During a recent appearance on Fox News, Donald Trump, unprompted, decided to start whining about Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

“She’s a very difficult person,” the president said, adding that the senator is also a “very terrible person, to be honest with you.”

What prompted Trump to lash out at a senator from his own party, whose support he’ll need in the coming weeks and months? Shortly before his on-air comments, The New York Times reported the Alaskan had begun drafting legislation that would force lawmakers to vote for the first time on whether to authorize the war in Iran. From the article:

Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska is working with a group of senators on a formal authorization for the use of military force against Iran, but has yet to introduce the resolution, a spokesman confirmed on Thursday. Such a measure would have to receive a swift vote in both chambers of Congress and would be all but certain to generate a politically charged debate just months before the midterm elections on a war that polls show is unpopular.

Ms. Murkowski described the move on Thursday as an act of desperation to try to put some parameters around the operation as the Trump administration refuses to provide answers to Congress about its objectives, cost and timeline, and has boxed lawmakers out of its decision-making on the conflict.

It probably wasn’t a coincidence that the president condemned Murkowski as “difficult” and a “very terrible person” right around the time she decided that it’s time for Congress to start exercising some of its atrophied muscles related to war powers.

What’s more, courage is often contagious on Capitol Hill, and just five days after Murkowski talked about her efforts, Republican Sen. John Curtis of Utah wrote an op-ed for The Deseret News in which he expressed general support for the mission in Iran, but fleshed out his expectations for Congress’ role.

“[H]ere in America, constitutional limits are in place to temper the president from unilateral authority,” Curtis wrote. “I support the president’s actions taken in defense of American lives and interests. However, I will not support ongoing military action beyond a 60-day window without congressional approval. … I cannot support funding for continued military operations without Congress having the opportunity to weigh in.”

In between Murkowski’s comments and the publication of Curtis’ piece, Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky said he would oppose the administration’s request for an extra $200 billion for the war.

“I won’t vote for the supplemental, because I don’t want the war to continue,” Paul told CBS News.

To be sure, there are 53 Senate Republicans, most of whom appear content to simply take orders from the White House and indifferent to the constitutional role of Congress when it comes to war. Indeed, as the sixth week of the military operations get underway, it’s extraordinary that neither the House nor the Senate have held a single hearing about the war, its merits, its cost, its objectives or the way in which it’s been executed.

But with the public turning sharply against the war, and with Murkowski, Curtis and Paul showing some independence on the issue, the White House is confronting something it had hoped to avoid: cracks in the partisan façade.

The post On the war in Iran, the White House confronts cracks in the Republican façade appeared first on MS NOW.

Author: Source Author

From MS Now.