Democrats are lying about War Powers Act, Trump, Iran

OPINION:

Democrats, as Democrats do, are ratcheting up criticisms against President Trump over the U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran, saying the White House has violated the Constitution and broken both legal and moral codes and must immediately cease and desist military operations, and they’re demanding votes in Congress to curb his executive powers. Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut put it this way on “Face the Nation With Margaret Brennan” over the weekend: “This is a disaster. It is illegal, and the president is obligated under the Constitution to come to Congress and ask for an authorization of military force.”

The Wall Street Journal, meanwhile, ran this headline: “Democratic Lawmakers Decry Iran Attacks as Illegal.”

Except — it’s not.

Since the passage of the War Powers Act in 1973, presidents have been given the legal cover — the congressionally approved legal justification — to unilaterally launch military attacks against foreign entities. There are limits to this power. For instance, the president is required to notify Congress within 48 hours of launching the military strikes, and the president cannot continue the operation past 60 days without receiving a declaration of war from Congress. 

On both counts, Trump is within War Powers Act law.

“Trump Administration Notified ‘Gang of Eight’ Shortly Before Strikes,” The Journal wrote.

“White House says ‘Gang of Eight’ was briefed prior to the US-Israeli strike on Iran,” K5 wrote.

“Prior to the attacks, Secretary [of State Marco] Rubio called all members of the gang of eight to provide congressional notification, and he was able to reach and brief seven of the eight members,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt wrote on X.

The gang of eight are the leaders of both parties for both sides of Congress, as well as the chairs and ranking members of both intelligence committees.

So, Congress notified? Check.

Sixty-day window? Check, check.

Calling out Trump as a lawbreaker for initiating attacks on Iran is to lie. And Democrats are doing it knowingly and for political reasons.

It’s not as if Democrat presidents haven’t launched attacks on foreign governments and nations without obtaining permission from Congress. President Clinton did. President Obama did.

From the Nixon Library: “Since the War Powers Resolution of 1973, sitting presidents have submitted over 132 reports [for unilateral military action] to Congress. These include the airlift and evacuation operations carried out in Cambodia in 1975, committing forces to Beirut and Lebanon, in 1982 and 1983, the Persian Gulf War in 1991, and beyond. Challenges to the resolution include Ronald Reagan’s deployment of troops to El Salvador in 1981, the continued bombing of Kosovo during Bill Clinton’s administration in 1999 and military action initiated against Libya by Barack Obama in 2011.”

Clinton, in fact, exceeded the War Powers’ 60-day limits when he bombed over Kosovo — a clear violation of the act.

Obama came right out and said he didn’t need Congress to launch attacks against Libya — and when members accused him of violating the 60-day limit, his response was: eh.

From BBC, June 2011: “Obama does not need congressional approval for the US to continue its role in the Nato-led Libya mission, the White House has said. In a 32-page document, the White House said the president already had legal authority to order forces into Libya. A Vietnam War-era law [War Powers Act] states Congress must authorize participation in hostilities longer than 60 days. Members of Congress have accused Mr. Obama of violating that law since 20 May, when the 60-day deadline ended.”

And what was the Democrats’ response to Obama’s deployment of U.S. troops in the operation against Libya?

“Senate Dems defend Obama on Libya,” Politico wrote in March 2011.

Yep. That’s because Obama was a Democrat.

Now this same party — now the Democrats — have suddenly found their copies of the Constitution and decided to cite the section that says Congress has the power to declare war, and in so doing, use that section to call out Trump as a lawbreaker, as a war-monger.

“[These attacks] are not consistent with our values,” said Rep. Eric Swalwell.

“[Trump is taking] deliberate aggression,” and wrongfully abandoning peace talks and diplomacy, Reps. Ro Khanna and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said.

Whatever.

There is a valid argument that can be made about the constitutional basis of the War Powers Act. There are valid concerns about the idea of the executive branch ordering the military to engage in overseas operations without receiving the permission from Congress — and in many cases, without laying out the bullet points of what constitutes a win; of what indicates the end of the engagement. When Congress is forced to take votes on uncomfortable matters, like declarations of war, the members of Congress are forced to be accountable and transparent to the people. They are forced to tell voters why they are declaring war, and what conditions need to be met to declare an end to the war.

Those are valid discussions.

But Democrats who support the War Powers Act when it’s a Democrat in the White House don’t get to turn tail and condemn this president for using the same. And they certainly don’t get to lie about it and pretend to an already concerned American public that Trump is breaking laws, or violating the Constitution — or doing anything that other presidents since 1973 haven’t done. Trump, unlike Clinton, unlike Obama, hasn’t broken any law.

• Cheryl Chumley can be reached at cchumley@washingtontimes.com or on Twitter, @ckchumley. Listen to her podcast “Bold and Blunt” by clicking HERE. And never miss her column; subscribe to her newsletter and podcast by clicking HERE. Her latest book, “God-Given Or Bust: Defeating Marxism and Saving America With Biblical Truths,” is available by clicking HERE.