Mediaboss Marketing

Progressive Democrats are raising questions about the rationale behind airstrikes that President Joe Biden ordered against Iran-backed militias on the Iraq-Syria border on Sunday, and warning about the potential for a broader conflict.

"I will be briefed on the imminent harm to our troops who the President has a duty to protect and why the Administration believed this was necessary for self-defense," Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California, who sits on the House Armed Services Committee, told Insider. "What this shows, however, is the need for a broader strategy to bring our troops home so they are not at risk and to de-escalate the tensions with Iran."

These were not the first strikes against Iran-backed militias in the region. After Biden ordered similar strikes in February, he faced bipartisan criticism. The Biden administration justified the February strikes and Sunday's attacks under Article II of the Constitution, which designates the president as the commander in chief of the US military. Multiple administrations have taken military actions based on a broad interpretation of this.

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in comments to Politico reporter Andrew Desiderio expressed concerns about Biden invoking Article II as the legal rationale for strikes against Iran-backed militias. Murphy said the fighting between the US and Iran-backed militias is starting to look like a "low-scale war."

"I'm just as worried about the expansion of Article II authority interpretation as I am about the expansion of existing AUMF interpretation," Murphy said, in an apparent reference to the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force laws that every president since George W. Bush have used to justify military actions and operations in countries across the globe.

Lawmakers in both parties have moved to repeal both of these post-9/11 laws and the Biden administration recently endorsed a bill to scrap the 2002 AUMF though there are also those who would like to see them kept in place.

"While I commend President Biden's defensive strike on the proxies' facilities in Syria and Iraq, I believe these actions are overdue and highlight the continued need for the 2002 AUMF," GOP Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement.

Meanwhile, Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar, who sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, in a tweet emphasized that Congress "has authority over War Powers and should be consulted before any escalation."

"This constant cycle of violence and retribution is a failed policy and will not make any of us safer," Omar said.

The Pentagon said Sunday's "defensive" strikes were in response to drone attacks on US troops and facilities in Iraq, which the Pentagon said were used by Iran-linked militants to plot attacks against Americans.

"Specifically, the US strikes targeted operational and weapons storage facilities at two locations in Syria and one location in Iraq, both of which lie close to the border between those countries," Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said in a statement.

Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in a statement said that he will be "seeking more information from the Administration in the coming days regarding what specifically predicated these strikes, any imminent threats they believed they were acting against, and more details on the legal authority the Administration relied upon."

"The United States must always take decisive action to protect our personnel and interests against attacks," Menendez also said. "Over the past year, Iranian-backed militia groups have increasingly targeted U.S. persons and assets, including killing Americans and coalition forces earlier this year."

The strikes also came as the Biden administration is vying to revive the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. Iranian and US diplomats have been engaged in indirect talks in Vienna aimed at restoring the pact, even as tensions remain high. Iran's incoming president, Ebrahim Raisi, last week said he endorses reviving the deal but underscored that he would not relinquish support for regional militias that have fomented attacks against US forces. Raisi is a hardliner who could cause major problems for Biden.

In comments to reporters in the Oval Office on Monday, Biden reiterated the administration's position that he had the constitutional authority to conduct the strikes.

"I directed last night's airstrikes targeting sites used by the Iranian backed militia groups responsible for recent attacks on US personnel in Iraq," Biden said. "And I have that authority under Article II and even those up in the Hill who are reluctant to acknowledge that, have acknowledged that's the case."

See original here:
Biden faces blowback from progressives over airstrikes against Iran-backed militias on Iraq-Syria border - Business Insider

When the New York Democratic congressman Mondaire Jones, a freshman, was at the White House last week for the signing of the proclamation making Juneteenth a national holiday, he told Joe Biden their party needed him more involved in passing voting legislation on Capitol Hill.

Biden just sort of stared at me, Jones said of the US presidents response, describing an awkward silence that passed between the two.

Jones and a growing number of Democratic activists are becoming more vociferous about what they portray as a lackluster engagement from Biden and Vice-President Kamala Harris on an issue they consider paramount, as Republican-led state legislatures pass local laws that will lead to restricted voting for many.

The White House has characterized the issue as the fight of his presidency.

But as Democrats massive election legislation, the For the People Act, was blocked by Republicans on Tuesday, progressives argued Biden could not much longer avoid the battle over Senate filibuster rules that allow a minority in this case the Republicans to block such bills.

And questioning whether he was using all of his leverage to prioritize it suggested risk of a first major public rift with his partys progressive wing if a breakthrough is not found soon.

President Obama, for his part, has been doing more to salvage our ailing democracy than the current president of the United States of America, Jones said, referring to a recent interview in which the former president pushed for a compromise version of the voting rights legislation put forward by conservative Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia.

Jones tweeted on Monday: Our democracy is in crisis and we need @Potus [the president of the United States] to act like it with reference to activists complaining that Biden was not holding public events to lobby for the voting rights bill.

Biden met with Manchin at the White House, and Manchin at the last minute declared support for the bills advance in the Senate on Tuesday, before the Republicans used the filibuster to kill it. But Biden did not meet with Republicans on the issue.

The White House argues that both Biden and Harris have been in frequent touch with Democratic leadership and key advocacy groups. Biden spoke out forcefully at times, declaring a new Georgia law backed by Republicans an atrocity and using a speech in Tulsa, Oklahoma, to say he was going to fight like heck for Democrats federal answer, but he left negotiations on the proposal to congressional leaders.

On Tuesday the White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, said Biden was absolutely revolted by Republicans efforts to suppress access to the ballot box in ways that have greater chilling effects on Democratic voters.

Biden tasked Harris with taking the lead on the voting rights issue, and she spent last week largely engaged in private meetings with voting rights advocates as she traveled for a vaccination tour around the nation.

But commentary in the Los Angeles Times on Wednesday remarked at how little we saw of her publicly lobbying for the legislation.

Biden and Harriss efforts havent appeased some activists and progressives, who argue that state laws tightening election laws are designed to make it harder for Black, young and infrequent voters to cast ballots.

Some argue Biden ought to come out for a change in the filibuster rules that require 60 votes to advance most legislation, while Democrats only have 50 seats in the 100-seat chamber and Harris as a tie-breaker because the vice- president can preside in the Senate on such matters.

Progressives are losing patience, and I think particularly African American Democrats are losing patience, said Democratic strategist Joel Payne, a longtime aide to the former Senate majority leader and Nevada senator Harry Reid.

They feel like they have done the kind of good Democrat thing over the last year-plus, going back to when Biden got the nomination, unifying support around Biden, turning out, showing up on election day.

Progressives feel like, Hey, we did our part. And now when its time for the bill to be paid, so to speak, I think some progressives feel like, OK, well, how long do we have to wait?

The progressive congresswoman Ayanna Pressley tweeted: The people did not give Democrats the House, Senate and White House to compromise with insurrectionists. Abolish the filibuster so we can do the peoples work.

Senator Elizabeth Warren, a former presidential candidate, focused her ire on Republicans, but supports the campaign to overturn the Senate filibuster.

We cannot throw our democracy over a cliff in order to protect a Senate rule that isnt even part of the Constitution. End the filibuster, she tweeted.

And the former Obama cabinet member and presidential candidate Julin Castro cranked up the pressure on fellow Democrats.

Senate Democrats have a choice: end the filibuster and safeguard our democracy or let an extremist minority party chip away at it until its gone, he tweeted after Tuesdays legislative defeat.

Harris is expected to continue to meet with voting rights activists, business leaders and groups working on the issue in the states and speak out on the issue in the coming weeks.

Ezra Levin, co-executive director of Indivisible, a progressive grassroots group, said advocacy on the the $1.9tn infrastructure bill has been stronger from the leadership.

The president has been on the sidelines. He has issued statements of support, hes maybe included a line or two in a speech here or there, but there has been nothing on the scale of his public advocacy for recovery for Covid relief, for roads and bridges, Levin said.

We think this is a crisis at the same level as crumbling roads and bridges, and if we agree on that, the question is, why is the president on the sidelines?

White House aides point to Bidens belief that his involvement risks undermining a deal before its cut.

But in private, advisers, speaking anonymously, currently see infrastructure as the bigger political winner for Biden because its widely popular among voters of both parties.

Read the original:
Progressives criticize Biden and Harris for not doing more to help voting rights - The Guardian

SNY

On the Shea Anything podcast presented by Verizon, Keith Hernandez explains why MLB's efforts to stop pitchers from using sticky substances won't solve the problem of struggling offenses in baseball. Keith reveals the necessary adjustments the hitters must make in their approach. About Shea Anything: Subscribe below to the Shea Anything Podcast to hear Doug Williams, Andy Martino and Keith Hernandez talk New York Mets all season long! Apple: on.sny.tv/Fjog278 Spotify: on.sny.tv/mox84ql Baseball Night in New York host Doug Williams, SNY MLB Insider Andy Martino, SNY Analyst and Mets legend Keith Hernandez, and former Mets pitcher Jerry Blevins bring you the Shea Anything podcast! The guys discuss and debate everything surrounding the New York Mets, with two editions weekly to provide the ultimate fan with insider access, exclusive interviews, and unique stories about the team from Queens. About SNY: SNY is an award winning, multiplatform regional sports network serving millions across the country through unparalleled coverage of all things New York sports. SNY delivers the most comprehensive access to all of the Tri-State area's professional and collegiate sports teams through nightly sports and entertainment programs. SNY.tv is the "go-to" digital communal home for New York sports fans to get succinct, easy-to-read updates, video highlights and features, recaps, news, opinion, rumors, insight and fan reaction on their favorite New York sports teams. Check out more from SNY at https://sny.tv Subscribe to SNY on YouTube: https://on.sny.tv/S5RYeWN Like SNY on Facebook: https://on.sny.tv/rBYAHLi Follow SNY on Twitter: https://on.sny.tv/nOn1uq1 Follow SNY on Instagram: https://on.sny.tv/lEArPVp

Read this article:
Rep. Bowman: Biden is engaged in 'balancing act' with progressives - Yahoo News

Netanyahu is out and the latest round of violence with Hamas is over, but progressives willingness to criticize Israel is here to stay.

A dozen Jewish House Democrats responded with a statement blasting Omar for an offensive and misguided comparison that give[s] cover to terrorist groups; the top six House Democratic leaders also pushed back on Omar for drawing false equivalencies" while thanking her for clarifying her remark.

That friendly fire toward Omar prompted speculation that the House could move to punish her, but no tangible threat materialized. In fact, a notable number of colleagues including Jewish Democrats and the Congressional Black Caucus defended Omar and insisted that she was being unfairly targeted because she is a Muslim woman.

She is attracting much more scrutiny than anybody, like a person like me, would. People are ready to parse every word that she says. And I just think thats unfair, said Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), a septuagenarian Jewish American who contended that he wouldn't face similar backlash for his agreement with Omars comment.

The idea that you cant mention the U.S., Israel and Hamas in the same sentence without being accused of being anti-Semitic? Thats just stupid, Yarmuth added.

Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Ky., the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, discusses the Republican efforts to replace "Obamacare," during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington on July 20, 2017. | J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo

Even as Republicans leaped to deride Omar as antisemitic, it quickly became clear that the majority of Democrats simply wanted to move on. The 12 lawmakers who initially condemned Omar didnt push the issue further, and Republicans have edged away from their initial flirtation with forcing a vote to kick her off the Foreign Affairs Committee.

A greater number of Democrats used the moment to emphasize that they don't see criticism of the Israeli governments policies on its own as biased against Jewish people.

Do you believe in accountability for human rights, for war crimes? How can you believe in it for everybody except yourself, or your friends? said Rep. Andy Levin (D-Mich.), a Jewish American. That is what Representative Omar was actually saying. And since Ive taken that position myself for many years, why does everybody jump on her when she says it?

The rising number of defenders marks a victory for Omar and fellow progressives, who say their messaging on Israel is getting stronger and attracting more support from across the caucus and the party.

There were more Jews who didnt sign that letter than did, Yarmuth noted, describing the anti-Omar statement as an "overreaction" by the 12 Democrats. Some of the people probably regret that they did it.

Progressives were initially furious that the upper rung of Democratic leadership was so quick to push back on Omars comments. Still, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) later declined to characterize that response as a "rebuke," and Republicans viewed the cooling-down as their opponents effectively ceding a potential political cudgel.

The Democrat Party does not support Israel anymore, and theyre fine with helping a terrorist organization. Thats where they are, said Florida Sen. Rick Scott, who chairs the upper chamber's GOP campaign arm. Its a good issue for us.

Republicans have long sought to tie vulnerable Democrats to Omar and use her rhetoric as a political cudgel to paint the entire party as radical. During the latest round of fighting between Israel and Hamas, some GOP lawmakers went as far as to accuse Democrats of supporting the terror group because they were openly pushing for a ceasefire in defiance of then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Liberals counter that their position is favorable on the political and policy merits, as a generational divide within the Democratic Party has elevated younger lawmakers' calls for a recalibration in U.S. policy toward Israel. Democrats should consider a foreign-policy doctrine that takes into account the alleged human-rights abuses by U.S. allies, these younger members say, and a party leadership dominated by octogenarians should be encouraging that discussion.

Young people really look at this through a secular and non-ethnic or cultural or national point of view, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said in an interview. Young people are saying, why are we paying for this? Why are we supporting this?

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) listens as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announces the creation of the Select Committee on Economic Disparity and Fairness in Growth. | J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo

Ocasio-Cortez, a longtime Omar ally who's advocated for a tougher posture with Israel, said she often hears from young Jewish Americans who were raised with one narrative about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and they do not want their identity tied to this injustice.

One of several progressives pressing to put conditions on U.S. military aid to Israel, which is critical for its survival in the region, Ocasio-Cortez noted that she has long called for conditioning American aid money to various countries that are suspected of human-rights abuses, not just Israel.

Some lawmakers will confront such issues firsthand in the coming weeks. Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, will lead a congressional delegation to Israel as early as July 5, according to multiple sources. The number of members and who is going remains fluid, but one source told POLITICO that Reps. Ann Wagner (R-Mo.) and Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) will be joining Meeks first such trip as chair.

Meanwhile, progressives who want to keep reevaluating the U.S.-Israel relationship often add a social justice component to their messaging, underscoring that theirs is an anti-establishment tack. Progressives and young Democrats in particular view the foreign-policy establishment in Washington which has encompassed a majority from both parties as a destructive force.

And after a springtime conflict that saw more Democrats expressing deep reservations with President Joe Bidens strategy of quiet, intensive diplomacy as Israel waged retaliatory strikes against Hamas assets in Gaza, liberals sense more of an appetite for taking on the traditional breed of foreign policy that Biden embodies.

Its a generational shift of prioritizing human rights and having a human-rights focus in American foreign policy, said Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). And its definitely a recognition that those rights include Palestinian human rights.

Sarah Ferris and Laura Barron-Lopez contributed.

Read more:
Progressives count their foreign policy wins with Omar flap in rear view - POLITICO

Senate progressives aresignaling they aren't ready to bless a bipartisan infrastructure deal unless they can secure firm commitments on a separate Democratic-only bill.

The early pushback comes as President BidenJoe BidenTrump calls Barr 'a disappointment in every sense of the word' Last foreign scientist to work at Wuhan lab: 'What people are saying is just not how it is' Toyota defends donations to lawmakers who objected to certifying election MORE and a bipartisan group of senators reached an agreement on infrastructure spending, underscoring that any bipartisan legislation willhave a ways to go before winning broad support on Capitol Hill.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie SandersBernie SandersPolitical campaigns worry they're next for ransomware hits Headaches mount for Biden in spending fight How Biden can reframe and reclaim patriotism, faith, freedom, and equality MORE (I-Vt.) vowed that there would not be movement on a bipartisan deal unless there is a "firm, absolute agreement" on a sweeping reconciliation bill.

"There is not going to be a bipartisan agreement without a major reconciliation package," he said before Biden announced the deal Thursday afternoon.

Sen. Chris MurphyChristopher (Chris) Scott MurphyHeadaches mount for Biden in spending fight Biden: 'Not my intent' to imply veto for bipartisan infrastructure package Biden says he won't sign bipartisan bill without reconciliation bill MORE (D-Conn.) said he is"not voting for a bipartisan package unless I know what is in reconciliation.

"I think there is, like I said, 20 votes for this," he added. "I can find you a lot of other things that there are 20 votes for."

Murphy said Democrats "need to have some understanding" that includes a "pathway to pass" a larger Democratic-only bill through the budget reconciliation process. He sidestepped a question about procedure and timing, saying those issues are still being discussed.

A bipartisan group of 10 senators five Democrats, five Republicans announced on Wednesday night that they had reached an agreement on a scaled-down infrastructure package and that White House negotiators had agreed to the details. Biden met with the group on Thursday and formally endorsed the deal, which includes $559 billion in new spending for a total of $1.2 trillion over eight years.

The deal includes $559 billion in new spending for a total of $1.2 trillion over eight years.

But that amount is still substantially smaller than what many Democrats want. Biden has outlined a $2.3 trillion jobs plan and a $1.8 trillion families plan, while the bipartisan group plan is more tightly focused on more traditional infrastructure like roads, bridges and broadband.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) panned the bipartisan framework from Wednesday night as "paltry." And Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron WydenRonald (Ron) Lee WydenThe Hill's Sustainability Report Presented by NextEra Energy Philippine flies turn trash into beef Colorado lawmaker warns of fire season becoming year-round Progressives fire warning shot on bipartisan infrastructure deal MORE (D-Ore.) argued that the "confusion" over what is in the bipartisan plan underscores that the smaller plan and the Democratic-only bill have to be linked.

"The confusion over the last few days makes it even more important in my mind that the two efforts ... be directly connected. And I want it understood that as chairman of the Finance Committee ... I will not support anything that throws those other matters overboard," Wyden said, referring to priorities like climate change, health care and changes to the tax code.

Wyden declined to say how that would work procedurally on the Senate floor, saying it was still under discussion, but reiterated that the two plans have to be "directly connected."

Democrats are pursuing a two-track path as they try to get infrastructure passed through Congress this year. On one path is the bipartisan group's proposal, on the second is a Democratic-only bill that would be used to pass the reconciliation process that allows Democrats to avoid a 60-vote legislative filibuster.

Part of the scheduling headache for Democratic leaders is that reconciliation is a two-step process: First lawmakers need to pass a budget resolution that greenlights and includes instructions for a subsequent Democratic-only bill. Then they have to write and pass the sweeping multitrillion-dollar infrastructure bill itself.

Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiPhotos of the Week: Infrastructure, Britney Spears and Sen. Tillis's dog Headaches mount for Biden in spending fight Wallace has contentious interview with GOP lawmaker: Aren't you the ones defunding the police? MORE (D-Calif.), amid progressive pressure, said on Thursday before the deal was announced that the House will not pass the bipartisan bill until they are also ready to pass the larger Democratic-only package.

But progressives don't have that guarantee in the Senate, where they appear likely to move separately.

Senate Majority Leader Charles SchumerChuck SchumerThe Innovation and Competition Act is progressive policy Infrastructure deal: Major climate win that tees up more in reconciliation bill Democrats seek to calm nervous left MORE (D-N.Y.) told reporters on Wednesday night that he would take up both the potential bipartisan deal and the "first act" of the Democratic-only bill passing the budget resolution that tees it up in July.

Schumer has not given a hard timeline for when the Senate will take up the subsequent Democratic-only infrastructure package. But the Senate is poised to leave town in early August until mid-September, and Democrats believe its increasingly likely it will wait until the fall.

To even pass the budget resolution, Democrats need total unity from all 50 of their members, something they don't yet have. And progressives are warning that they won't let the bipartisan bill move forward without a broader deal on how the bigger package gets passed.

Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth WarrenHeadaches mount for Biden in spending fight Senate plants a seed for bipartisan climate solutions White House adviser to MSNBC host: Biden deal 'wasn't a photo op' MORE (D-Mass.) warned that progressives are "not going to be left holding the bag."

"There is no half a deal or 10 percent of a deal that covers roads and bridges and leaves everything else behind," Warren said.

"We'll work out the details on how the votes go, that's part of what we're talking about right now," she added. "But make no mistake there's commitment in our caucus that one piece is not going to go forward and leave the rest of it in the train station."

See the rest here:
Progressives fire warning shot on bipartisan infrastructure deal | TheHill - The Hill