war powers resolution to prevent U.S. intervention in Iran
Is it just me, or is the title worded contradictory to the content?
It’s not just you.
I thought the same thing. Maybe they mean his opposition is what’s authorizing it, since not allowing a vote is the same as voting to allow the strikes. Poorly done if that IS what they meant, but incoherent otherwise lol
The real question is “was it chat gpt or some editor trying to keep the waters muddy?”
Yeah the title, and frankly the article, is shit. They couldn’t have made it much more confusing if they tried.
Johnson wants Trump to be able to bomb, this resolution would have told him he has to stop bombing. Johnson is against the resolution, so he’s okay with Trump bombing.
He also doesn’t think Congress needs to affirmatively act to give Trump war powers right now, which just exposes the fact that Johnson doesn’t understand his own role in government.
Yeah it’s the media’s unfailing ability to find the most ambiguous wording possible for every headline.
It could be syntactic ambiguity
To authorize Trump’s Iran strikes, Mike Johnson opposes bipartisan war powers resolution
I’d think more is needed to authorize the strike than to oppose the resolution.
Headline is badly written.
It’s not a “war powers resolution to authorize Trump’s Iran strikes” that Johnson is opposing.
It’s a “war powers resolution [which would prevent US intervention in Iran]” that Johnson opposes, and his opposition is supporting authorization of Trump’s Iran strikes.
Y’know, It might be cool if both parties fuckin stopped doing that.
Y’know, It might be cool if both parties fuckin stopped doing that.
Stop doing…? What, specifically, are you referring to here?
There is only one Speaker of the House, and he’s a Republican.
Did you read the whole article or just the summary? Sorry I wasn’t specific I thought it was implied as you read.
I think they are referring to the line about both parties having presidents in the past who used noncongressionally-authorized strikes on foreign powers.
Yee, that is what I was referring to. Sorry I wasn’t specific.
