Hour 2: Split polling over Operation Epic Fury only serves to embolden those who hate us

0:00I'm Dana Carving. I'm David Spade. Flying the Walls back for another season now on audio and video every Monday and Thursday. So many incredible guests will be joining us. Follow and listen to Flying the Wall everywhere you get your podcasts. It's a good picture. Welcome back folks. The country is about split on whether or not we should be engaged in operation epic fury alongside Israel with their operation roaring lion. And when Democrats are challenging the president, they seem to have a very convenient memory, right? President Obama went into Libya without Congress's approval. Clinton went into Kosovo, no approval by Congress. President Bush went into Panama, same thing. Reagan went into Lebanon, same issue. In fact, there hasn't been a declaration of war by Congress since World War II. So we have to ask ourselves why is this any different?

1:02Well, let's go back to maybe the most recent situation of President Obama going into Libya. And basically there was a letter that was issued by the Attorney General in support of the action by the president based on some UN Security Council resolutions that had been passed going all the way back to 1970. And basically, you said that because of that of Omar Qaddafi's government's attack on citizens of Libya, they were justified in taking the actions that they took at that time. So that's why you're hearing Democrats right now denying and saying there's no evidence of 30,000 individuals being killed. Most recently, in Iran, but those inside Iran, many of who have come out and talked about it both on the social networks and in other media outlets have said they were there. They saw it.

2:15They saw exactly what was happening, not to mention the fact that we're sitting there in negotiations where they basically are saying to us that they're desired to develop nuclear-grade weapons is not diminished. In fact, to the contrary, they bragged about how much 60% pure plutonium they have and getting closer and closer to being weapons-grade plutonium and they don't desire to change it. Add to that the fact that they are often running as it relates to ballistic missiles. Now, this comes right on the heels of the 12-day war where we bomb them unmercifully as it relates to their military infrastructure inside the territorial boundaries of Iran.

3:18So obviously, their desire to have a nuclear weapon is not been diminished. In fact, one might say they have a stronger resolve. And they obviously have a stronger resolve to have more military assets available to them because of their ballistic missile program. Now, so let's fast forward. Operation Epic Fury goes into place. And what do we find? That they have some capacity. Right? It started on Saturday. Here we are on Thursday, roughly six days later and they're still hurling bombs, not as many, but this is in a weakened state where they had thousands of ballistic missiles. Think about what it would be like if they had tens of thousands of ballistic missiles, if they had tens of thousands of drones, and they were closer to developing nuclear-grade plutonium.

4:33The game of chess would be different. But yet, when you listen to what's going on in DC, because there's a Republican-held controlled Congress and there's a Republican in the executive department, with the president, there's not a single Democrat once they make these admissions. They're looking at the polls. It's 50-50 in this country. And they could easily, you know, I know about polls been following them as a hobby for a long, long time. They feel like they can influence that number relatively easy. So they're often running, conflating all kinds of different issues, saying that Israel dragged us along and we were just the whipping boy of Israel and this and that and everything else, but they're not really being fair to much of anybody.

5:37And certainly not being fair to you or I, no matter what side of the aisle that you find yourself on in my view. I mean, not even a tinge of honesty. And both parties are guilty of this, right? Both parties. Not even a tinge of honesty at all as to this situation. And of course, I think Secretary of State Marco Rubio's right. In fact, this administration would be much better served if they let him go to the mic more often than President Trump. Because when I listen to President Trump, I'll be honest, it's painful. He's all over the map. And it's like he's just grabbing, I feel like he's in a kitchen, he's a chef and he's just grabbing ingredients and throwing it in a pot, not measuring anything and just going to see what it tastes like after the fact.

6:39Well, that's not credible leadership. You have a clear, concise, definitive message articulated in a manner that the electorate can understand and appreciate. And it's not the shifting sands of time where, you know, it's like Mercury. You can't get your finger on it. It's something new and different every day. It's frustrating to Republicans, Democrats love it. But of course, he's not going to change that that's not going to change. But back at the ranch, there's still good reason to do what we have done in order to bring further stability here. Will there be some pain in the short term? Of course, there will be any time you take military action, there's going to be pain in the short term.

7:45There was with all of these action. There was when the Russians went into Ukraine. There was a lot of pain. The bread basket of that area of the world, quite frankly. And it had a lot of accommodations and people having to get used to a lot of different things there as well. So I just remind folks, read past the headlines, dig a little deeper into what you are reading, gain a better understanding as exactly to what's going on. You know, the funding of Hezbollah, the funding of Hamas, the funding of the Houdis, the funding of other terrorist organizations by Iran has been tiresome, wear some, and everybody in the Middle East has had enough. Because you see the way that this is breaking, right? Most of the Arab nations, they're done.

8:54They've had enough of this. They want, for the most part, to live peacefully. With some level of autonomy, they don't want to have this disruptive force sitting in their backyard hurling missiles at them. And, you know, they're trying to bomb the airports. Why? They want to impair the economy of these other nations, these other countries. They want there to be a lasting impact of every ballistic missile that they send across the body of water to these other Arab nations. And they recognize by doing that that they're going to have the impact on the U.S. and others as well because of shipping. Once those shipping lanes are closed, they know that they're having a financial impact.

9:56And what they desire is that this country not support the military, not support the office of the president, and you can't separate the individual from the office. Because I suspect there wouldn't be some, there wouldn't be too many things too terribly different as it relates to Iran if there was someone else in the office. We've already been down the path of sending them a bunch of money and trying to appease them and hoping that for once in their life they actually told the truth. How did that work out? Well, not so well because all of that money ended up in the hands of terrorist organizations who are funding and financing and killing Americans, killing Israelis, killing Jews. And it's not a coincidence.

10:58I mean, anybody that's out there saying death to America, and that's the mantra that they have, it's amazing to me that folks are willing to go to the mic and almost defend this theocracy that is openly stated they hate us and they would like to kill us in the most barbaric ways available to them at the time. And then they want to look at this action as though we have violated a moral compass. Really? I mean, it's ridiculous. Southern Lebanon has been ruled by Hezbollah for a long time. They're trying to rear their ugly heads again. Israel is now sending ground forces in to southern Lebanon. Israel's had to evacuate northern, their northern boundary that has a terminus boundary with Lebanon at the present time.

12:11In fact, you know that we've been talking to Colonel Alex Gannon. We'll talk to him at 1130 about what's going on there for a while. It's been kind of quiet. It's been suppressed, but obviously Hezbollah now is stood up much like the other Arab nations are working against Iran. They want to double down and work against Israel to send a message. We have this one opportunity in my view to try and write the course of action and maybe consolidate and bring together all of the Arab nations, the implementation of the Abraham Accords that Iran was adamantly opposed to. And it was probably one of the motivating reasons for what happened in the October massacre. All of these things are intrinsically linked and connected.

13:17And when our polling is not in favor of dealing with this issue, we have empowered those that hate us. And they're loving every second of it. Of course, we would all not like to be there, right? I get it. But when we're there, that's the time that we all have to stand up together, united with a clear head, a clear mind, a clear understanding of who our enemies are and what they would like to do to us. And remind ourselves of all of the American citizens, lives, who have been taken by this theocracy, by these lunatics, and they've never really suffered the consequences.

14:17I don't know about you, but for me, it's time. We'll be right back. Hi, I'm PJ vote, and I want to tell you about my podcast search engine. We try to make sense of the world. One question at a time. No question too big, no question too small. We will even answer your questions if you send them in. Stuff like, what happens when a cemetery goes out of business? What should we do about teens using AI to do their homework? Who buys luggage at the airport luggage store? Follow and listen to search engine in partnership with Odyssey, wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome back folks. We're trying to get Colonel Alex Gann, who's a retired Colonel and fighter pilot for the Israeli Air Force. We've talked to Colonel Gann a number of times about what is happening in northern Lebanon. I mean, more northern Israel, southern Lebanon, excuse me. He happens to live in a small village in northern Israel. And as soon as we get him, we'll talk about that. Interesting. You know, I got a text here that says that there must either be a declaration of war statutory authorization from Congress or national emergency created by an attack on the US. That's it.

15:30There's no room for presidential discretion to initiate war. I don't care what Obama did. I don't care what Bush did. Previous illegal military action does not legitimize this one. Your attempts to justify this are shameful and are a front to the US Constitution and the new rule of law. Well, it's not really in a front to the US Constitution because there was a war powers act that was passed back in the early 1970s. And the construct of same and what is required of the executive branch of government in the war powers act has been met by President Trump thus far. So that's what I find very interesting. So the interesting thing is whether or not you think the wars powers act is unconstitutional. And if so, then the question is whether or not we've actually declared war here. And there's been any number of instances in the history of this country that there was military action taken without congressional approval.

16:42Now, part of the problem here is, and I think the one of the questions is President Trump met the requirement and notified the gang of eight. And now based on the war powers act has authorization, I think 60 days. And then there's the possibility of some additional days after that, which I think they actually refer to it as a withdrawal period of reading through it the other night. And so as it relates to the end and after that, within a time period after the initial action, a follow up with notifying Congress of what's going on, they did so with the gang of eight again. So, you know, this situation where there must be a declaration of war statutory authorization from Congress or national emergency created by an attack on the US, that's it.

17:49There's no room is not necessarily true. So Congress would ultimately have the opportunity to declare war when the executive branch of government goes back to Congress, seeking safe. Now, whether or not President Trump does that at that point in time, I don't know. It's a conjecture one way or the other. They have met with the gang of eight and members of the intelligence committees of both the House and the Senate outlining what they knew when they knew how they knew, right. And, and alike. So, you know, the rules seem to change all the time, you know, and, and, you know, and, and one of the things that is interesting is a lot of the reporters have been reporting that

18:51members of Congress were questioning whether or not there was an imminent threat from Iran and that this is a legal requirement for the president to initiate military action without congressional authorization. There is no imminent threat requirement. In fact, the president may you may use force if there is a true threat to vital American interest, true threat to vital American interest, not an imminent threat from Iran. So, the agenda is vastly different, the delta between what the media is reporting and what the actual standard is is huge. And when you, when you consider what was said during the negotiations and what was done in the aftermath of the 12, 12 days war, right, and where we find ourselves and the most recent killings of Iranian citizens that went, that went to the streets.

20:04Right. It's, it's easy to reach that threshold of a true threat to vital American interest. And it's, the interesting thing about that terminology as has been outlined in an article by Andrew McCarthy, and I think he laid it out very well. Well, he says that it is often but not always true that such threats will be imminent. After all, part of what makes something concrete rather than an abstraction is the likelihood that it will happen. Usually, that means there are signs that it will happen soon. Right. So, the issue is whether we face a dangerous vulnerability, not when harm could happen, absent president presidential action.

21:05So, when you're dealing with a regime such as this and all of the conduct that they've engaged in, it seems to me that it's pretty easy to reach this standard. Right. And not very difficult at all. So, it's going to be interesting to see, you know, Democrats still trying to make a political issue out of this. Nancy Pelosi went to the podium during the time of the Obama administration was ass straight out. So, you don't think that the president needs congressional action in order to do what they've, what they've done in Libya that lasted seven months. And the whole notion was because of the Libyan government, Momar Kadafi's actions on its own citizens in violation of a UN article. You got the same, you got the same considerations here. And more. Right. And more. And her answer. No. He doesn't need to come to Congress.

22:18So, what makes this today any different? You know, it's amazing the level of hypocrisy that goes on here. And it's just, I just have to chalk it up to Trump derangement syndrome. And look, I don't, I'm not the biggest fan of Donald Trump, not by any stretch of the imagination. There's a lot of his policies that I think are sound is a lot of them that I think are half cocked. I don't particularly like his politics. I've said this before and have gone on record of saying what's in the best interest to Donald Trump is not necessarily what's in the best interest of the state of Louisiana. And I'll give you another example yet again, because it seems like the Republican political infrastructure in this state is lining up again for Giulio let low and against Senator Bill Cassidy. If we were to lose the Senate.

23:19And no one has said that that's off the table that that's guaranteed that we're going to hold it. We have a lot of really interesting races that exist out there not to mention. You got people that are retiring on a whim now. And they're not caring about. You know, any more is whether or not they're going to make a difference into majority of the minority of each represented by right. Who would you rather have someone who's actually worked across the aisle with individuals. Someone who has stood up and and has challenged his own party's leadership in many cases. Or someone that is just a de facto vote no matter what and a freshman to boot. And a freshman to boot. I would much rather the person that has worked with the folks on the other side for years has that seniority and is able to work through a lot of the different alliances that have been formed.

24:36And on a number of different issues that are important to the state of Louisiana. That's not a criticism of Giulio let low. It's not her fault that she would be a freshman right. She doesn't have that many years in the house. This system up there is a seniority based system. You got to play within the construct of the system. You don't cut your nose off despite your face because President Trump does happens to not like somebody. Or some other members of the Republican leadership in this state happen to not like somebody. I mean, that is not a good reason to get rid of of someone right. Credible leadership is sometimes you consume political capital. And there is no doubt that Bill Cassidy has consumed political capital.

25:36I happen to wear that with a badge of honor. And I don't make excuses or give apologies for saying. So just something to think about. Something to think about because all of this comes home to like what we're dealing with now. I have no problem with people challenging the president as to what he's saying about what's going on in Iran. We should. We should have a level of skepticism, level of cynicism. But at the same time, we should support the entity, the United States of America. Who do we have Coleman? Let's go to Reagan. Reagan, you're up. What say you? Hey, no, yeah, I'll send the text to you earlier that you read. But I just I just wanted to make it clear that the those three requirements, whether it's a declaration of war, statutory authorization or a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or it's territories.

26:38That is part of the war power's resolution. And there is no law in the United States code anywhere that says the president can commit military forces for 60 days or 90 days on his own and on his own discretion. That does not exist. It's a popular mission. But it but the war power does not exist anywhere. The war powers resolution requires that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces for remaining for more than 60 days with a further 30 day withdrawal period without congressional authorization for the use of military force or declaration of war by wait a second or a declaration of war by the United States. But that's still pursuant to the three requirements still one of those three requirements is still necessary. So if he does, if there's no declaration of war or there's no statutory authorization, then there must be a national emergency created by an attack on the United States to trigger that authorization to go to war.

27:50The standard is the standard is a true threat to vital American interest. That's what the standard is. The party that you're attacking. Where does the authorization for that standard come from? It's not listed in the law. One of those three requirements has to be met in order to trigger anything else in the war power that. And this the language may be in court made laws are relates to the war powers act because it has been attacked right before, but that is that is the standard. And if you think about it, it makes sense. If you if you have if you have intelligence information that is pretty sound that someone is going to attack you in the next 24 hours, you really believe that the war powers resolution would not allow someone to take action against that individual.

29:07And they would have to wait for it to actually happen or convene the members of Congress in a short period of time to a declaration of war and they would not be able to act. It's a question. That's what you believe. That's what you believe. That's what our founders believe and the framers of the war powers resolution. Those are the requirements for committing military forces into action. Well, the war powers resolution was adopted in 1973 in the next years, but you believe that the president would be compelled to wait. An important part to understand about the war powers resolution is that it was a to restrict the president's power to go to war. Absolutely. Now to restrict it, but understanding that there are threats that are a true threat to America to vital American interests that they's not handcuffing that office to the extent that he is imp here she is impenet and can do nothing in the immediacy of an action.

30:19And until they go to Congress, just doesn't make any sense. I don't know how anybody would be in favor of that. Well, in the law and the Constitution doesn't make any sense. Is that what you're saying? No, I'm saying that I'm saying to the contrary, the law allows the president to do what he does and within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action, he notifies Congress. That you did to one of them, that is pursuant to one of those three requirements. That's correct. And I think that requirement was met. So I'm not sure what we're arguing. We're talking about the past one another. Statutory authorization, which or an attack on the United States, none of those three things have happened. Well, the statutory authorization lies within the war powers resolution in 1973. That's the statutory authorization. No, no, no, it's not.

31:20Of course it is. You're misreading it. No, you're misreading it. That's part of the war powers resolution. It's listed in the war powers resolution that says these three requirements are necessary in order to commit these four. I will read it again, but I can tell you that the standard is not imminent threat from another country. The standard is a true threat to vital American interest. That I know for certain because that that's been bantered about this imminent threat thing and it's not necessarily true. And in fact, if you go back to the authorization that was written by the attorney general to Barack Obama, before they went into Libya, you're going to see a lot of that outlined in that letter to the presidency. Thank you, Reagan, so much for the call. I'm going to check it out. I may be wrong. I'm not saying I'm right, but my appreciation is otherwise. We'll be right back.

32:22On Aspire with Emigread, we talk about mindset and vision and the work that actually moves the needle. Listen to Aspire with Emigread available where you get your podcasts. In the absence of a declaration of war by the Congress in any case in which the armed forces of the United States are introduced into hostilities or in situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances such use of armed forces of the United States. In these hostilities pursuant to this war powers act shall be reported within 48 hours and writing by the president to the speaker of the House and the president pro-tem of the Senate together with a full account of circumstances under which such hostilities were initiated. The estimated scope and duration of such hostilities and the constitutional and legislative authority under which the introduction of hostilities took place. The president is routinely to consult with Congress until the U.S. Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed.

33:24Reports are given to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It's really a balance of the responsibilities that both the executive branch and the congressional legislative branch of government had relative to war powers. It definitely was a check on the exercise of the discretion of the presidency, no doubt. In fact, that bill when it was introduced, it was vetoed by Gerald Ford and Congress overrode the veto and enacted the joint resolution into lock on November 7, 1973. Because the executive branch felt like there should have broader power. So Reagan was right. There was no doubt. It was a check on the power of the presidency.

34:28But there was enough latitude to understand that there are threats out there that are going to require the U.S. government to take affirmative actions in defensive of itself. And that's where this standard has come up as to whether or not is the truth that threat to vital American interest. When you have U.S. resolutions that are talking about certain things that we're part of and there are a number of treaties that we enter into that have the effect and the authority of law in this country. There is a whole collective body of stuff that has to be considered with this as well when we talk about statutory authority. And now it was something I was trying to articulate with Reagan earlier and I really did a bad job of it. But that's what I was thinking about at the time that it's not only what we find because we adopt these treaties and other things that we enter into as the U.S. government.

35:43All right, we'll be right back folks. Stay with us. Folks, I apologize. We were not able to hook up with Colonel Alex again. We were having trouble with the international call. But when we come back after the top of the hour news break, we will have Rafael Goynechi, president of the Metropolitan Crime Commission. We'll expand on this topic of does an OPD need 1200 officers. We'll talk about the National Guard's extension through August of 2026, the staged accident trial that's underway and more. So stay tuned. We'll be right back with Rafael Goynechi. This is Null on WWL. Hey guys, this is Matt Norlander, co-host of the Ion College Basketball Podcast with Gary Parrish. We are part of the CBS Sports Podcast Network and College Hoops is turning toward what's going to be a phenomenal March. So be sure you are tuned into the show. We're going to be publishing at least four shows every week.

36:44Follow and listen to Ion College Basketball free on the Odyssey app or wherever you get your podcast. March is coming.