Congressional Cowards is a weekly series highlighting the worst Donald Trump defenders on Capitol Hill, who refuse to criticize him—no matter how disgraceful or lawless his actions.
President Donald Trump’s war in Iran is such a mess that even Republican lawmakers are struggling to defend it, making absurd and idiotic comments that would make even the famous pink-clad North Korean propagandist lady blush.
Following reports that Trump is mulling deploying more U.S. soldiers, multiple GOP lawmakers have tried to change the definition of “boots on the ground” to justify the unpopular war.
During an interview with CNN Tuesday, Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas tried to claim that the deployment of 2,500 troops to secure the Iranian oil hub on Kharg Island doesn’t actually count as “boots on the ground.”
“The island is not, in my opinion, ‘boots on the ground’ in combat circles,” Sessions told host Kate Bolduan.
And when Bolduan pointed out that, yes, troops being sent into combat does indeed qualify as “boots on the ground” regardless of the topography of the land, Sessions only dug in further.
“When we think ‘boots on the ground’ we think going back to Somalia, we think going back to Iraq, we think about going to Afghanistan—that is not what we’re talking about,” Sessions said.
Yeah, no.
Not wanting to be outdone by Sessions, Rep. Mike Haridopolos of Florida made a similar doltish argument Friday.
“I think people would see that as an occupation of a vital economic interest. As a history teacher, I consider boots on the ground occupying an entire country like we did after WW2 in Japan,” Haridopolos told C-SPAN.
Of course, troops on the ground are troops on the ground—it doesn’t matter how many or where they are.
And Republicans are—rightfully—worried about Trump’s decision to put Americans in harm’s way, as polling shows that voters don’t want this to become yet another forever war that costs lives and livelihoods.
Sadly, it seems that we’re already too late on both of those fronts.
But “boots on the ground” wasn’t the only phrase Republicans tried to redefine to defend Trump’s unfolding disaster in the Middle East.
Multiple GOP lawmakers also tried to change the meaning of “imminent”—as Trump justified his ill-planned “excursion” with his belief that Iran was planning an “imminent” attack despite no evidence to support that.
“Everyone’s really getting hung up on the word ‘imminent.’ Let’s be clear about the word ‘imminent’—it’s a subjective word,” Rep. Dan Crenshaw of Texas told CNN.
By definition, the word “imminent” means “about to happen,” and Iran was certainly not about to bomb the United States—or anywhere else for that matter—with a nuclear weapon.
House Speaker Mike Johnson made a similarly stupid comment about the meaning of “imminent,” saying that Iran was imminently going to have nuclear capability even though U.S. intelligence said that was false.
“We all understood there was clearly an imminent threat that Iran was very close to the enrichment of nuclear capability,” Johnson said.
Republicans are resorting to lies and absurdity to defend Trump’s war because there simply are no good defenses for it.
The Trump administration clearly underestimated Iran’s capability and desire to fight back. Iran has blocked the Strait of Hormuz—a critical waterway that transports a large portion of the global oil supply—spiking prices at the pump.
And even worse, Iran has launched retaliatory strikes on major oil infrastructure plants in the Middle East that could cause oil and gas prices to remain high for years.
And now, with no easy way out of this mess, Trump is at risk of drawing the United States into another unpopular forever war. But rather than do anything to mitigate this disaster, congressional Republicans are defending Trump’s actions with ridiculous lies.
Because—as this series has shown—Republicans are cowards who will do anything to let Trump have his way.
