"We're dealing with what we're dealing with right now" is an excuse for the ages. "This is different," he begins, and yet he hasn't worked out how it's different. He just needs it to be different. A dangerous move when you're winging it and don't know the facts of the things you're saying are different. There are a few seconds — 0:26 to 0:33 — where Jeffries knows he's in trouble. He mutters the hilarious line, "First of all, I was not in Congress," and shows a flash of shame before resetting with the all-purpose segue "So we're dealing with what we're dealing with right now."NEW: I asked House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) about Nancy Pelosi saying in 2011 that President Obama didn't need Congressional approval to bomb Libya, but Dems now say President Trump needs approval to bomb Iran?
— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) March 3, 2026
Jeffries said Iran is "very different" & told me "I… pic.twitter.com/SkLr1R5wr1
March 4, 2026
"So we're dealing with what we're dealing with right now."
Posts
70 comments:
Saying "pre-eminent" when you mean "Imminent" is a nice bit of added comedy.
This assumes the premise that congresscritters are capable of feeling shame. This reader continues to be skeptical of this premise, irrespective of political party.
Another example of the slow and steady dying of TDS.
Per Fatboy Slim's eloquent poetry of 1998:
Right here, right now
Right here, right now
Right here, right now
Right here, right now
Waking up to find your love's not real
Waking up to find your love's not real
Waking up to find your love's not real
Waking up to find your love's not real
Temu Obama never disappoints.
… and that the Trump admin "isn't even pretending to have intelligence at this point" to justify the strikes in Iran.”
Well I don’t know about that. It seems to me that having Iran’s negotiators boast that they already have 460 kg of 60% enriched uranium “enough to make 11 nuclear bombs” might fall under the category of actionable intelligence.
"So...as you know...we're dealing with Republicans now."
@mezzrow (7:57), +1
But it was (D)ifferent back then.
I watched this segment yesterday. Jeffries is a complete embarrassment. Why Peelosi endorsed him as her successor is a mystery, DEI aside. He looks weak, unsure of himself and has negative charisma.
"..."isn't even pretending to have intelligence at this point" ..
So: No leaks, amirite Hakeem? I think what we are actually seeing, from the relatively feeble responses of the opposition Including RINOs), is that the pipeline of inside information has been completely throttled by this administration, and most of the power of these back-benchers like Hakeem is premised on their access to such information, and their willingness to make mischief with it, for their own political advantage. Good.
"That was then, this is now."
"...Why Peelosi endorsed him as her successor is a mystery..."
Maybe Pelosi appointed him for the same reason that Gavin Newsom is governor and probable presidential candidate: Pliable and easily instructed. Senility of the progressive's real leadership will doom the party.
What incentive does he have to develop intelligent answers? None. Each side will get their sound bite but he won’t lose his place in the pecking order. People will continue to vote for him anyways…
"Your question is disingenuous," he lied.
"Saying "pre-eminent" when you mean "Imminent" is a nice bit of added comedy."
He said "pre-eminent strike." I think he was going for "pre-emptive strike."
Must be a real downer when you realize that the world knows you're a doofus.
Aggie is correct- these pols are crash test dummies the cabal wheels out in front of the cameras to take the hits for inexcusably bad policy. It works…
The Iranian's best weapon is American Democrats and their auxiliary liars, but those too are being wiped out by unassailable success. Look what this total fraud said just yesterday:
Douglas McGregor:
“All of our bases have been destroyed. Our harbor installations are destroyed. We actually have to fall back on India and Indian ports which is less than ideal. And I think Iran, much to our disappointment, is faring very very well.”
Everybody is Bagdad Bob lately.
Politicians being politicians.
They need to be against the Iran attack, they have nothing (given current political TDS situation) to lose with that line. Maximin logic.
"He said "pre-eminent strike." I think he was going for "pre-emptive strike."
Either way, he's not wrong. It was both.
you're SUPPOSED TO SAY:
In the Immortal Words, of SE Hinton: That was Then, This is NOW
Omg. It turns out Jeffries was parroting Kamala Harris
"Is "so we're dealing with what we're dealing with right now" similar to "i voted for it before i voted against it"?
AI Answers: In terms of their political "vibes," they are spiritual cousins, but they serve different functions in a crisis:
The Comparison
"I voted for it before I voted against it" (John Kerry, 2004): This is the gold standard for a political "flip-flop." It’s a literal contradiction that suggests a candidate is trying to have it both ways, often leading to charges of being indecisive or overly calculating.
"So we're dealing with what we're dealing with right now" (Kamala Harris, 2022/2024): This is a tautology or "word salad." It doesn’t necessarily signal a policy change; rather, it’s a circular statement that says nothing while sounding urgent. Critics use it to argue a lack of depth, while supporters might see it as an attempt to acknowledge a complex reality without committing to a specific soundbite.
Key Similarities
The "Meme" Factor: Both phrases became viral shorthand used by opponents to characterize the speaker as out of touch or incompetent.
Context of Crisis: Kerry was talking about a massive $87 billion supplemental war funding bill; Harris has used similar circular phrasing when discussing complex issues like the border or the economy.
Rhetorical Trap: Both are examples of a politician getting "tangled" in their own explanation while trying to navigate a politically sensitive topic.
The Main Difference
Kerry’s line was a logical failure (it sounded like he was lying or confused about his record). The Harris-style phrasing is a linguistic loop (it’s a statement that is technically true but provides zero information).
I know Hakeem was a DEI hire and all, so we have to make some some allowances.
But Sheesh
“We’re dealing if with what we’re dealing with right now”.
“No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part!” - Otter
The Republicans were correct in 2011 about Libya. The Democrats are correct now about Iran.
The party in power always wants to play fast and loose and the opposition party always rediscovers their love of the Constitution.
To be clear, the next Democrat president will also bomb countries without Congressional approval and the Republicans will once again be big mad. This is all so stupid. I cannot believe you all still play along, but I suspect most of you are very stupid as well.
Enigma- more like Jesus Jones:
I was alive and I waited, waited
I was alive and I waited for this
Right here, right now, there is no other place I wanna be
Right here, right now, watching the world wake up from history
CC, JSM
Must be a real downer when you realize that the world knows you're a doofus.
I dunno. He seems oblivious to his own limitations.
"I suspect most of you are very stupid as well"
You got me on that, Driver. I'm very stupid, indeed.
Jefferies hates Trump so much he wants the US to lose. He wants thousands of dead Americans.
"It's an pre eminent front, it's a put on"
I’m not sure that the party that gave Iran over $7 billion cash is in any position to complain about the war powers process now. That party tangibly supported the terrorist regime. That’s really why they’re upset, imho. Remember Obama’s contempt for Netanyahu….
The Republicans were correct in 2011 about Libya. The Democrats are correct now about Iran.
Your constant restating of this false premise, that the President can't wage war or do warlike things because Congress has the WPA, will not make it come true. Presidents have fared very well in every test of this concept has ended up in court. Every ruling, not just some, have upheld the president's authority to direct military action when and where he wants to.
I've posed a counter-question to many a lefty loon who goes on about the War Powers Act that I'll repeat here for DDD or any commenter to chime in: Do you want to push another POTUS confrontation (like Humphries Executor or Chevron or DEI) that has a high likelihood of resulting in more power accruing to the Executive Branch and more lost face for democrats?
A great and glorious, a preeminent strike. Jeffries is trumpeting for Trump with Persian benefits.
If you just assume a priori that all elected officials (well, let's just say everyone in government) are corrupt, incompetent, and dishonest this is just another day ending in "y".
Temu Obama
D.D. Driver said...
To be clear, the next Democrat president will also bomb countries without Congressional approval and the Republicans will once again be big mad. This is all so stupid. I cannot believe you all still play along, but I suspect most of you are very stupid as well.
If you have an 80 IQ you could think Iran and Libya are similar situations.
Hey Driver: I ALSO send many mEaN tWeEts. When an AWFL posted something about Iran using the usual leftist dribble, I wrote in response: "Shouldn't you be out killing babies or running over ICE agents with your soccer mom SUV instead of being online spouting ignorance?"
One difference between the situation in Libya and the situation in Iran is, Gaddafi had completely capitulated to US demands he give up his quest for nukes and other weapons of mass destruction and his support for international terrorism.
Gaddafi came to Jesus in 1986 after President Reagan bombed Libya and, IIRC, even blew up Gaddafi's house.
The mullahs in Iran have refused to give up their nuclear ambitions, WMDs or support for terrorists.
Obama punished Gaddafi for behaving and rewarded the mullahs for continuing to misbehave. Why? We can only speculate.
... the Trump admin "isn't even pretending to have intelligence at this point" to justify the strikes in Iran.
Hakeem knows! About pretending to have intelligence.
I prefer an administration that doesn’t rely on pretense.
Thank you Bob for adding the proper context to the comparison of Iran and Libya. The people here who peed their pants because Trump "bombed while they were negotiating" (which is of course a leftist lie) were super silent about Obama breaking the commitment we made to Qaddafi when he relinquished his nukes. Frankly, the whole episode stunk as a cover up for Hillary's dirty dealing in Benghazi and her failure to retrieve the anti-aircraft technology she secretly (and illegally) furnished to Ansar Al Islam.
The hand and arm guestures are annoying. Is he answering questions, or bringing an aircraft in for a deck landing.
As you'd expect he just blathers nonsense and then pivots to attacking Trump. Which is the libtard line on everything.
Actually DD I I think every review of the situation says that the executive does in fact have the legitimate authority to do this. As far as I know, except for political hacks, my understanding is the war powers act appears to be unconstitutional, but has never been tested. So any president could, in fact, unleash the military At least for a period of time.
Iran and Libya are similar in the sense that the president did have the lawful authority to act. The difference is that Iran has directed its entire economy specifically to kill western civilization, specifically to build nuclear weapons, and specifically to deliver nuclear weapons to western civilization and achieve Islamic hegemony over the entire world.
I think one of the other posters made an error. If I recall correctly, it was not Ronald Reagan. It was George W. Bush who caused Lia to give up its nuclear program. My recollection is Kadafi just wanted to rule his own dictatorship forever and the deal was if he gave up nuclear weapons he could continue to do so. Obama and Clinton decided that they needed to be tough guys to show that they could overthrow a government as well, but had no plan. Kadafi was a bad guy, but was not killing Americans and was not causing regional mayhem. He was contained. Obama and Clinton in their wisdom over through him and if I recall correctly because they had no plan, he was replaced with Isis and similar.
The difference being of course that however, flawed the George Bush plan was he had a plan. Obama and Clinton just wanted to kill a guy and had no plan for afterward and so Libya devolved into hell.
Did Bill Clinton get permission from Congress to launch TLAMs into Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998? I don't think he did.
I think one of the other posters made an error. If I recall correctly, it was not Ronald Reagan. It was George W. Bush who caused Lia to give up its nuclear program.
Commenter Keith is correct. I did make an error. Gaddafi gave up his nukes in 2003 after W threatened him with doing what Trump is now actually doing to the mullahs in Iran.
I think we do have to give Reagan some credit however. Gaddafi may not have responded so well to W's threat if he hadn't been bombed by Reagan in 1986. Having your house blown up by an air strike can leave a lasting impression.
D. D. Driver focuses on one distinction between Libya and Iran, which is that a Democrat President (Obama) bombed Libya while a Republican President (Trump) bombed Iran. However there are others.
(1) Muammar Qaddafi had renounced his efforts to build a nuclear bomb and no one in the US government at that time or since has suggested — much less provided evidence — that he had not, in fact, done so. During the most recent negotiations between the US and Iran, the Iranian negotiators themselves asserted that they had the enriched uranium sufficient to build eleven nuclear bombs, and furthermore they insisted that Iran would continue its efforts to build those bombs.
(2) The Obama administration’s bombing of Libya went on for seven months; the bombing and missile attacks on Iran have not yet gone on for seven days.
(3) Obama flouted the legal requirements of the War Powers Act, ignoring every deadline in the legislation, calling Libya a mere “kinetic military action” and thus not a war. My understanding is that the Trump administration has been scrupulous in following the requirements of the WPA. (So much for “fast and loose on the part of the Trump administration.)
FWIW, Driver, I am a mathematician. My analytical skills surpass yours by orders of magnitude.
The eternal "It's different when WE do it!"
As mentioned the biggest difference between Libya and Iran is that Libya was no longer our enemy. He just wanted to maintain his own rule.
Iran has been murdering and figuring Americans for almost 50 y and directed its entire existence so developing nuclear bombs it swore it would use to destroy USA.
If you don’t see the difference between them you either are stupid or are ignoring the differences because you hate trump that much and prefer sharia to western civilization.
You can disagree with the decision but you really can’t not understand the difference.
"It's OK when WE do it!"
Hakeem falls back on , "It's different when Republicans do it." Yup he's right, Republicans normally execute their projects with a side of competence. They don't shovel until the shovel is actually ready.
My understanding is that the Trump administration has been scrupulous in following the requirements of the WPA. (So much for “fast and loose on the part of the Trump administration.)
And pray tell, how did you come to this understanding. In fact, Trump has claimed he does not need to consult with Congress. Also, regardless he is clearly violating the constitution, which gives to power to declare war exclusively to Congress. Claiming this is not a war, but something else, is patently absurd.
Presidents have fared very well in every test of this concept has ended up in court. Every ruling, not just some, have upheld the president's authority to direct military action when and where he wants to.
Can you provide some citations for this assertion?
First of all, let's figure out who dismantled the Libyan nuclear program because he did not want to get Saddamed. Which guy are we talking about? Qaddafi , Kadafi, Gadafi, or the mysterious Lia? Was it a junta?
Also, regardless he is clearly violating the constitution, which gives to power to declare war exclusively to Congress.
Blatantly asinine and asserted (again!) with no evidence. The Constitution gives the President the power to wage war, whether it is declared or not, dumbass. There is ONE (1) Commander in Chief, not 100 not 435 not 535. One.
No, Freder. We've given you citations and court rulings and you ignore it. Do your own fucking research you stupid ignoramus. Hugh Hewitt has written on the histyory of the WPA and how it loses every time at SCOTUS and he teaches ConLaw. Look it up. Use the googler.
Imagine this snake as Speaker, third in line for the Presidency. That appears to be in our future. Then think of the increased danger for Trump and Vance as Democrats see the opportunity to carry their conquest of the nation beyond the useful idiots.
I, for one, look forward to the third impeachment trial of Donald Trump, this time for "war without a permission slip" or some such. Having Democrats defend the mullahs has been fun for 5 days. Having them try to destroy Trump for crushing the mullahs will be high comedy rarely seen on the political stage. Please, Hakim, go for it!
The Constitution gives the President the power to wage war, whether it is declared or not, dumbass.
The Constitution says that the President is the Commander in Chief, but the power to declare war rests with congress.
Again, you have provided no citation. I can cite the constitution for you if you would like (Article I Section 8, look it up). Where in the constitution does it say the president has the authority to wage war without the consent of Congress, because I sure can't find it.
So, Freder, as a constitutional scholar, please answer the question put to Jeffries: “Pelosi said Obama didn’t need congressional authority for the action against Libya. So why would Trump need it for the action against Iran?” We’ll wait.
No, Freder. We've given you citations and court rulings and you ignore it.
You certainly don't. And the War Powers Act has never actually been adjudicated, so it is hard to provide a cite for something that doesn't exist.
So, Freder, as a constitutional scholar, please answer the question put to Jeffries: “Pelosi said Obama didn’t need congressional authority for the action against Libya. So why would Trump need it for the action against Iran?” We’ll wait.
Unlike you, I have been consistent about this. I think Pelosi was wrong. And if you search through the Althouse archive you will discover I was against bombing Libya without congressional authorization. I see no reason why I should have to defend Pelosi.
Freder Frederson said...
Unlike you, I have been consistent about this. I think Pelosi was wrong.
Which is what every lyin' leftist says when asked to defend the rank hypocrisy of the people they support at every other turn.
As Keith and others have pointed out, the major reason Republicans objected to the Obama/Hillary attacks in Libya was not a Constitutional argument but because it was ill-considered and counterproductive to the goal of reducing nuclear arms proliferation, and was only undertaken to deflect from the fact Obama was not only simultaneously giving the green light to Iran's production of nuclear weapons but sending them the cash to fund it.
the Trump admin "isn't even pretending to have intelligence at this point"
Unlike Hakeem Jeffries, who is presenting to have some.
Just look at the eyes of Jeffries. Does that moronic prick look like a straight shooter to you?!?!
DeeDee Drivel.
Well "Hugh Hewitt" was a big clue lazy dumbass. See:
1. Hewitt maintains that the President possesses inherent authority to use military force to protect national interests, regardless of whether Congress has issued a formal declaration of war or an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).
2. Hewitt argues that the "original check and balance" intended by the Founders is Congress's power of the purse. If Congress wishes to end a military mission, its legitimate constitutional remedy is to cut off funding rather than pass resolutions to micromanage troop movements.
He gives cites. I omitted them. He also mentions that while not a SCOTUS ruling, the Court's 1983 decision in INS v. Chadha (invalidating the "legislative veto") has effectively weakened the WPA, making it harder for Congress to force a withdrawal of troops without a veto-proof majority.
Ya a "veto proof 2/3 vote" is a BIG check on Congress elbowing into the Commander role. Their role is to declare and fund or defund. That's Congress's Constitutional role, Freder. Now you know.
Yes you are consistently wrong on this point: Congress cannot stop the president from commanding the troops as he sees fit. The little WPA fig leaf is not a cudgel; and not enforceable law.
When the core of your party's appeal is its hatred of one person, and the hated person is often doing unpredictable things, you find yourself making arguments that nobody really anticipated or thought through in any objective sense.
If Trump hadn't attacked, the usual suspects would be screaming TACO.
The title "commander" has many real-world actual authorities. There is no Constitutional authority, no Article 1 or Article 3 powers, in any other branch to command the Commander in Chief.
Show me where the Constitution limits that role?
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.