Transcript:Sen. Todd Young (R-IN) went off behind closed doors over the lack of planning and transparency by the Trump administration in their attack on Iran — but stopped short of backing a resolution to actually require oversight of it. According to Punchbowl News' Andrew Desiderio, Young "went off about the WH’s and GOP leadership’s handling of the Iran situation during the closed-door Republican lunch just now, per multiple sources. Young bemoaned lack of oversight or hearings by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee after Sen. Lindsey Graham got animated saying R’s should be supporting Trump on this."However, per the report, "After the lunch, Young reiterated he’s 'inclined' to vote against the ... war powers resolution" introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) to put checks on Trump's powers to wage war. This comes after Trump was caught lying that Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine had endorsed the Iran strategy he moved forward with, when in reality Caine provided multiple options, including far more limited actions. It also comes as Trump offers multiple, conflicting rationales for why the United States was compelled to go to war with Iran, including that it might be retribution for the country's failed assassination attempts against him.Our Analysis:The Paradox of Senator Todd Young's Rhetoric vs. ActionIn a recent display of political theater that would make even the most seasoned cynics raise an eyebrow, Sen. Todd Young (R-IN) has managed to embody the very essence of contradiction. Behind the secure doors of a Republican lunch, he reportedly unleashed a tirade against the Trump administration's handling of the Iran situation, bemoaning the lack of planning, transparency, and, critically, Senate oversight. Yet, when the curtains are drawn and the audience of his peers disperses, Young's fiery rhetoric fizzles out, revealing a reluctance to support actual measures that would address his so-called concerns.The PerformanceAccording to Punchbowl News' Andrew Desiderio, Young was not shy in expressing his dissatisfaction with how the White House and GOP leadership have navigated the precarious Iran situation. He criticized the absence of oversight or hearings by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a body that, theoretically, should be at the forefront of such discussions. This stance, shared in the echo chamber of a closed-door Republican lunch, paints Young as a figure of principle and concern, one seemingly willing to challenge his own party's handling of national security.The RetreatHowever, the plot thickens—or rather, thins considerably—when Young steps out of the shadows of private luncheons and into the harsh light of public accountability. Despite his purported inclination towards oversight and transparency, Young hesitates to back the war powers resolution introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA). This resolution, aimed squarely at reining in Trump's unilateral powers to wage war, would ostensibly serve as a direct solution to Young's voiced concerns. Yet, the senator finds himself "inclined" to vote against it.The Context of ContradictionAdding layers to this political drama is the backdrop against which Young's contradictions play out. The Trump administration, caught in a web of misinformation regarding the endorsement of their Iran strategy by Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, has offered a kaleidoscope of justifications for escalating tensions with Iran. These justifications range from retribution for failed assassination attempts against Trump to other, more nebulous reasons. In this context, Young's criticisms of the administration's approach could have been a beacon of reason and a call to action. Instead, they emerge as little more than a hollow performance.Conclusion: The Essence of Political TheaterSen. Todd Young's actions—or lack thereof—serve as a quintessential example of the political theater that plagues discussions of national security and foreign policy within the halls of Congress. The stark discrepancy between his private criticisms and public inaction underscores a troubling trend of performative concern that fails to manifest into meaningful opposition or oversight. This episode not only highlights the inertia often inherent in political institutions but also raises questions about the genuineness of such criticisms when they are not accompanied by concrete actions.In the end, Young's stance is emblematic of a broader issue: the ease with which words can be decoupled from deeds in the political arena. As observers and constituents, we must ask ourselves whether we are content to watch these performances or whether we demand a cast that acts with consistency and courage, both behind closed doors and in the public eye.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:Late Tuesday morning, March 3, the news broke that Georgia resident Colin Gray — the father of school shooter Colt Gray — had been convicted on murder and manslaughter churches. According to CNN reporters Eric Levenson and Maxime Tamsett, the case is "testing the limits of who is responsible for a mass shooting.""The jury deliberated for less than two hours before convicting him on all 27 charges: two counts of second-degree murder, two counts of involuntary manslaughter, 18 counts of cruelty to children and five counts of reckless conduct," the CNN reporters explain. "At the defense table, Colin Gray did not visibly react to the verdict. He was taken from the courtroom in handcuffs. He faces 10 to 30 years in prison on each murder charge and 1 to 10 years on each manslaughter charge."Levenson and Tamsett add, "Prosecutors accused Gray of buying his son an AR-15-style rifle as a Christmas present and allowing him access to that weapon and ammunition despite warnings that his son was a danger to others. Colt Gray, then 14, used that rifle to carry out a mass shooting at Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia, on September 4, 2024, killing two teachers and two students and wounding nine others." The verdict is generating a lot of comments on X, formerly Twitter — including some angry comments from MAGA Republicans and others on the right. The Pod Millennial's Libby Emmons, described as a "feminist who was purged by the trans left" by The American Conservative (which she has written for), tweeted, "What I don't get is why this happens with school shooters' parents but not the parents of gang banger teens. BREAKING: Father of Apalachee school shooter found guilty second-degree murder after son killed 2 students, 2 teachers." In response to Emmons' tweet, fundamentalist Christian Connie McKay posted, "Just my opinion but the same question should be asked about lenient judges. Why aren't they being charged for atrocities occurring after their soft sentences?"X user Rebecca Wallace wrote, "What? Why? What did he do? You keep saying what the son did. Did he help? Poorest report ever." Another X user, Julie Boudicca posted, "Those are insane convictions for someone who neither plotted to nor killed anyone."

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:Prominent conservative, William Kristol — who was one of the most vocal, influential proponents advocating for the overthrow of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and the 2003 Iraq War to remove him — says advocates for President Donal Trump’s war in Iran are already on shaky ground.“Why did we go to war four days ago? And why are we going to continue this war, apparently for weeks or longer? The Trump administration can’t answer either question,” said Kristol. Kristol points out that on Monday CNN reporter Kasie Hunt “posed a sensible question” to Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin, who serves on the Armed Services Committee and who has been acting as an administration surrogate over the last few days: “Did the president not run on not starting a war with Iran?”But Kristol said Sen. Mullin deflected: “This isn’t a war.”“You know the administration’s defenders are in trouble when they resort to this kind of denial of reality,” said Kristol — and this is the conservative who bought former U. S. Secretary of State Colin Powell’s claim that Iraq was on the cusp of loading up with enough fissile material for nuclear bomb development. Now perhaps a more discerning observer, Kristol points out that “Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had undermined this talking point a few hours earlier, acknowledging that we are in fact at war.”“We didn’t start this war, but under President Trump, we are finishing it,” Hegseth said.“So yes, we are at war,” said Kristol. “To deny this is disrespectful both to the American public, who have eyes to see what is happening, and to our servicemen and servicewomen, whom the administration has ordered into harm’s way. Will Sen. Mullin explain to the families of the service members who have died that their loved ones were not fighting in a war?”This does not mean President Donald Trump has anything close to a reason behind his war, however.“The administration hasn’t offered a coherent explanation. Over the weekend, President Trump suggested several purposes and backed away from some, leaving confusion in his wake,” said Kristol. “His aides tried to clean things up yesterday, having Trump read military ‘objectives’ from a teleprompter at the White House. But none of the objectives — destroying Iran’s missile capabilities and its navy, ensuring Iran can’t obtain a nuclear weapon or support terrorism — explain why we had to go to war now. Nor do they explain why we are engaged in such an open-ended and massive military campaign.”Kristol points out that Trump’s secretary of state, Marco Rubio, “tried to help out his boss” on Monday by arguing that the Iranian threat to the U. S. really was imminent, and that it required a preemptive attack. However, last June, Israel was at all-out war with Iran for almost two weeks before the Trump fire upon Iran himself. And during that span Iran launched major attacks against Israel, but hardly any attacks on U. S. assets in the region.“Instead the administration chose a pre-emptive and unauthorized war for which it has offered no coherent rationale. And it now has no sound argument for why this war must be extended,” said Kristol, adding that six U. S. service people have already lost their lives in Trump’s personal war. “The answer is simple: Congress should not give this administration a blank and open-ended check to continue to wage a massive, risky, and unconstitutional war.”

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:Sen. Todd Young (R-IN) went off behind closed doors over the lack of planning and transparency by the Trump administration in their attack on Iran — but stopped short of backing a resolution to actually require oversight of it. According to Punchbowl News' Andrew Desiderio, Young "went off about the WH’s and GOP leadership’s handling of the Iran situation during the closed-door Republican lunch just now, per multiple sources. Young bemoaned lack of oversight or hearings by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee after Sen. Lindsey Graham got animated saying R’s should be supporting Trump on this."However, per the report, "After the lunch, Young reiterated he’s 'inclined' to vote against the ... war powers resolution" introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) to put checks on Trump's powers to wage war. This comes after Trump was caught lying that Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine had endorsed the Iran strategy he moved forward with, when in reality Caine provided multiple options, including far more limited actions. It also comes as Trump offers multiple, conflicting rationales for why the United States was compelled to go to war with Iran, including that it might be retribution for the country's failed assassination attempts against him.Our Analysis:The Paradox of Senator Todd Young's Rhetoric vs. ActionIn a recent display of political theater that would make even the most seasoned cynics raise an eyebrow, Sen. Todd Young (R-IN) has managed to embody the very essence of contradiction. Behind the secure doors of a Republican lunch, he reportedly unleashed a tirade against the Trump administration's handling of the Iran situation, bemoaning the lack of planning, transparency, and, critically, Senate oversight. Yet, when the curtains are drawn and the audience of his peers disperses, Young's fiery rhetoric fizzles out, revealing a reluctance to support actual measures that would address his so-called concerns.The PerformanceAccording to Punchbowl News' Andrew Desiderio, Young was not shy in expressing his dissatisfaction with how the White House and GOP leadership have navigated the precarious Iran situation. He criticized the absence of oversight or hearings by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a body that, theoretically, should be at the forefront of such discussions. This stance, shared in the echo chamber of a closed-door Republican lunch, paints Young as a figure of principle and concern, one seemingly willing to challenge his own party's handling of national security.The RetreatHowever, the plot thickens—or rather, thins considerably—when Young steps out of the shadows of private luncheons and into the harsh light of public accountability. Despite his purported inclination towards oversight and transparency, Young hesitates to back the war powers resolution introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA). This resolution, aimed squarely at reining in Trump's unilateral powers to wage war, would ostensibly serve as a direct solution to Young's voiced concerns. Yet, the senator finds himself "inclined" to vote against it.The Context of ContradictionAdding layers to this political drama is the backdrop against which Young's contradictions play out. The Trump administration, caught in a web of misinformation regarding the endorsement of their Iran strategy by Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, has offered a kaleidoscope of justifications for escalating tensions with Iran. These justifications range from retribution for failed assassination attempts against Trump to other, more nebulous reasons. In this context, Young's criticisms of the administration's approach could have been a beacon of reason and a call to action. Instead, they emerge as little more than a hollow performance.Conclusion: The Essence of Political TheaterSen. Todd Young's actions—or lack thereof—serve as a quintessential example of the political theater that plagues discussions of national security and foreign policy within the halls of Congress. The stark discrepancy between his private criticisms and public inaction underscores a troubling trend of performative concern that fails to manifest into meaningful opposition or oversight. This episode not only highlights the inertia often inherent in political institutions but also raises questions about the genuineness of such criticisms when they are not accompanied by concrete actions.In the end, Young's stance is emblematic of a broader issue: the ease with which words can be decoupled from deeds in the political arena. As observers and constituents, we must ask ourselves whether we are content to watch these performances or whether we demand a cast that acts with consistency and courage, both behind closed doors and in the public eye.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:Late Tuesday morning, March 3, the news broke that Georgia resident Colin Gray — the father of school shooter Colt Gray — had been convicted on murder and manslaughter churches. According to CNN reporters Eric Levenson and Maxime Tamsett, the case is "testing the limits of who is responsible for a mass shooting.""The jury deliberated for less than two hours before convicting him on all 27 charges: two counts of second-degree murder, two counts of involuntary manslaughter, 18 counts of cruelty to children and five counts of reckless conduct," the CNN reporters explain. "At the defense table, Colin Gray did not visibly react to the verdict. He was taken from the courtroom in handcuffs. He faces 10 to 30 years in prison on each murder charge and 1 to 10 years on each manslaughter charge."Levenson and Tamsett add, "Prosecutors accused Gray of buying his son an AR-15-style rifle as a Christmas present and allowing him access to that weapon and ammunition despite warnings that his son was a danger to others. Colt Gray, then 14, used that rifle to carry out a mass shooting at Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia, on September 4, 2024, killing two teachers and two students and wounding nine others." The verdict is generating a lot of comments on X, formerly Twitter — including some angry comments from MAGA Republicans and others on the right. The Pod Millennial's Libby Emmons, described as a "feminist who was purged by the trans left" by The American Conservative (which she has written for), tweeted, "What I don't get is why this happens with school shooters' parents but not the parents of gang banger teens. BREAKING: Father of Apalachee school shooter found guilty second-degree murder after son killed 2 students, 2 teachers." In response to Emmons' tweet, fundamentalist Christian Connie McKay posted, "Just my opinion but the same question should be asked about lenient judges. Why aren't they being charged for atrocities occurring after their soft sentences?"X user Rebecca Wallace wrote, "What? Why? What did he do? You keep saying what the son did. Did he help? Poorest report ever." Another X user, Julie Boudicca posted, "Those are insane convictions for someone who neither plotted to nor killed anyone."

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) said he was "suspicious" that Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) might have committed treason by leaking President Donald Trump's plan to strike Iranian leadership, many of whom are now dead. On Tuesday, Sen. Johnson spoke to MAGA influencer Benny Johnson on a broadcast titled, "Ilhan Omar LEAKED U. S. Military Attack Plans to IRAN — Treason?"Benny Johnson alleged that Omar "leaked" Operation Epic Fury to Iran through a post on X four days before the strikes. In the post, the Minnesota Democrat said that it was "sickening to know that the US is again going to attack Iran during Ramadan.""Ilhan Omar told Iran exactly when we would attack," the MAGA influencer said. "She did it in public. And it begs of the question, what did she know? When did she know it?""I can't find any other tweets from any other members of Congress staying with such precise certitude when we're going to attack Iran," he added before introducing Ron Johnson. "Let's jump on over to our senator. Ladies and gentlemen, Senator Ron Johnson, locked and loaded and ready to go. Is Ilhan Omar a traitor?""And given the fact that Rubio and the CIA director had just briefed the gang of eight about our war plans, you know, I mean, it just seems Iran — I just see the timing just seems very strange to me, and extremely reckless, of course, Americans have now died in this conflict, and it bothers us."Sen. Johnson agreed: "Well, it is suspicious. I certainly don't trust the Congresswoman.""You know, it's one of the reasons that we've given — the Constitution gives the President of the United States the authority over these foreign affairs and quite honestly kind of military action," the senator continued. "You cannot brief Congress and expect to hold or have war plans held confidential. They're going to leak.""You're going to have people that might be traitors that way."The senator did not explain how the U. S. was able to kill so many Iranian leaders if they knew of the strikes in advance. In a post on X, Elon Musk's Grok AI chatbot disagreed with Benny Johnson's allegation about a leak."No, available public records do not indicate Rep. Ilhan Omar leaked classified U. S. military attack plans to Iran or committed treason," the chatbot said. "Her Feb 27 post stated the U. S. 'is again going to attack Iran during Ramadan,' framing it as politically motivated. This was public speculation/criticism ahead of reported strikes (which occurred during Ramadan), not specific details like targets or timing passed privately to Iran.""As a Foreign Affairs Committee member, she may have had general briefings, but no sources show she disclosed classified info or aided an enemy—treason's narrow constitutional definition," Grok concluded. "The accusation originates from interpretive media claims without supporting evidence of a leak."Our Analysis:The Accusation: A Masterclass in Political DeflectionIn a recent display of what can only be described as political theater at its most dubious, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) entertained the notion that Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) might have committed treason by allegedly leaking President Donald Trump's supposed strike plans against Iranian leadership. This accusation, aired during a conversation with MAGA influencer Benny Johnson, is a textbook example of the art of deflection and unsubstantiated claims that plague our political discourse.Let's Break Down the Facts:The Baseless AllegationBenny Johnson's claim centers on a post made by Rep. Omar on X, where she criticized the U. S. for attacking Iran during Ramadan. Johnson leaps to an extraordinary conclusion from Omar's public statement, suggesting it was a leak of classified military plans. This leap is not only gargantuan in its logic but dangerously accuses a sitting Congresswoman of treason without a shred of hard evidence.Sen. Ron Johnson's Echo ChamberSen. Johnson, instead of bringing clarity or skepticism to the wild accusation, chooses to amplify it. His comments on not trusting Rep. Omar and questioning the timing of her remarks only serve to fan the flames of conspiracy without offering any concrete evidence. His assertion that briefing Congress on military plans is tantamount to expecting leaks is a cynical view that undermines the very foundation of our democratic oversight processes.The Role of Grok AIIn an interesting twist, Elon Musk's Grok AI chatbot emerges as the voice of reason. The AI, analyzing available public records, found no evidence that Rep. Omar leaked classified U. S. military plans to Iran. It points out that Omar's post was in the realm of public speculation and criticism, far from the disclosure of specific military details constituting treason.The Heart of the MatterThe accusation against Rep. Ilhan Omar is not just about her; it's a reflection of a deeper malaise within American politics where sensational accusations can be hurled without evidence, and where public figures are ready to entertain conspiracy theories for political gain. This incident underscores the dangerous politicization of national security issues and the reckless bandying about of serious accusations like treason.ConclusionIn sum, the allegations against Rep. Omar, as entertained by Sen. Johnson and propagated by Benny Johnson, lack substance and fall squarely into the realm of political fear-mongering. It's a stark reminder of the necessity for critical thinking and the demand for evidence before making explosive claims. Our political discourse deserves better than baseless accusations and the careless undermining of democratic institutions. As the Grok AI analysis suggests, this is a case where the facts do not align with the sensationalism of the accusations—a pattern all too common in today's political environment.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:The surprising decision by the Trump administration to reverse course and continue battling progressive law firms and lawyers has been attributed to the ire of Donald Trump and his senior advisor, Stephen Miller. But given that Trump is somewhat preoccupied by a certain Middle East conflict, a CNN story and speculation attributed to “a source familiar with the situation" hint that Miller’s fingerprints appear to be likely the ones gripping the renewed legal throttle. Miller’s America First Legal has previously targeted law firms and corporations for diversity initiatives and challenged Biden-era policies to pressure compliance with conservative goals. Thus, The Wall Street Journal story that the Trump administration was abandoning its defense of the president’s executive orders sanctioning several law firms and individuals indicates at the least some Justice Department missed communications. Trump’s executive orders would have prevented firms and individual lawyers from entering federal buildings, eliminated federal contracts with the firms and their clients, and removed any security clearances. Law firms Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Perkins Coie, and Susman Godfrey were among those affected. Chilled by those lawsuits, several other large law firms cut deals with the president, providing more than $1 billion in pro bono work on causes Trump favored. Trump cited the sanctioned parties for their connections to his political rivals. He also noted their diversity initiatives and pro bono work for immigrants, transgender rights and voting protections in his executive orders. Now, the administration’s bite at the legal apple continues.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:Late Tuesday morning, March 3, the news broke that Georgia resident Colin Gray — the father of school shooter Colt Gray — had been convicted on murder and manslaughter churches. According to CNN reporters Eric Levenson and Maxime Tamsett, the case is "testing the limits of who is responsible for a mass shooting.""The jury deliberated for less than two hours before convicting him on all 27 charges: two counts of second-degree murder, two counts of involuntary manslaughter, 18 counts of cruelty to children and five counts of reckless conduct," the CNN reporters explain. "At the defense table, Colin Gray did not visibly react to the verdict. He was taken from the courtroom in handcuffs. He faces 10 to 30 years in prison on each murder charge and 1 to 10 years on each manslaughter charge."Levenson and Tamsett add, "Prosecutors accused Gray of buying his son an AR-15-style rifle as a Christmas present and allowing him access to that weapon and ammunition despite warnings that his son was a danger to others. Colt Gray, then 14, used that rifle to carry out a mass shooting at Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia, on September 4, 2024, killing two teachers and two students and wounding nine others." The verdict is generating a lot of comments on X, formerly Twitter — including some angry comments from MAGA Republicans and others on the right. The Pod Millennial's Libby Emmons, described as a "feminist who was purged by the trans left" by The American Conservative (which she has written for), tweeted, "What I don't get is why this happens with school shooters' parents but not the parents of gang banger teens. BREAKING: Father of Apalachee school shooter found guilty second-degree murder after son killed 2 students, 2 teachers." In response to Emmons' tweet, fundamentalist Christian Connie McKay posted, "Just my opinion but the same question should be asked about lenient judges. Why aren't they being charged for atrocities occurring after their soft sentences?"X user Rebecca Wallace wrote, "What? Why? What did he do? You keep saying what the son did. Did he help? Poorest report ever." Another X user, Julie Boudicca posted, "Those are insane convictions for someone who neither plotted to nor killed anyone."

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:Prominent conservative, William Kristol — who was one of the most vocal, influential proponents advocating for the overthrow of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and the 2003 Iraq War to remove him — says advocates for President Donal Trump’s war in Iran are already on shaky ground.“Why did we go to war four days ago? And why are we going to continue this war, apparently for weeks or longer? The Trump administration can’t answer either question,” said Kristol. Kristol points out that on Monday CNN reporter Kasie Hunt “posed a sensible question” to Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin, who serves on the Armed Services Committee and who has been acting as an administration surrogate over the last few days: “Did the president not run on not starting a war with Iran?”But Kristol said Sen. Mullin deflected: “This isn’t a war.”“You know the administration’s defenders are in trouble when they resort to this kind of denial of reality,” said Kristol — and this is the conservative who bought former U. S. Secretary of State Colin Powell’s claim that Iraq was on the cusp of loading up with enough fissile material for nuclear bomb development. Now perhaps a more discerning observer, Kristol points out that “Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had undermined this talking point a few hours earlier, acknowledging that we are in fact at war.”“We didn’t start this war, but under President Trump, we are finishing it,” Hegseth said.“So yes, we are at war,” said Kristol. “To deny this is disrespectful both to the American public, who have eyes to see what is happening, and to our servicemen and servicewomen, whom the administration has ordered into harm’s way. Will Sen. Mullin explain to the families of the service members who have died that their loved ones were not fighting in a war?”This does not mean President Donald Trump has anything close to a reason behind his war, however.“The administration hasn’t offered a coherent explanation. Over the weekend, President Trump suggested several purposes and backed away from some, leaving confusion in his wake,” said Kristol. “His aides tried to clean things up yesterday, having Trump read military ‘objectives’ from a teleprompter at the White House. But none of the objectives — destroying Iran’s missile capabilities and its navy, ensuring Iran can’t obtain a nuclear weapon or support terrorism — explain why we had to go to war now. Nor do they explain why we are engaged in such an open-ended and massive military campaign.”Kristol points out that Trump’s secretary of state, Marco Rubio, “tried to help out his boss” on Monday by arguing that the Iranian threat to the U. S. really was imminent, and that it required a preemptive attack. However, last June, Israel was at all-out war with Iran for almost two weeks before the Trump fire upon Iran himself. And during that span Iran launched major attacks against Israel, but hardly any attacks on U. S. assets in the region.“Instead the administration chose a pre-emptive and unauthorized war for which it has offered no coherent rationale. And it now has no sound argument for why this war must be extended,” said Kristol, adding that six U. S. service people have already lost their lives in Trump’s personal war. “The answer is simple: Congress should not give this administration a blank and open-ended check to continue to wage a massive, risky, and unconstitutional war.”

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:Sen. Todd Young (R-IN) went off behind closed doors over the lack of planning and transparency by the Trump administration in their attack on Iran — but stopped short of backing a resolution to actually require oversight of it. According to Punchbowl News' Andrew Desiderio, Young "went off about the WH’s and GOP leadership’s handling of the Iran situation during the closed-door Republican lunch just now, per multiple sources. Young bemoaned lack of oversight or hearings by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee after Sen. Lindsey Graham got animated saying R’s should be supporting Trump on this."However, per the report, "After the lunch, Young reiterated he’s 'inclined' to vote against the ... war powers resolution" introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) to put checks on Trump's powers to wage war. This comes after Trump was caught lying that Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine had endorsed the Iran strategy he moved forward with, when in reality Caine provided multiple options, including far more limited actions. It also comes as Trump offers multiple, conflicting rationales for why the United States was compelled to go to war with Iran, including that it might be retribution for the country's failed assassination attempts against him.Our Analysis:The Paradox of Senator Todd Young's Rhetoric vs. ActionIn a recent display of political theater that would make even the most seasoned cynics raise an eyebrow, Sen. Todd Young (R-IN) has managed to embody the very essence of contradiction. Behind the secure doors of a Republican lunch, he reportedly unleashed a tirade against the Trump administration's handling of the Iran situation, bemoaning the lack of planning, transparency, and, critically, Senate oversight. Yet, when the curtains are drawn and the audience of his peers disperses, Young's fiery rhetoric fizzles out, revealing a reluctance to support actual measures that would address his so-called concerns.The PerformanceAccording to Punchbowl News' Andrew Desiderio, Young was not shy in expressing his dissatisfaction with how the White House and GOP leadership have navigated the precarious Iran situation. He criticized the absence of oversight or hearings by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a body that, theoretically, should be at the forefront of such discussions. This stance, shared in the echo chamber of a closed-door Republican lunch, paints Young as a figure of principle and concern, one seemingly willing to challenge his own party's handling of national security.The RetreatHowever, the plot thickens—or rather, thins considerably—when Young steps out of the shadows of private luncheons and into the harsh light of public accountability. Despite his purported inclination towards oversight and transparency, Young hesitates to back the war powers resolution introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA). This resolution, aimed squarely at reining in Trump's unilateral powers to wage war, would ostensibly serve as a direct solution to Young's voiced concerns. Yet, the senator finds himself "inclined" to vote against it.The Context of ContradictionAdding layers to this political drama is the backdrop against which Young's contradictions play out. The Trump administration, caught in a web of misinformation regarding the endorsement of their Iran strategy by Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, has offered a kaleidoscope of justifications for escalating tensions with Iran. These justifications range from retribution for failed assassination attempts against Trump to other, more nebulous reasons. In this context, Young's criticisms of the administration's approach could have been a beacon of reason and a call to action. Instead, they emerge as little more than a hollow performance.Conclusion: The Essence of Political TheaterSen. Todd Young's actions—or lack thereof—serve as a quintessential example of the political theater that plagues discussions of national security and foreign policy within the halls of Congress. The stark discrepancy between his private criticisms and public inaction underscores a troubling trend of performative concern that fails to manifest into meaningful opposition or oversight. This episode not only highlights the inertia often inherent in political institutions but also raises questions about the genuineness of such criticisms when they are not accompanied by concrete actions.In the end, Young's stance is emblematic of a broader issue: the ease with which words can be decoupled from deeds in the political arena. As observers and constituents, we must ask ourselves whether we are content to watch these performances or whether we demand a cast that acts with consistency and courage, both behind closed doors and in the public eye.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com