US presidents have history of attacking countries without Congress approval

According to The Hill, Democrats bashing President Trump for striking Iran without congressional consent are bumping into an inconvenient history, Democratic presidents have done the same thing for decades.

From Bill Clinton, to Barack Obama, to Joe Biden, every Democratic president of the modern era has employed US military forces to attack targets overseas, including strikes in Bosnia, Syria, Libya and Yemen. While they sought approval from Capitol Hill in some of those cases, Congress never provided it.

That history has muddled the Democrats’ current argument that Trump, in striking three Iranian nuclear facilities last weekend, violated the Constitution by acting on his own, without the formal approval of Congress.

The dynamic has not been overlooked by Republican leaders, who have hailed the strikes on Iran as a national security necessity and defended Trump’s powers to launch them unilaterally.

Those voices are pointing specifically to the actions of Clinton, Obama and Biden to bolster their arguments.

“Since World War II we have had more than 125 military operations from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan. They have occurred without a Declaration of War by Congress,” House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters after the strikes. “Presidents of both parties have exercised that authority frequently.”

Johnson ticked off a few examples under the most recent Democratic administrations. Biden, he noted, ordered strikes against Yemen, Syria and Iraq. Obama sustained a months-long bombing campaign in Libya. And Clinton had bombed parts of the former Yugoslavia during the Bosnian war of the mid-1990s. 

“Every one of those actions were taken unilaterally and without prior authorization from Congress,” Johnson said. 

That background is forcing Democrats to reckon with that past just as many of them are now demanding that Trump cease all military operations in Iran without explicit congressional approval. Some of them are quick to acknowledge the incongruity, voicing something like regret that Congress didn’t stand more firm in the face of those unilateral Democratic missions.

“Just because it was wrong then doesn’t mean it’s not wrong now,” said Rep. Ted Lieu, a former Air Force attorney who’s now the vice chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. “The Constitution is the Constitution. And it says only Congress has the power to declare war. And it’s been a bipartisan problem, with Congress ceding way too much power to the executive branch.”

Rep. Pete Aguilar, the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, seemed to agree. He lamented that the politics of Washington have sometimes curtailed Congress’s appetite for asserting its war powers as a check on the president, especially when Congress and the White House are controlled by opposing parties. 

“That part is unfortunate. Maybe we’ve missed a few opportunities,” Aguilar said. 

“But that doesn’t mean that we turn a blind eye right now,” he quickly added. “It doesn’t mean that we just let Donald Trump walk all over us. It means that we stand up for our authority and speak up on behalf of our constituents at every opportunity.”

The Constitution makes clear that Congress and the White House both play crucial roles in conducting military operations. Article I lends Congress the power to declare war, and Article II stipulates that the president is “Commander and Chief” of the Armed Forces, responsible for executing wars that Congress sanctions. 

Yet that conceptual balance has tilted heavily toward the executive branch over most of the last century. The last time Congress formally declared war was in 1941, after Pearl Harbor. And since then, the president has assumed virtually all power, not only to steer the Armed Forces, but also to launch them into battle.

In 1973, in the wake of Vietnam, Congress sought to reassert its authority by passing the War Powers Act. (President Nixon vetoed the bill, but Congress overrode him).

The law requires presidents to “consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities,” but it does not demand the formal authorization of the legislative branch.

As tensions in the Middle East exploded earlier in the month, lawmakers in both parties sought to limit US involvement with war powers resolutions requiring Trump to get explicit congressional consent before using military force in Iran.

One was sponsored by three leading Democrats: Reps. Gregory Meeks, Jim Himes and Adam Smith. Another was bipartisan, championed by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).

Supporters of the resolutions are quick to acknowledge that the president has the power to act unilaterally in extraordinary circumstances, like if the nation is attacked. But there’s no evidence, they say, to indicate that Iran posed an immediate threat to Americans ahead of Trump’s strikes. 

“Any president has self-defense authority under Article II of the Constitution. But to meet that threshold, you have to show that there was an imminent risk of attack against Americans or US facilities. That’s the standard,” said Rep.

Jason Crow (D-Colo.), a former Army Ranger who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan. “As a member of the Armed Services Committee and the House Intelligence Committee, I have not seen any evidence leading up to the attack that there was an imminent risk to Americans or to US facilities to meet that threshold.”

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) delivered a similar assessment. “If our country is attacked, all and any powers go to the president to act,” she said. “That didn’t exist here, so the president should have come to Congress.”

Complicating their argument are the actions of Democratic presidents who also activated the Armed Services without congressional consent.

In 1998, for instance, in response to the terrorist bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Clinton ordered the launch of cruise missiles targeting al Qaeda strongholds in Sudan and Afghanistan. He also joined NATO forces in bombing Serbian targets in the former Yugoslavia. 

Obama infuriated liberals in Congress in launching strikes against numerous countries during his eight-year reign, including an extensive campaign in Libya in 2011, which helped in the toppling of President Muammar Gaddafi, as well as subsequent incursions in Syria, Yemen and Somalia. 

Obama had asked Congress for specific authorization in some cases, but lawmakers on Capitol Hill couldn’t agree on a resolution to provide it. Instead, those operations leaned heavily on a 2001 resolution — known as an authorization of military force, or AUMF — passed by Congress to sanction the Afghanistan War after the attacks of 9/11. 

In the same vein, Biden used US forces to target Syria, Yemen and Iraq. 

Lieu, for one, emphasized that he was opposed to Obama’s use of force without Congress giving the OK. 

“I publicly stated at the time that Obama needed congressional authorization to strike Syria. I believe Trump needs congressional authorization to strike Iran,” he said.

“My view of the Constitution does not change based on what party the president happens to belong to.” 

Other Democrats sought to keep the debate focused more squarely on current events.

“We can write books and fill your column inches with regrets under this dome. We’ll save that for other days,” Aguilar said. “But what is in front of us today, are we going to stand up for our constitutional authority?”

A week after the strikes, the debate over war powers may already be academic. 

On Tuesday, Trump announced a ceasefire between Iran and Israel that, if it holds, may make the constitutional disagreement moot. Massie has said he won’t force a vote on his war powers measure if the ceasefire continues.

Johnson has refused to consider such a resolution in any event, calling the War Powers Act unconstitutional. And Trump officials are expected to meet with Iranian officials later this week, when the US will seek a commitment from Tehran to abandon any plans to produce nuclear weapons.

Still, there are plenty of questions swirling about the ultimate success of the strikes in dismantling Iran’s nuclear capabilities. And Trump, asked whether he would attack again if necessary, didn’t hesitate. 

“Without question,” he said. “Absolutely.”

 

 

Trump also the warmonger

Biden administration leading the charge for Israel’s horrific genocide – now expanding into a broader, regional war – and fueling the war in Ukraine with no end in sight, Republicans are now working overtime to rebrand Donald Trump as a dove.

Let the world not forget:

 Trump nearly kicked off a full scale war with Iran by assassinating General Soleimani.

Trump with Democratic support, co-signed a coup in Bolivia and attempted a coup in Venezuela.

Donald Trump set the stage for Israel’s bloodbath in Gaza and the West Bank by formally recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Donald Trump is many things, a predator, a crude bigot and a con man.

While Democrats railed against Trump’s domestic agenda (most of the time) throughout his term, in virtually every instance the “Vote Blue No Matter Who” crowd threw their full weight behind Trump’s constant foreign provocations.

Trump’s warmongering ways for as long as he’s been a figure on the national stage – particularly during his term in the White House.

Trump and his allies are trying to rewrite history and make us forget his warmongering ways. But we know the truth.

The world must not forget that Trump and the Republicans are funded by the same weapons manufacturers and fossil fuel extractors as Democrats operating at every level of government.

They may dislike his uncouth rhetoric. They may finger-wag his racism. They may object to his weaponization of the courts and federal agencies (though they won’t hesitate to use the same in their own favor).

In co-signing genocide, provoking endless wars, and serving the forces of the American empire, Democrats and Donald Trump fit together hand in glove.

Who could replace Joe Biden?

Replacing President Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee would be highly complicated, and likely impossible, unless the president voluntarily decides to back out, on his own.

Politically and mechanically, it is nearly impossible to believe that Democrats would or could forcibly prevent Biden from becoming the nominee.

Right now, Biden is the only candidate for whom those attending the Democratic convention can even vote.

He received 99% of his party’s delegates in the primaries, and Democratic delegates have pledged to back whoever won their state’s contest in the first round of voting.

Democratic National Committee (DNC) rules require delegates that Biden won to pledge their support for his nomination unless Biden were to willingly decide to step down and free his delegates for another candidate. 

Before the convention opens on August 19, the DNC could change the rules to block Biden, but that would require a level of political support hard to imagine. A battle between pro- and anti-Biden factions at a convention to unseat him is highly unlikely to happen.

But the possibility is conceivable that party leaders, including former Presidents Obama and Clinton, might be convinced to talk to Biden about dropping out, Democratic sources told The Hill.

Biden ultimately puts the most value on advice from first lady Jill Biden and his sister, Valerie, two people who are largely considered the only voices who could truly change his mind.

A situation unique to 2024 may give party leaders even less time to sort out who will be the nominee than they normally would have. Ohio state law requires its ballot to be certified 90 days prior to the election. This year that falls on August 07, almost two weeks before the convention starts.

Despite Ohio state lawmakers trying to pass a bill to fix the issue, they deadlocked, leading DNC leaders to decide to virtually nominate Biden in advance of the deadline and the convention. If they plan to follow through on this, any change in the nominee would need to happen before Ohio’s deadline if the candidate is to be on the ballot in the state, notwithstanding a fix from Ohio lawmakers.

On Friday, party leaders were coalescing around Biden and not giving any signal that they might privately push for him to drop out.

His campaign, the White House and surrogates have pushed back forcefully on the idea, but others said if polls show his performance is hurting down-ballot candidates, it could become a real subject.

The natural successor to Biden would be Vice President Harris. But she wouldn’t be the automatic replacement, if Biden were to drop out.

While Biden won the primaries, his support won through those contests cannot be bestowed by Biden on Harris.

Harris would instead, at the convention or sooner, compete with other potential candidates who might see themselves as stronger candidates than the vice president against presumptive GOP nominee, former President Trump.

According to its bylaws, the DNC has general responsibility for the affairs of the party between national conventions, and those responsibilities include filling vacancies in the nominations for the office of the president and vice president.

If Biden exited, there would be a vacancy, and Harris would be the logical successor.

Politically, some said it was hard to believe, at this stage, that someone could replace Harris if Biden wanted her to be his replacement on a ticket. But there would almost certainly be prospective politicians, such as California Gov. Gavin Newsom or Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who might try.

“This is the bigger pickle to replacing Biden. I don’t see the Democratic coalition surviving intact if Harris is not on the top of the ticket, and it’s hard to assure that would be the party consensus if they replace Biden,” a former DNC official said.

If there were more than one Democratic candidate vying to replace a withdrawn Biden as the party’s nominee, those prospective candidates would likely need to fight it out with state delegations at the August convention in Chicago.

This would set up a scenario that hasn’t been seen in American politics in decades: A contested convention that actually selects the party’s nominee.

Conservative groups have suggested they will file lawsuits around the country, potentially questioning the legality of the Democratic candidate’s name on the ballot, in such a situation.

But in an interview with the Associated Press, Elaine Kamarck, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution in Washington, noted the courts have consistently stayed out of political primaries as long as parties running them weren’t doing anything that would contradict other constitutional rights, such as voter suppression based on race.

 

US approves mammoth annual defense bill

The House approved its version of the annual defense policy bill Friday, which includes a number of controversial culture war amendments, setting the stage for a showdown with the Democratic-controlled Senate over legislation that typically enjoys bipartisan support, reports The Hill.

The US$883.7 billion measure — known as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) — were approved in a largely party-line 217-199 vote. Six Democrats voted in favor of the measure, while three Republicans opposed it.

The House edition of the legislation is all but certain to languish in the Senate where Democrats, who hold the majority, abhor many of the amendments Republicans added, including those pertaining to abortion, transgender rights and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

The Senate Armed Services Committee this week held a markup for its version of the NDAA, the text of which is not expected to be released until July, a spokesperson for the panel told The Hill.

Leaders in both chambers will then craft a compromise version of the legislation, which has been voted on and signed into law every year for the past six decades.

Top Republicans, nonetheless, touted their bill as a strong measure that will back US troops, empower the National Guard to crack down on the southern border and provide American forces with innovative technologies.

At the top of the list of culture war amendments added to the House’s NDAA was a provision spearheaded by Rep. Beth Van Duyne that seeks to block a Biden administration policy that reimburses service members for the travel costs incurred when receiving an abortion.

It zeroes in on the same Pentagon policy that Sen. Tommy Tuberville targeted through his months-long blockade on military promotions last year.

Ahead of Thursday’s votes, Democrats warned GOP leaders against loading the bill with so-called poison pills — Rep. Mikie Sherrill, a Navy veteran, argued that the conservative amendments “cheapen” the defense bill. 

The GOP strategy of embracing culture war issues in the NDAA is not new. Then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy did the same last year, relying on a united GOP as almost all Democrats opposed the bill after Republicans loaded it with similar amendments attacking Pentagon policies on abortion access, medical care for transgender service members, and DEI initiatives.

Similar to last year, Republican leaders this time around had little room for error when it came to the final vote on the NDAA. Republicans have a razor-thin majority in the House, allowing them to lose just two GOP votes on any party-line measures, assuming all lawmakers are present.

The House-passed NDAA abides by the spending caps laid out in last year’s debt limit agreement, imposing one percent increase over the fiscal 2024 defense policy bill. The legislation, however, reshuffles billions of dollars proposed by the Pentagon, increasing funds for submarines, paring down money for fighter jets and delaying the retirement of dozens of aircraft.

The bill also has a provision that would rehire service members kicked out for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine.

In addition, the House NDAA contains widely supported quality of life initiatives for service members, such as a roughly 20% pay boost for junior enlisted members and increases to housing allowances.

 

United States advances Israel aid bill

The package includes US$14.3 billion for Israel but was rejected by most House Democrats because it slashes IRS funds. Twelve Democrats joined nearly all Republicans to advance the Israel aid package, which passed the House in a 226-196 vote.

The package includes billions in military aid for Israel as it battles Hamas following the militant group's October 07 attack on Israel.

The bill's passage marks a victory for newly elected Speaker Mike Johnson, who rallied the GOP conference around the bill.

Johnson on Thursday said the US must support Israel in its war against Hamas, with Israel conducting military operations inside Gaza.

"It’s imperative that the US sends a message to the world that threats made against Israel and the Jewish people will be met with strong opposition," Johnson wrote on social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, after the vote.

The legislation is dead on arrival at the Senate, where Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has vowed to combine assistance to Israel and Ukraine in one package.

"What a joke," Schumer said of the House bill on the Senate floor. "The Senate will not be considering this deeply flawed proposal."

As part of an effort to offset spending, the House bill makes cuts to the IRS that were included in last year's Inflation Reduction Act — cuts that if enacted are widely expected to increase the US deficit.

The House bill also did not include any funding for humanitarian aid in Gaza.

President Biden has promised to veto the House bill should it reach his desk, saying in a statement, “It is bad for Israel, for the Middle East region, and for our own national security.”

Biden last month also asked for a US$106 billion emergency aid package to fund Israel, Ukraine, border security and allies in the Indo-Pacific and would like to see those combined in one legislative bill.

Johnson has tied Ukraine aid to border security and said they would be included in a separate piece of legislation.

 

Nancy Pelosi era comes to an end

After leading the Democrats for the last two decades, the House Speaker announced Thursday that she will step down next year from her spot at the top of the party. It is a momentous run for the most powerful woman in the US history, clearing the way for a younger generation of up and coming lawmakers to climb into the leadership ranks.

The announcement, which came shortly after late midterm results had officially flipped House control to the Republicans, sent shockwaves across Capitol Hill, as lawmakers in both parties grappled with the thought of a Democratic House without Pelosi at the helm. 

Yet the departure is only partial, Pelosi may cede her formal leadership seat, but will remain in Congress indefinitely, where she’s aiming to assume a mentorship role and grease the transition for whichever new leader fills the mantle. Such a role would be unprecedented in modern memory — most leaders who step down quickly leave Congress — but Pelosi is not one to do things by the book. 

The House chamber during Pelosi’s speech was a study of partisan contrasts. While her Democratic allies packed into their side of the chamber, filling almost every seat, the Republican side of the chamber was virtually empty — a sign of just how polarized Congress has become in recent years.  

Only a handful of GOP lawmakers were on hand for the speech, including Joe Wilson, Tim Burchett, Doug LaMalfa and Young Kim. But a vast majority of Republicans skipped the event, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. Only one member of the GOP leadership team was on hand, Steve Scalise, the Republican whip, who gave Pelosi a standing ovation at the end. Burchett and LaMalfa later hugged Pelosi. 

Her announcement ends the perennial speculation game surrounding the future of Capitol Hill’s single most powerful lawmaker, and she kept them guessing to the very last. 

After Democrats had staved off a red wave in this year’s elections, there was plenty of talk that Pelosi could remain in power, if she chose, even despite a previous pledge to step out of leadership at the end of this term.

In the end, Pelosi suggested her decision to exit hinged more on the recent assault on her husband, Paul Pelosi, who was bludgeoned with a hammer last month at the family’s San Francisco home by an intruder whose intended target, police said, was the Speaker. 

By remaining in Congress outside of leadership, Pelosi can remain influential as an adviser, fundraiser and vote getting whip while taking a foot off the gas of her famously frenetic schedule — a hybrid role that will allow her to spend more time with her recuperating husband. 

Pelosi has led the House Democrats since 2003, marking the longest leadership run in either party since the legendary tenure of Sam Rayburn, a Texas Democrat, who died in office in 1961. Over those 20 years, she oversaw passage of some of the most significant legislative accomplishments of the last half-century; raised more than US$1.2 billion for the party; and shattered the glass ceiling in 2007, when she became the first woman ever to ascend to the House Speakership — a feat she repeated in 2019.

“She’s a tough, effective, focused, disciplined woman. I wasn’t always on the same side as her — and it’s not pleasant being on the other side of her — but she knew how to bring a disparate group of people together to get the job done,” Rep. Debbie Dingell, a close Pelosi ally, said Thursday morning as Democrats waited anxiously for the Speaker’s announcement. 

Pelosi helped steer the congressional response to the Great Recession; guided the passage of ObamaCare; secured trillions of dollars in emergency relief through the COVID-19 pandemic; and made the decision to impeach former President Trump, not once but twice. 

Pelosi also launched the special investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, the results of which could reverberate through the legal and political world for many years to come.

“I’m not a House historian, but what I hear from House historians is that she is probably the strongest Speaker of the House we have seen in many, many, many years,” said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, another close Pelosi ally.

“It values, her strategic ability, her knowledge of the system, how to negotiate — all of those really melded into one person, which have forged an unbelievable legislative legacy,” she continued. “And that’s wherein lies her strength . … Someone who knows how to get from A to B, with a very diverse caucus.” 

Part of that legacy will be this year’s midterm elections. Heading into the polls last week, Republicans were expecting a rout, one that would lend them a considerable majority to do battle with President Biden through the last two years of his first term. Instead, Democrats were able to cling to dozens of toss-up seats in battleground districts, limiting the Republican gains and making it harder for GOP leaders to govern next year. 

“This really solidifies her legacy as the most accomplished Speaker in U.S. history, by all measures — all measures,” Ashley Etienne, Pelosi’s former communications director, said of Pelosi’s role in the Democrats’ midterm performance. “There’s no question.”

Pelosi’s decision will clear the bottleneck that’s existed at the very top of the Democratic Caucus since 2003, when she and her top deputy, Steny Hoyer, assumed the leading spots. James Clyburn would join them in 2006 in the No. 3 slot, where he has remained ever since. 

Neither Hoyer nor Clyburn have ruled out bids to remain in power in the next Congress. But a younger group of up-and-coming Democrats is eager to climb the leadership ladder, or just get into the ranks.

Three current members of leadership — Hakeem Jeffries, Katherine Clark and Pete Aguilar — are expected to launch bids for higher spots at the first opportunity.

Jeffries, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, is widely viewed as the favorite to replace Pelosi and Joyce Beatty, who heads the Black Caucus, predicted Thursday that every member of that group would back Jeffries.  

But Hoyer, after almost 20 years right behind Pelosi, has raised tens of millions of dollars for the party over the years, building his own loyal following along the way.

 

US Election: Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex Wins Again

With Veterans Day in mind, if one is asked to comment on the 2022 election outcome, the reply is, the winner in 2022 is the same as has always been, the military-industrial-congressional complex. It is a sad result to contemplate with Veterans Day looming.

In this election cycle, people have heard nothing about peace; have heard nothing about strengthening and preserving democracy by downsizing our military and imperial presence around the globe. Not from Democrats and Republicans.

When both political parties pose as pro-military, when both are pro-war, when both are enablers of record-high Pentagon spending, when both act as if a new cold war with China and Russia is inevitable, do election results even matter? No matter which party claims victory, the true victor remains the military-industrial-Congressional complex.

To paraphrase Joe Biden, nothing fundamentally changed in the 2022 elections when it comes to colossal military spending, incessant wars and preparations for the same and non-stop imperialism around the globe. There is no new vision for lower Pentagon spending, for fewer wars and weapons exports, and for a smaller, less domineering, imperial mission.

As General and President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned in 1961, the military-industrial-Congressional complex represents a disastrous rise of misplaced power that is profoundly anti-democratic. Collectively, we’ve failed to heed Ike’s warning. The result has been one unnecessary and disastrous war after another, even as democracy in America withers.

The Vietnam War—disaster. The Iraq War—disaster. The Afghan War—disaster. The War on Terror—disaster. Even the war US ostensibly won, the Cold War against the USSR, is now apparently about to be refought. May be the US needs to refight the Cold War which it won thirty years ago so that it can lose that one too.

With the Democrats doing somewhat better than expected at the polls, war business should continue to grow in Washington, D.C. Most political commentators seem to think this is a good thing, when they think about it at all. Few seem to recall Ike’s warning that a military establishment of vast proportions is antithetical to democracy.