>
More Than 1 Million Bots Have Joined A New AI-Only Social Network
AI agents have created their own social platform and indecipherable languages...
The Pentagon Failed Its Audit Again. You Should Be Alarmed.
Helping with Grandkids May Protect Against Cognitive Decline, Shows New Research
Critical Linux Warning: 800,000 Devices Are EXPOSED
'Brave New World': IVF Company's Eugenics Tool Lets Couples Pick 'Best' Baby, Di
The smartphone just fired a warning shot at the camera industry.
A revolutionary breakthrough in dental science is changing how we fight tooth decay
Docan Energy "Panda": 32kWh for $2,530!
Rugged phone with multi-day battery life doubles as a 1080p projector
4 Sisters Invent Electric Tractor with Mom and Dad and it's Selling in 5 Countries
Lab–grown LIFE takes a major step forward – as scientists use AI to create a virus never seen be
New Electric 'Donut Motor' Makes 856 HP but Weighs Just 88 Pounds
Donut Lab Says It Cracked Solid-State Batteries. Experts Have Questions.

Thus far, President Trump has made little effort to explain to the American people – or to Congress – why launching a war against Iran is in our national interest. Instead, he wanders from one reason to another, hoping something will stick. First it was a "nuclear threat" even though he swore that he had "obliterated" Iran's nuclear program last summer. Then, after the CIA, Mossad, and UK's MI6 launched a regime-change operation in the form of violent protests in late December, the excuse for war became the Iranian government's crackdown on the insurrection. But before that could be used as the excuse, the Iranian government was able to quash the uprising. So President Trump returned to the issue of Iran's nuclear program, while adding in the presence of Iran's ballistic missile program.
Even by the low threshold for recent US military actions overseas, these arguments are unconvincing. That is why Americans are so skeptical. In a major poll last month, seven in ten Americans said they oppose any US military action against Iran.
When it comes to matters of war, where billions of dollars and countless lives are at stake, "will he, or won't he" is a terrible question to have to ask. More than 250 years ago we rose up against a system where the king claimed the power to take us to war on his royal decision alone. Our Founding Fathers well understood the folly of concentrating so much power in the hands of one person and placed the power to take the country to war in the hands of the people's direct representatives, Congress.
This Constitutional obligation has not only been usurped by the Executive Branch. Much blame must be reserved for Congress, which has allowed itself to become a doormat for whoever occupies the White House when it comes to war powers. Members of the president's own party – regardless of which party it is – are terrified of going against "their" president and members of the opposing party are silent because they don't want to be accused of not "supporting the troops."