THE U.S. HOUSE VOTES TO LIMIT
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S WAR POWERS IN
THE MIDZST
THE MIDST OF STRIKES AGAINST
IRAN.
IN A MOMENT, DEMOCRATIC MARK
POCAN AND MIKE GALLAGHER, A
MEMBER OF THE HOUSE ARMED
SERVICES COMMITTEE AND FORMER
MARINE WHO WAS A COMMANDER OF
INTELLIGENCE IN IRAQ.
HE JOINS US FROM WASHINGTON BY
PHONE.
THANKS VERY MUCH FOR DOING SO.
>> HAPPY TO BE WITH YOU.
THANK YOU.
>> WHY DID YOU VOTE NO ON THE
HOUSE RESOLUTION TO LIMIT
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S WAR POWERS IN
IRAN?
>> BECAUSE A CONCURRENT
RESOLUTION HAS BEEN VIEWED AS A
LEGISLATIVE VETO AND THEREFORE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
I THINK IT'S A SHAME BECAUSE I
DO AGREE WITH THE INTENT OF THE
WAR POWERS RESOLUTION.
THE LEAD HOUSE PROCEED PROPONENT FOR IT
WAS A WISCONSINITE.
SINCE ITS PASSAGE IT HAS FAILED
TO ACHIEVE ITS NOTICEABLE GAINS.
HAD THE DEMOCRATS HAD THE
COURAGE OF THEIR CONVICTIONS,
THEY WOULD HAVE SUBMITTED A
JOINT RESOLUTION.
THEY DID NOT.
WE ARE TAKING DEFENSIVE ACTION.
PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 2, ALLOWS
US TO BE IN IRAQ.
THE PRESIDENT HAD THE AUTHORITY
NEED
NEEDED TO DO WHAT WAS NECESSARY
TO PROTECT OUR TROOPS.
>> WHY DO YOU SUPPORT THE
KILLING OF GENERAL SOLEIMANI?
>> HE WAS THE HEAD OF A
TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.
HE WAS HIMSELF A TERRORIST.
HE HAS THE BLOOD OF OVER 600
AMERICANS ON HIS HANDS AS WELL
AS THOUSANDS IF NOT HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS OF ARABS ACROSS THE
MIDDLE EAST, PEOPLE THAT I WORK
WITH, THAT I FOUGHT WITH.
THE CARNAGE IN SYRIA, THE
GENOCIDE, I CAN'T THINK OF
ANYONE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF
PUTIN AND ASSAD.
HE IS THE WORLD'S TOP TERRORIST
MASTERMIND.
THE WORLD IS A SAFER PLACE WITH
HIM GONE.
WE CANNOT LET TERRORISTS KILL
OUR PEOPLE IN IMPUNITY.
>> WAS TARVEGHTING HIM TARGETING HIM FOR HIS
PAST BEHAVIOR OR IMMINENT
THREATS?
>> BOTH.
PRIOR TO THE MOST RECENT
INTELLIGENCE REPORTING HAD SAID
WE SHOULD NOT HESITATE TO TAKE
THEM OFF THE BATTLEFIELD IF THEY
ARE THREATENING OUR TROOPS.
IF HE DID NOT WANT TO BE TAKEN
OFF THE BATTLEFIELD, HE SHOULD
HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE SANCTIONS
THAT SAID HE WAS NOT TO LEAVE
IRAN.
HE WAS ON AN ACTIVE BATTLEFIELD
WHERE OUR TROOPS HAVE THE RIGHT
TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.
WE KNOW INDEPENDENT OF THE
INTELLIGENCE REPORTING THAT THEY
CONDUCTED A ROCKET EYE TACK ATTACK THAT
KILLED ONE AMERICAN AND WOUNDED
OTHERS.
THEY ALSO ATTACKED OUR
EMBASSY.
WE WERE MORE THAN JUSTIFIED TO
TAKING THE ACTION TO PROTECT OUR
PEOPLE.
THE EARLY INDICATIONS ARE THAT
WE HAVE RESTORED SOME SEMBLANCE
OF DETERRENCE IN THE MIDDLE
EAST.
THAT'S THE BEST WAY TO AVOID WAR
AND REDUCE OUR PRESENCE, IS TO
HAVE A CREDIBLE DETERNT DETERRENT AND A
CLEAR RED LINE WE'RE WILLING TO
ENFORCE.
>> EVEN AFTER RETALIATORY
MISSILE STRIKES THAT CAUSED NO
AMERICAN CASUALTIES, IRAN WAS
SAYING TO SOON EXPECT HARSHER
REVENGE.
SO DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THREAT
HAS PASSED?
>> IT'S HARD TO TELL WHAT IS A
REAL THREAT AND WHAT IS JUST
POSTURING FOR A DOMESTIC
AUDIENCE BECAUSE SIMULTANEOUSLY
THE FOREIGN MINISTER SAID ON
TWITTER THAT THEY ARE SEEKING
DEESCALATION.
SO IT'S TOO EARLY TO TELL.
I WOULD EXPECT IRAN TO CONVERT
TO PROXY WARFARE.
THEY DO NOT HAVE CONTROL OF THE
SHIA MILITIAS.
WE ARE VERY DILIGENT PEOPLE IN
OUR GOVERNMENT WORKING ON THAT
VERY PROBLEM.
>> IRAQ SEEMS TO BE SIGNALING
THAT IT WANTS THE U.S. OUT OF
ITS COUNTRY.
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT?
>> NO.
I THINK THAT VOTE IN THE
PARLIAMENT WAS VERY SIGNIFICANT,
BUT FOR PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE
REASON.
THEY WERE BARELY ABLE TO MUSTER
A QUORUM.
IN FACT, THE REPORTS SUGGEST
THEY ACTUALLY DIDN'T LEGALLY
HAVE A QUORUM.
THERE'S A CARETAKER GOVERNMENT
THAT DOES NOT HAVE THE LEGAL
AUTHORITY TO KICK US OUT.
SO I JUST WOULD SAY TO PEOPLE
DON'T BELIEVE WHAT YOU HEAR ON
IRANIAN STATE T.V.
WE KNOW T FOR THE 73rd DAY
IN A ROW, IRAQIS HAVE TAKEN TO
THE STREETS TO PROTEST IRAN'S
INFLUENCE IN THEIR COUNTRY.
SO WE HAVE STRONG PARTNERS ON
THE GROUND THAT WANT TO WORK ON
US.
OUR GOAL IS A FREE, INDEPENDENT,
SOVEREIGN IRAQ.
IRAN'S GOAL IS TO USE THEM FOR
ATTACKS AGAINST ISRAEL AND SAUDI
ARAIB
ARABIA.
>> I UNDERSTAND SOME WERE ALSO
PROTESTING AGAINST U.S. PRESENCE
STILL IN IRAQ.
YOU WOULD LIKE TO STAY, HAVE THE
U.S. MILITARY STAY?
>> I WOULD.
I THINK WE'VE ACTUALLY THROUGH A
PAINFUL PROCESS OF TRIAL AND
ERROR ARRIVED AT A SUSTAINABLE
APPROACH WHERE FOR A SMALL
INVESTMENT OF TROOPS, WE CAN
WORK WITH IRAQIS ON THE GROUND.
WE'VE HAD SUCCESSFUL INCREDIBLE SUCCESS IN
THE FIGHT AGAINST ISIS.
A LOT OF MY CONSTITUENTS WOULD
LIKE US TO PULL OUT, BUT WE SAW
WHAT HAPPENED WHEN PRESIDENT
OBAMA PULLED OUT.
IF WE CAN COUNTER IRAN'S
INFLUENCE NOT ONLY IN IRAQ, BUT
THROUGHOUT THE REST OF OUR
REGION, AGAIN, AS I ALLUDED TO
BEFORE, I THINK THAT'S THE BEST
WAY OVER THE LONG TERM TO BE
ABLE TO MOVE MORE OF OUR FORCES
TO MORE IMPORTANT THEATERS OF
THE WORLD, PARTICULARLY ASIA.
>> WE NEED TO LEAVE IT THERE.
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE
GALLAGHER, THANKS VERY MUCH FOR
JOINING US.
>> THANK YOU.
APPRECIATE IT.
>> NOW TO THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE OF
THE AISLE AND BACK TO WASHINGTON
TO SPEAK WITH SECOND DISTRICT
REPRESENTATIVE MARK POCAN.
THANKS VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE.
>> THANK YOU, FREDERICA.
>> WHY DID YOU SUPPORT LIMITING
THE PRESIDENT'S WAR POWERS IN
IRAN?
>> WELL, HONESTLY, THIS HAS BEEN
OVERDUE FROM PROBABLY A FEW
DECADES.
THE CONSTITUTION GIVES CONGRESS
THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY FOR
PUTTING OUR COUNTRY INTO A WAR
UNLESS THERE HAS BEEN AN ATTACK
DIRECTLY AGAINST OUR COUNTRY AND
A FEW OTHER PROVISIONS.
AND IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT THE
LAST COUPLE DECADES CONGRESS HAS
GIVEN UP TOO MUCH OF THAT POWER
TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND
PRESIDENTS, BOTH DEMOCRATS AND
REPUBLICANS, HAVE LOOSELY USED
OLD 2001, 2002 AUTHORIZATIONS TO
GO INTO WAR FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
AND IT'S LONG OVERDUE THAT WE
DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
WHAT WE SAW THE PRESIDENT DO
LAST WEEKEND WAS ANOTHER EXAMPLE
AN OF SOMEONE NOT COMING TO
CONGRESS AS THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO
FOR ADVICE AND CONSENT.
WE JUST NEED TO DO THIS NOT JUST
FOR DONALD TRUMP, BUT FOR ANY
FUTURE PRESIDENT.
WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO WHAT THE
CONSTITUTION SAYS AND THAT MEANS
CONGRESS HAS THAT SOLE POWER.
>> REPRESENTATIVE GALLAGHER SAID
IT WILL HAVE THE PRACTICAL
EFFECT OF UNDERMINING OUR
MILITARY.
WHAT IS YOUR REACTION TO THAT?
>> THAT'S POLITICAL RHETORIC.
I KNOW WHEN IT COMES TO THINGS
THAT INVOLVE WAR, WE HAVE TO GET
BEYOND OUR LITTLE WHAT TEAM
WE'RE ON, WHAT PARTY WE'RE ON
AND TALK ABOUT WHAT'S RIGHT FOR
THE COUNTRY.
AND IN THIS CASE, IF YOU ARE A
COEQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT,
CONGRESS, AND CONSTITUTION
EXPLICITLY SAYS IT'S CONGRESS'S
ROLE, WE SHOULD GET TOGETHER AND
RECLAIM THAT ROLE BECAUSE WHAT
WE DON'T WANT TO HAPPEN IS
PRESIDENTS LOOSELY USING OLD
AUTHORIZATIONS TO GO INTO WAR
FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
FOR EXAMPLE, IN THIS CASE, THAT
2002 AUTHORIZATION TO GO INTO
WAR WAS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT
SADDAM HUSSAIN IN IRAQ AND IT
WAS THE RATIONALE USED BY THE
PRESIDENT THIS TIME TO DO
SOMETHING IN IRAQ JUST BECAUSE
IT HAD THE WORD IRAQ.
THAT'S NOT WHAT WAS INTENDED BY
CONGRESS BACK IN 2002.
THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO, AGAIN, AS
THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY IS
GIVEN TO CONGRESS, TAKE THAT
BACK SO THAT ANY PRESIDENT,
DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN,
UNDERSTANDS THEY HAVE TO COME
BEFORE CONGRESS IN ORDER TO DO
THAT.
>> WELL, WHAT'S YOUR POSITION ON
THE ASSASSINATION OF GENERAL
SOLEIMANI?
>> WELL, AGAIN, I THINK ONE OF
THE TROUBLING THINGS WE HAD, WE
HAD A CLASSIFIED BRIEFING THIS
WEEK.
ALSO I WENT INTO A CLASSIFIED
SETTING AND READ THE PRESIDENT'S
TWO-PAGE REASONS WHY WE DID
THIS.
THE PROBLEM IS -- AND IT'S NOT
JUST COMING FROM ME, BUT IT'S
COMING FROM REPUBLICANS IN THE
SENATE AND OTHERS, THEY DIDN'T
GIVE US ANY JUSTIFICATION.
IT WAS SAID WE DIDN'T KNOW WHERE
OR WHEN, BUT IT WAS IMMINENT.
IT SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT IS
ACTUALLY FACTUAL.
EVERY TIME WE ASKED, WELL, WHAT
WAS THE IMMINENT WARNING?
WELL, IT WAS IMMINENT.
WHAT WAS IMMINENT?
IT WAS A WARNING.
WE NEED HARD FACTS TO KNOW IF
IT'S SOMETHING THE PRESIDENT HAD
TO DO OR DID HE HAVE THE TIME TO
COME TO CONGRESS AND DO IT.
IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE THAT
ASSASSINATION HAS BEEN
CONSIDERED BY PREVIOUS
PRESIDENTS WHO DID NOT DO IT
BECAUSE THE CONSEQUENCES ARE
SEVERE.
WE DID GET SOME BACKGROUND WHAT
THOSE CONSEQUENCES COULD BE
ACCORDING TO THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMUNITY AND IT WAS A BAD
ASSESSMENT WITHOUT A REAL
IMMINENT REASON.
THAT'S WHY I THINK AGAIN
CONGRESS NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND IS
THE COEQUAL BRANCH OF
GOVERNMENT.
IT'S NOT ABOUT DEMOCRATS AND
REPUBLICANS.
IT'S ABOUT BEING AMERICANS.
WE NEED TO RECLAIM THAT
AUTHORITY PER THE CONSTITUTION
THAT CONGRESS HAS.
AND I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO SEE
SOME OTHER MEASURES COMING IN
THE COMING WEEKS THAT ARE ALSO
GOING TO DO THAT.
I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE
SOMETHING THAT SAYS NO FUNDS CAN
GO TOWARDS WAR WITH IRAN AND SEE
SOMETHING REPEALING THAT 2002
ITEM, SOMETHING WE SHOULD HAVE
DONE A LONG ITEM AGO.
>> WHERE DO YOU THINK THIS U.S.
MILITARY ACTION AND REVENGE FOR
IT LEAVES OUR PEOPLE?
>> WE ARE WITHOUT A DOUBTLESS
SAFE TODAY THAN WE WERE A WEEK
AGO.
BECAUSE BY DOING SOMETHING THAT
IS ESSENTIALLY ASSASSINATING THE
NUMBER TWO PERSON OF A COUNTRY
THAT HAS THE EIGHTH LARGEST
MILITARY ON THE PLANET, THAT IS
NOT A GOOD IDEA UNLESS YOU HAD
SOME REAL REASON.
AND SINCE WE HAVE NOT SEEN A
REAL REASON, IT PUTS US AT
GREATER RISK.
EVEN THOUGH WE SAW ONE REACTION
FROM IRAN, WHAT WE THINK IS
GOING TO HAPPEN IS THERE'S GOING
TO BE MORE SURROGATE REACTIONS
THAT COULD HAPPEN IN THE WEEKS
TO COME THAT MAKE THE REGION
LESS SAFE.
THAT IS A BAD THING.
IF WE EVER HAVE TO CONSIDER
SENDING MEN AND WOMEN FROM THE
UNITED STATES OVER TO THE
MIDEAST, THAT HAS TO BE A VERY
THOUGHTFUL DECISION.
THE PRESIDENT PROMISED HE WAS
GOING TO END ENDLESS WARS, BRING
TROOPS HOME, BUT RIGHT NOW WE
HAVE 15,000 MORE TROOPS IN THE
MIDEAST THAN WE DID SIX MONTHS
AGO AND THAT'S NOT GOOD FOR
PEACE.
>> JUST VERY BRIEFLY AS WE CLOSE
THIS OUT, ALL OF THIS SAID, I
TRUST DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU ARE
DEFENDING SOLEIMANI?
>> NO.
NO ONE IS.
IN FACT, TODAY REPUBLICANS ARE
STARTING TO APOLOGIZE FOR THEIR
RHETORIC OF THE WEEK THAT THEY
SAID PEOPLE WERE STANDING IN THE
AYATOLLAH.
THAT'S RIDICULOUS.
WHAT'S IMPORTANT IS YOU DON'T
PUT THE BLUE OR RED CAP ON.
YOU SAID WHAT IS IN THE BEST
INTEREST OF PEACE IN THE MIDDLE
EAST AND NOT HAVING TO SEND
AMERICAN MEN AND WOMEN OVERSEAS.
RIGHT NOW IT IS BY HAVING
DEESCALATION, HAVING DIPLOMACY
AND I'M HOPING THAT'S WHAT WE'LL
DO MOVING FORWARD.
>> ALL RIGHT.