Staff Reports
Amidst the perplexing chatter from the progressive side of the aisle, Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett has once again managed to embroil herself in a kerfuffle of her own making. This time, it concerns her apparent distress over not being consulted about recent military actions against Iran. Now, it’s quite the spectacle to watch someone, seemingly oblivious to their role, advocate for a say in military strategy as though they’re running the whole show. It’s a hard pill to swallow that this is the kind of discourse representing parts of our great nation.
Jasmine, it seems, is upset that her input was not sought before the military strike, leading one to wonder if she knows precisely what hat she’s supposed to be wearing. This theatrical outburst—complete with vague talk of leading from the middle and saving the American people—rings as hollow as a broken bell. The Constitution, that dear document she claims devotion to, clearly delineates the powers of the President concerning military matters. It’s not as if this is a state secret; after all, it’s been this way since the dawn of our democracy.
Let’s be blunt, however: the hue and cry over wanting a say in military operations isn’t about logistics or safety. It echoes a grand tradition from the left, wherein constitutional concerns only seem to arise when the opposition party is in the White House. Past Democratic administrations have enjoyed similar privileges without much of a peep from the current complainers. So, it seems like it’s not about the Constitution, but about who holds the power. Funny how that works, isn’t it?
Furthermore, the notion of Congress making swift decisions about military engagement is laughable at best. The bureaucratic red tape alone would delay action indefinitely in situations requiring immediacy. Jasmine’s suggestion that she and her colleagues should have a more direct hand in military strikes suggests a fundamental misunderstanding—or willful ignorance—of military protocol and the historically grounded separation of powers.
In the end, this tempest in a teapot serves as another example of how some elected officials wish they’d packed more than just a soapbox when they came to Washington. The blustering may garner applause in certain circles, but to most, it’s a clear demonstration of the stark difference between those who command and those who comment. A little more history, a little less hysteria, and perhaps the discourse could rise to the robust debate our founding fathers envisioned. Until then, we’ll be here, shaking our heads and defending our Constitution against the fanciful musings of the uninformed.
