Democratic New York Rep. Max Rose said Thursday that he would not support new legislation aimed at restraining President Donald Trump in Iran.
Rose, who won his seat in 2018 in a district that voted for Trump in 2016, spoke with Fox News host Neil Cavuto about the recent tensions with Iran and the strike that killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani.
“Congressman, you place your limits here,” Cavuto prompted. “You are against this measure to limit the president’s powers here.”
“Absolutely,” Rose replied, and after wishing his host a happy new year, he got straight to the point. (RELATED: ‘If We Don’t Win, We Can’t Do A F*cking Thing’: Democrat Max Rose Calls Out Beto For Being A Loser)
“Let’s be clear about what this happened over the last several weeks. First of all, the killing of Soleimani, it was legal, justified. Nobody should mourn the loss or the death of someone with the blood of U.S. soldiers on his hands. He was a terrorist,” Rose explained.
Rose went on to say that, while he doesn’t necessarily have a problem with an update to the current military force authorizations, he argued that a political reaction to the president’s actions was the correct way to go about doing that. “I do not believe that what this calls for is a political document. Instead, what we have to do in a bipartisan fashion is talk about separation of powers, talk about revising authorizations for the use of military force, which are more than 20 years old or nearly 20 years old. We have serious questions to consider. This is not the way to do it.”
Cavuto then asked about the majority of Democrats who, after being briefed on the strike that killed Soleimani, claimed that the president had not gone through the proper channels and was not justified in authorizing the strike.
“There are several justifications for this,” Rose explained. “One, you have Article II. Secondly, you have the 2002 AUMF. [Soleimani’s] killed so many soldiers and injured so many others. I think about people I served with in Afghanistan who this man nearly killed.”
Rose concluded by saying that the “real questions of war and peace” still needed to be answered — but not with reactionary political documents. “Looking at congressional appropriations for long-term wars should not be dealt with with messaging documents and straight up politics. Congress is not a rapid response P.R. agency. It is a serious body. We’ve got to treat it as such.”