In Rage and the Republic, I quote former Rep. Jaamal Bowman (D., N.Y.) as capturing the essence of an age of rage when a colleague asked him to stop yelling outside of the House floor. Bowman responded, “I was screaming before you interrupted me.”
Bowman’s statement came to mind this week when Democratic members were miffed when they were interrupted in tirades over war powers with questions about their prior support for unilateral attacks by Democratic presidents. Leaders like Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D., Cal.) and Sen. Adam Schiff (D., Cal.) struggled to explain their prior support for President Barack Obama in doing precisely that in Libya with embarrassing results.
The greatest face plant may have been Schiff’s appearance on “Real Time” with host Bill Maher. After Schiff denounced any attack without prior congressional approval, Maher read “This statement from the administration: ‘The president had the constitutional authority to direct the use of military force because he could reasonably determine that such use of force was in the national interest.’”
He then asked Schiff, “That’s too vague for you?”
Schiff responded, “Totally vague…”
Mayer than dropped the H bomb: “Okay. Because that’s from Obama about Libya.”
The moment laid bare the towering hypocrisy of democrats who continued to support Obama after he attacked Libya without any suggested imminent threat to the United States and an open strategy of regime change.
I represented members of Congress opposing that war over the absence of a declaration of war; most of the senior Democrats today refused to join that litigation.
Pelosi is especially hypocritical on the issue. She expressly declared that Obama did not need congressional authorization to launch unilateral attacks on Libya seeking regime change. She stated unequivocally that”I’m satisfied that the president has the authority to go ahead. I say that as one very protective of Congressional prerogative and consultation all along the way.”
Reporters then followed up and pressed her if she really believed that a president could not only launch an unprovoked war but could also continue combat operations without congressional approval. Pelosi answered “yes.”
This week, she made a ham-fisted effort to spin the contradiction. She told the media that the Iran and Libyan wars are “two completely different things. They’re not at all alike.”
Pelosi added, “What Obama did was limited military force. This is beyond that. It was limited military force.” In signature fashion, she then struck out at pesky reporters asking about her past position: “Do your homework. Read the law. We have lost people in war already… I just think if you read the law, you will see the difference.”
While not challenged on the spin, it is historically and legally nonsensical.
The Libyan War was not limited. The Obama Administration attacked the capital city of a country that was posing no imminent threat to the United States. It also took out columns of Libyan military units. It did so with the overt strategy of producing regime change. Figures like then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supported the action, which led to years of violence and instability in the country.
More importantly, it is immaterial how the two major operations stack up. The question is whether a president can launch large-scale military operations against another country based on their inherent Article II powers. Both Obama and Trump maintained that they could do so and we lost the challenge to the Libyan War.
Moreover, while there are good-faith objections to the need for the attack, presidents have successfully claimed the right to initiate combat operations without congressional authorization. That has boxed in Congress since the Jefferson administration.
Even though both Democratic and Republican presidents have questioned the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, Trump has actually complied with the requirements to notify and consult with Congress. The law requires presidents to inform Congress within 48 hours if U.S. forces are introduced into hostilities and requires congressional authorization for engagements that last more than 60 days.
Moreover, both houses have now voted and rejected any limits on Trump’s authority to prosecute this war.
They are, of course, not alone in this hypocrisy. In 2011, Sen. Richard Blumenthal praised Obama’s unilateral attack on Libya as a “prudent, decisive action.” This year, he denounced Trump’s attack on Iran as a “unilateral action without accountability…engaging in a war of choice that rejects opportunities for diplomacy.”
These glaring contradictions mean little today in our post-truth political environment. These politicians know that their base does not care as long as they oppose Trump. The obvious misrepresentation of their positions in the past would ordinarily be viewed as raw contempt for the intelligence of the voters. However, they know their base and the license of rage. They also know that the media will not press particularly hard on their flip-flop.
It is that rage that is giving Democrats the courage to vote virtually unanimously to end all combat operations in the midst of an existential battle over Iran. It is the same assurance that is evident in continuing the government shutdown by denying funding to the Department of Homeland Security.
The vote not to fund Homeland Security during a fight with the leading state sponsor of terrorism may stand as the single most reckless, irresponsible vote since Congress authorized the payment of “tribute” to the Barbary Pirates.
The important thing is that, now that these members simply denied that there is any contradiction with their positions from prior Democratic Administrations, they can now avoid further interruptions in this rage rave.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the author of the New York Times bestselling “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Trump removing another political football. Once Iranians are happy and free, dems won’t be able to use it to divide.
just one more example of Trump clearing the field of old political weapons that divide voters.
Imagine calling the assassination of a sovereign military leader ‘clearing the field.’ Trump isn’t ‘removing’ weapons; he’s handing a loaded one to our enemies while our allies move to the other side of the street. But please, tell me more about how alienating NATO and begging for base access is actually a genius plan to unite the country.
$21,000,000,000,000.00 ought to do. You stupid fool.
“Alienating” NATO is a problem for them, not us. NATO provides us with practically nothing, except a huge blank check for US military protection. Collectively NATO, and the US are not equals. Not even close. I am glad that Trump is pointing that out to them.
Me, too.
“We came, we saw, he died.”
“Veni, vidi, i wee wee”
Oh boy, Professor Turley seems to have made a few…mistakes with his…critique of Democrats being hypocrites in their opposition to Trump’s war with Iran. Where to start. Sigh.
Turley’s argument relies on a false equivalence. There is a massive legal and strategic gap between a MULTILATERAL NATO OPERATION to enforce a no-fly zone (Libya) and a UNILATERAL ASSASSINATION of a sovereign state’s LEADER (Iran). One is a police action to prevent a massacre; the other is a deliberate provocation of state-on-state war. Distinguishing between them isn’t “rage,” it’s basic literacy in international relations. Something Turley has had problems with in the past.
Then he mocks Schiff, but he “forgot” the legal debate in 2011 was whether the Libya mission—which involved no U.S. ground troops and zero U.S. casualties—even triggered the “hostilities” clause of the War Powers Act. You can’t compare a mission with zero boots on the ground to a strike on Iran that brought the U.S. to the literal regional conflagration. One carried no risk of escalation; the other was a match in a powder keg and Trump lit it without figuring out why it is a really bad idea.
Obama’s actions in Libya were backed by UN Security Council Resolution 1973. Turley again “forgot” to mention that. Whether Turley likes it or not, an international mandate provides a veneer of legal legitimacy that a “unilateral attack” lacks. Demanding that a President seek Congressional approval for a new war of choice (Iran) while supporting a coalition effort to prevent genocide (Libya) isn’t a flip-flop—it’s a consistent preference for collective security over reckless unilateralism.
Turley claims Obama didn’t face an “imminent threat.” True—the Libya justification was humanitarian intervention. However, the Trump administration justified the Iran strike specifically on the grounds of an “imminent threat” that they have failed to prove to congress and the world. It’s not “post-truth” to hold a President to his own chosen legal standard. If you claim you’re acting in self-defense against a ticking clock, you actually have to show the clock.
And then there is the gem of a red herring, Linking a domestic budget dispute over DHS to the “Barbary Pirates” is peak Turley melodrama. Congress’s “power of the purse” is their most potent tool for checking a President who they believe is acting recklessly abroad. Using that power isn’t “reckless”; it’s the exact system of checks and balances the Founders intended. Turley is effectively arguing that Congress should just shut up and sign the checks whenever a President picks a fight.
Turley’s column is a massive case of “legal flattening.” He treats every use of a cruise missile as identical so he can play a game of “Gotcha” with 10-year-old quotes. But context, scale, and risk are the very things the law is designed to measure. Calling nuance “hypocrisy” doesn’t make Turley a constitutional scholar; it just makes him a very eloquent partisan.
geroge
Obama’s actions in Libya were backed by UN Security Council Resolution 1973
____________________________________
What a lie. UN or not, doesn’t give the Prez to go to war.
Did you forget the whole BS lie about the Arab spring. How did that turn out for Syria or Libya.
Don’t see much freedom going on there.
Anonymous,
Calling the Arab Spring a ‘lie’ because a 40-year dictatorship didn’t turn into Switzerland overnight is peak historical illiteracy. When a dictator like Gaddafi spends decades destroying every institution except his own ego, the ‘chaos’ that follows his fall isn’t a failure of freedom—it’s the final bill for his tyranny. You’re effectively arguing that people should stay in chains because the process of breaking them is messy. But sure, keep pretending that ‘stability’ under a mass murderer was a better deal.
Anonymous, Calling a UN-backed, 17-country coalition mission a ‘lie’ is a bold strategy. The War Powers Resolution exists specifically because the President does have the authority to act unilaterally for 60 days before Congress has to step in. Obama followed the reporting requirements; the UN provided the global legitimacy. It’s not a ‘lie’ just because it doesn’t fit your narrative.
Fun fact. Trump administration officials have hinted the conflict with Iran could drag on well into November.
That is a lie. the WPR does not say what MAGAs want it to say.
“It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities”
“The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities”
” (d) Nothing in this joint resolution–
(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties; or
(2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.”
Hey X, your dance around it is hysterical. When you get right down to it in war things go boom and are blown to smithereens. There is no difference in the resulting devastation in both Libya and Iran.
The left cheered Obama and are now condemning Trump for making things go boom. They are hypocrites and so are you.
Hullbobby,
Your ‘analysis’ is hysterical. By your logic, a surgeon and a serial killer are the same because they both use knives. The difference isn’t the ‘boom’—it’s the legal authority, the allied support, and the strategic objective. Cheering for a President who trashes NATO and then begs them for help after starting an unauthorized war isn’t ‘toughness’; it’s just being a fanboy for a disaster. If you can’t tell the difference between a coalition and a solo suicide mission, you’re the one dancing around the facts.
Hullbobby?
got your hate list mixed up?
You are a hilarious, dangerous moron and total idiot and should not be allowed to get on the net wherever you are locked up.
Anonymous, It’s always the ones with the weakest vocabulary who are the most terrified of a keyboard. If my ‘idiocy’ is so dangerous that you’re calling for internet censorship, you’re basically admitting your own arguments are too fragile to survive a basic fact-check.
But I get it—when you can’t actually debunk the War Powers Act or the $1 billion-a-day price tag of Trump’s Iran mess, screaming ‘moron’ is the only participation trophy you have left. Stay mad; it’s the only way people know you’re listening.
What a boob.
How does enforcing a no-fly zone prevent a massacre?
Focusing on future elections, in other words the vast majority of voters from both parties support limits on presidential Article II powers and want Congress to do it’s duty under Article I (only Congress has the authority to declare war and military action). So that’s a top 2026 election issue all voters support.
Hey Anonymous, your dance around also said that public opinion was against Trump and there was no way he would get reelected. Now here you sit two finger typing in your mother’s basement trying to tell the future again. You look around and all your toys from fantasy land nod and say, yes yes Anonymous you are so brilliant. They exclaim in glee, we are so happy that you can sit here all day and with you’re
own little fingers you can change the world. The sane puppet makes you angry when he says get a life.
The continoing refusal of the members of the Democrat (NOT DEMOCRATIC) Party are a clear indation of the fact that many, if not all, party members are persons of modest intellectual attainment.
Obama was wrong then.
Also a few missile strikes is very different than a full scale war.
Turley has also switched sides in this issue.
@Anonymous
Even if that were true, and it isn’t, sane people are not prejudiced ideologues who see everything through the lens of political affiliation.
You’re gonna need to explain the ‘sides’ here…the American view vs. ?
Trump should be grateful that Democrats continue to be a policy clown show. They can’t even manage to hit the soft pitches. They could easily undercut Trump on immigration but they can’t even agree that it might be a good idea to deport criminal illegal aliens, and provide a pathway for those that have been here for years or that massive corruption in their states might make it appear that they aren’t qualified to run a lemonaid stand. I haven’t heard a word about either universal healthcare or the elimination of student loans. It’s like those issues just disappeared. A significant block of their voter base consists of women, blacks, unions, and jews, yet they continue to back domestic policies that are opposed by all three groups. They massively support “trans”, for no apparent reason, over women’s rights, social programs for illegals that undercut resources for low income blacks and hispanics, mass immigration that undercuts low paying jobs, and muslims over jews, every chance they get. Their foreign policy, if they have one, makes no sense at all. It appears to simply either ignore or appease our enemies and oppose Trump no matter what. They seem to back Iran over everyone, Hamas over Israel, Maduro and the drug dealers over the US. If they won’t even stand up for US citizens over illegals, what is it that democrats stand for?
Democrats are arguing with themselves after a long stretch choosing wrong sides of issues.
They have no direction, no leaders and no thought out positions, simply whatever Trump is against.
They should be called the ‘Get Trump’ party cause that’s their plan. It’s not working.
Unfortunately, republicans are busy doing the same thing. There are plenty of people in the party that are perfectly happy with an open southern border. I suspect the waste, fraud, and abuse isn’t confined to only blue states. Lindsey Graham is positively giddy, I don’t think there has every been a war he didn’t support. Now he’s talking about Cuba??? MTG is a moron, and has no idea what the hell she stands for. The Rand Paul wing of the party has once again painted themselves into their libertarian corner, by suggesting that if we simply ignore problems outside our borders, that they somehow no longer exist. You still have the never trumpers that are quietly hoping that if they can just wait out trump that the swamp can be refilled once again, and then you have those that are just in this for the money. They may be slightly better than Democrats but the bar is so low, it doesn’t matter that much.
The best that can be said about US govt is that at least Trump is doing something. On balance, we are better off without Maduro than with him, we are better off without Hamas than with them, we are better off with an Iran that doesn’t have nukes, and we are better off by deporting illegals than either supporting them or jailing them.
For Democrats to have contempt for their own voters is perfectly reasonable.
Every world event is a political weapon for the Dems. Gone are the days of asking what you can do for your country.
Maher talking with Schiff. Schiff took the bait. Maher got the answer he suspected. Maher cut of Schiff’s blurt as an act of kindness. But not before Schiff made Jonathon’s point. Of the many things that make hypocracy in politics so odious, I keep coming back to the idea that when you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember what you said.
“when you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember what you said.”
All because Schniff chose to run with whatever he thinks will bring him power instead of starting with an idea of one’s own personal ethics and morality and having the purpose to follow that as a political goal. Politician-talking-out-of-both-sides-of-his-mouth much?
The burden of Choice… uh, choice. Sequester the conception. All’s fair in lust and abortion.
It is not difficult to tell when a position is based on politics instead of principle. I can disagree with someone’s principles and, unless they are evil or insane, still respect them.
Dems cannot be bothered with stinkin historical facts! The only thing that matters is the Shaker Rage they are trying to spin up like a whirling dervish – spinning madly to nowhere! And then we have low IQ Dem Lemming Voters that love to drink at the Leftist Punch Bowl until they can barely stand and think coherently. Perfect storm of the Stupid being led by Morons! What’s the problem here? Bah haha.
low IQ Dem Lemming Voters that love … your comment raises the question, how do you see low IQ Rep voters. Surely the Reps have their share of morons and idiots?
Lets see what war was going on in 1973
_____________________________
The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. ch. 33) is a federal law intended to check the U.S. president’s power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress.
The bill was created by a dem-o-rat and who was the Prez Nixon.
But it was OK for LBJ to put us there… Right dems!
Oh dudtoff stop trying to hide. We can smell you …
Grow up… child
Care to prove me wrong dummy.. Or do you just love making a fool of yourself?
Professor Turley, your argument is valid; your points are well made. Your case is complete, except for the recent funerals. The first is for the “Death of Shame,” killed by Bill Clinton by his WH aspirations, and now in the toolkit of all Democrats. The second is for the “Death of Hypocrisy,” as killed by the Democratic party and MSM en mass. The word has little effect these days, and is commonly sidestepped by the excuse, “it was different then”.
Argument? Its an opinion piece.
An opinion piece which is undeniably 100% accurate. Democrats make the absolute best hypocrites.
Best you say? What is the qualitative difference of hypocrites whether they be dem or rep?
Right now the libs hold the lead when it comes hypocrites.
The dems don’t struggle. They out right lie, only their party can go to war and no one else.
only their party can go to war … ahem… trump just went to war. ya know that right?
always miss the point?
Please share with your perfect introspection wally?
You missed the point again-fool.
The Professor admits he lost that argument over Obama and Libya. What more do you want?
The quote “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds” is attributed to Ralph Waldo Emerson, suggesting that rigid adherence to consistency can indicate a lack of intellectual flexibility. It emphasizes the importance of adapting one’s beliefs and thoughts in light of new information or circumstances.
And nobody has ever accused Nancy Pelosi of having a “little mind” either. Evil, yes. Up there in the Lenin/Marx/Engels/Hitler/Obama/Atilla level.
@Wiseoldlawyer
Exactly. One this Pelosi is not, is stupid. She does everything with great intent and calculation. ‘Evil’, is apt.
‘thing’.
Nancy is fine as long as she’s rich.
Democrats are able to get away with lying and hypocrisy only with the willing support of their propaganda arm, ABCNNBCBS. Because Democrats control the Ministry of Truth, Obama’s war was peace.
If they got away with lying and hypocrisy, how come you are aware of it?
History is the best teacher. Best to remember it.
And where’s history now? I’m sitting here waiting to be taught.
Their struggle is not about war power act but to support anything President Trump is for. It totally stupid resistance. But Democrats are totally stupid. Are complete hypocrites and big liars. Believe anything a Democrat says at your own risk.
Democrats would support cancer if Trump cured cancer.
Yes. Even Dem. Sen. Fetterman holds with you on that.
Much of this debate misses the deeper issue.
The ceiling of government competence is set by the floor of citizen capacity. J.D. Oliver
The level of stupidity here is set by the incompetence of commenters like olly.
What debate olly? Can he or not? The end result is Trump did and legally justified it. Dems say no.
And drop the stupid citizen BS.
Basement.
As this is supposed to be a legal rather than a politics blog, perhaps Mr Turley could address whether he thinks that the President does have the LEGAL authority to do as so many have done. After all, Mr Turley himself admits in this piece that he represented those challenging Obama regarding Libya. So either Mr Turley thought and thinks that President Obama did not have such LEGAL authority, or he is as much a hypocrite as all the Democrats he now charges with hypocrisy…
The thrust of Turley’s post is not whether the action is legal or illegal. It is whether members of Congress apply the same standard consistently or only when the other party controls the presidency.
And respectfully, this blog is not what commenters think it is “supposed” to be. It is what Professor Turley decides to write about.
OLLY,
Well said.
Once again, some people making demands of what the good professor should write about.
PT thinks the WPA is unconstitutional, JD Oliver. Argue with that.
As to Pelosi and Schiff, rodeo clowns directing attention away from the WPA. Perhaps it’ll go the way of Roe v. Wade in some contortionist form.
Checks and balances can’t produce a lopsided war power struggle between branches because of the ever looming presence of traitors. There must be a check. They must balance. PT would make the executive branch into a puppet of the legislative branch, very dangerous indeed.
Carpe diem
On the otherhand a rogue president could wipe out Israel in a few minutes. They haven’t any friends in this world of cowards and terrorists. Right, Mamdami, Omar, Tlaib? A check and balance and as attack the US as in bases and embassies? Hillary’s outposts…
Gosh, what would 550 House members do? So st!pit.
Bye and may God almighty have mercy on his lowly creatures because of pity…
I think PT cares deeply about the law. When laws aren’t followed the mistake causes ripples where they don’t belong.
I think Turley’s position is clear. He personally believes Obama should have gotten Congressional authorization before hostilities with Libya began. He took Obama to court over it. Turley lost. So Obama – and Turley through the lawsuit – established the judicial precedent that Trump’s actions were lawful. Turley does not seem to like it, but the courts have spoken. Trump’s military actions against Iran are lawful – thanks in large part to Obama’s actions against Libya being litigated as lawful.
In addition, as required by law Trump notified Congress within 48 hours that hostilities against Iran had begun. And Congress has authorized the continuation of hostilities within 60 days, also required by law.
Trump has complied with judicial precedent established by his predecessors and the law at every step. Obama gave his middle finger to Congress, the law, and judicial precedent.
Well, sure… Obama did give a middle finger to Congress and set terrible precedents enabling abuse by his successors. But, as Joe Biden said, “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
How can the media argue against that?
O-dumber is also the first black Prez to go to with (Libya) for no good reason and turn that county into selling black slaves .
Think about that.
Just in case anyone forgot.
_______________________
In 2017, the shocking revelation of a slave market operating in Libya, where individuals were auctioned for as little as $400, drew widespread condemnation. Footage depicting the dehumanizing treatment of these individuals—showing their inability to speak or resist—mirrored the horrors of the transatlantic slave trade. This horrific situation, reminiscent of the harrowing depictions in the novel “Roots,” highlighted the vulnerability of individuals in the face of systemic injustice and the absence of legal protections (Human Trafficking Search, 2023).
Plus even CNN reported on it.
Slave market huh? What exactly did CNN report?
Try Goggle. It’s really that easy, or you are afraid of the answer you’ll get..
Wait, you made the statement without a source. If it’s so easy to just google it, then why didn’t you do it as a source?
Something tells me you’re stupid.
Try reading for once (Human Trafficking Search, 2023).
Lazy lib as always.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/23/africa/libya-reaction-slave-trade/
Think about that? Did you? You make no sense.
Really. Prove me wrong. Obama turned Libya into a slave selling country.
It’s not hard to look up. Or you are just lazy!
Wait, again, you made the statement w/o citation. Do you understand what the says about your unconfirmed statement? Its a lie.
Seriously, what don’t you understand about verifying information?
I wanna call you stupid, but you’re way beyond that.
Still lazy lib
DustOff,
Lazy is right.
Demands sources, then makes wild assertions without providing sources.
Only thing the annony has are low IQ level comments or juvenile insults.
So true Upstate.
When shown the truth, they switch to something or anything else.
Half-white prez. Everyone forgets that. Isn’t congruent with obummer’s main characteristic that got him elected: identity.
Biden said it: He’s an African American. He didn’t say ‘diverse’. Identity is what counts and is assigned as needed. Diversity is 2nd.
By the rules of insane liberal identity weighing, it’s the assignable identity that made him desirable.
Libs do not see this process of assigning morality and virtue to specific identities as troubling (See: Libya). If one’s identity provides the virtue, then one’s morality must be correct, no matter what it is.
Turley writes opinions. He’s an observer and interprets facts as he sees them. Turley is not Trumps lawyer.
If a lawyer defends a murder in court, it doesn’t follow that he is in favor of murder