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.”
It’s (D)ifferent. That’s all.
The Democrats already showed how they are going to handle their hypocrisy. I happen to see the Bill Maher episode with Adam Schiff. Bill hit him with the question and Schiff dodged it and changed the premise without missing a beat. Nothing to see, move along.
If I thought this was a true disagreement over the policy, I would have very little actual issue with the stand of the Democrats or even Republicans not in alignment with Trump. Except, this is about Trump doing this and they are against it do no other reason. The hypocrisy rolls off their back like water in a shower. They are wet and couldn’t care less.
Ultimately, I have two predictions: If this goes well, Democrats will try to take credit and deny Trump the win and if it goes poorly, they will hang him. Either way, if they gain control of the House, the Democrats will impeach Trump.
British Agrian Registers, same di c e and conquered we Decared Indrpence from. Both parties owned by Treaty of Verona clan
Also Democrats: “It’s okay when we do it…”
I Quit My Office Job and Found Freedom Online: Here’s My Story The office environment was draining me emotionally and physically, so I decided to make a change. Now, I work online and earn 85 per hour doing what I love. It wasn’t an easy journey, but two years later, I can proudly say my life has changed for the better!
Here’s what I do and how you can too……………….. https://lnk.ua/tEAxR7FfS
Prof Turley, shouldn’t we be more concerned with the President exceeding his constitutional authority than the Democrat’s hypocrisy? My god – what misplaced priorities!
Cry harder Svelaz, we can’t heaer you.
Exceeding what? Congress has continually foisted more and more of their powers onto the President. The current President has only been doing what he has the authority to do, vested in him by the people, Congress, and the SCOTUS
Now that’s some gold-plated, blue ribbon sarcasm right there, by Gumby.
That’s a complex question!
The Left’s lack of consistency is legendary. This one, stupefyingly so.
It’s an argument defending Obama’s attack on Libya and for removing Gaddafi:
“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.”
And yet: Trump’s a fool for attacking Iran (a dictatorship). The Iranian people “should stay in chains” because oil prices. And “stability” under mass murderers is a “better deal” for Iranians, the Middle East, and America.
(I know. I know. The two countries are just different — because Libya starts with an “L,” and Iran starts with an “I.”)
I Quit My Office Job and Found Freedom Online: Here’s My Story The office environment was draining me emotionally and physically, so I decided to make a change. Now, I work online and earn 85 per hour doing what I love. It wasn’t an easy journey, but two years later, I can proudly say my life has changed for the better!
Here’s what I do and how you can too…………. https://lnk.ua/tEAxR7FfS
OT,
Rogue judges will keep throwing sand in the gears of the executive until there are actual costs for this lawless conduct.
Being rebuked by an appellate court is likely to earn them points with their crowd. In the meantime they get to hamstring the government.
Roberts is a failure. He’s a judicial Starmer.
https://redstate.com/streiff/2026/03/07/seventh-circuit-takes-a-blowtorch-to-order-issued-by-abusive-anti-ice-chicago-judge-n2199974
In certain cases, it’s almost as if they are “adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
Anon: “adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
Yes, at times it seems so.
It would be risky, but I would like to see counsel politely and soberly challenge the jurisdiction of any of the Autopen judicial appointments. The motion would be denied, of course, but it would put the question on the way to appeal and put it in the public eye.
These judges enjoy challenging the authority of Trump’s appointees so perhaps it is reasonable to challenge theirs. Particularly since their appointments by Autopen are invalid.
Pimply, callow interns don’t have the legal authority to make judicial appointments.
The history of the WPA is interesting. It was passed in 1973 after Nixon bombed Cambodia. President Richard Nixon vetoed it. It was passed again by congress with a 2/3 vote override. Nixon was impeached and resigned. President Gerald Ford ended the war in 1975 with the fall of Saigon. Is this correct?
Famous movie was Apocalypse Now by Oliver Stone regarding the time period.
PT writes he was part of a group arguing the Libya attacks were unconstitutional. I would interested in reading his argument if there were a link of some kind.
Carpe diem
Apocalypse now was primarily about the Johnson era Vietnam War.
Nixon negotiated a peace with the North Vietnamese and US forces withdrew under Nix.
Nixon was NOT impeached. He resigned first.
The Fall of South vietnam occurred under Ford years after AFTER US Forces withdrew
I knew someone would correct it, John. Thanks. 😂. The part about the movie…
Most politicos have no problem flip-flopping on a policy they once recommended. As far as Homeland security not being funded with the Dem lock out. If there is a terror attack in the nation linked to Iran. The Dems will never here the end of it. Because they will have blood (American) on their hands.
Like the bar shooting in Austin Texas ? Recent. Think that it was terrorist related to Iran?
Iran has money and oil, just what Pyongyang needs most. The two countries have long-standing collaborations in ballistic missiles dating back to the Iran-Iraq War.
In addition to missile sales, North Korea helped Iran establish a missile assembly facility and provided the required technical documentation for future production.
Key engineers and military personnel were exchanged on a regular basis, and missile cooperation continues today.
North Korea is unlikely to encounter serious hurdles if it were to ship plutonium to Iran, considering the level of current commerce and exchange. Detecting such metal pucks would be very difficult. Plutonium decays principally by the emission of alpha particles, which are easily stopped by plastic, a glass container, or a cardboard box. Its gamma rays and neutrons are not as easily stopped, but they can be quite effectively shielded with lead and B-poly plastic, respectively. North Korea has extensive experience in shipping legitimate and illegal goods to many states, including Iran. ARMS CONTROL.ORG
This is old info. NK has made monitoring their nuke program much, much more difficult
Pu emits neutrons. It is easy to detect.
Numerous experts have cited that a terrorist attack using a nuclear bomb smuggled into our country through a container ship and into a port is a highly likely occurrence.
Nope. I worked on a Project for LANL that was developing an improved version of the gadgets that the IAEC uses to detect mishandling of nuclear materials.
Similar equipment is used to detect nukes at Ports. It is highly unlikely you are sneaking a nuke into the US on a containership.
Drugs – sure, Plutonium – nope.
They can’t detect and remove the threat of a 10 megaton thermonuclear weapon approaching our shoreline at sea in time to prevent the loss of millions of lives.
“Poseidon” Torpedo: Reports indicate Russia may be developing the “Poseidon” torpedo, capable of multi-megaton yields and generating large tsunamis, with submarines designed not to emit heat waves detectable by typical NATO sensors.
“Iran has money and oil”
False. Iran is essentially bankrupt at the moment – they spend billions on nukes, missles and funding global terrorism.
Inflation has made Irainian currency near worthless, and sactions make it impossible for them to sell consequential amounts of oil.
They have lots of oil, they just can not sell it.
They have SOMEWHAT collaborated on Ballistic Missiles.
Iran’s missles have some reliance on NK but re at this point mostly home grown.
The Iranium Nuke program is completely different from amyone else in the world – they are building U235 bombs – the only nation that has ever done that is the US and only the Hiroshime Little Boy was a U235 bomb. U235 bombs are much easier to build that Plutonium bombs, But U235 is much much harder to mine and refine.
If/When Iran has enough 90% enriched U235 – you need atleat 85% enriched to make a bomb, The steps to make the actual bomb from that are simple and the bomb is extremly reliable. The US never Tested Littlboy. The tsted the Plutonium bomb – Fat Man because a plutonium bomb is much more technically complex.
Most countries product plutonium bombs – because Plutoium can be made in quantity in nuclear reactors, but the trade off is working with it is much harder and more dangerous and making a reliable bomb from Plutonium is much more complex.
“North Korea is unlikely to encounter serious hurdles if it were to ship plutonium to Iran”
Hurdless beyond the fact that any effort by anyone to transport bomb quantities of plutonium anywhere are globally monitored.
If you put that much plutonium on a ship – it will be detected and interdicted.
NK has very little global commerce and most of that is with China.
“Detecting such metal pucks would be very difficult.”
If that were true every nation in the world would have plutonium for weapons.
Just about every nuclear reactor in the world is monitored by the IAEC – and I can assure you that they are able to detect if a reactor is producing plutonium and if plutonium is being removed from the reactor. 5KG of plutonium radiates 10W of energy/sec.
” North Korea has extensive experience in shipping legitimate and illegal goods to many states, including Iran.”
Please provide evidence that any country with a Plutonium NUclear Weapon has secured that Plutonium from any source other than an in country nuclear reactor.
“This is old info. NK has made monitoring their nuke program much, much more difficult”
Within NK – absolutely. But the transport of pretty much anything from NK anywhere but through china is carefully monitored.
And the chinese are not going to allow transhipment of plutonium through china.
Operation Outside the Box, also known as Operation Orchard, was an Israeli airstrike on a suspected nuclear reactor, referred to as the Al Kibar site of Syria, which occurred just after midnight on 6 September 2007. The Israeli and U.S. governments did not announce the secret raids for seven months. The White House and Central Intelligence Agency subsequently confirmed that American intelligence had also indicated the site was a nuclear facility with a military purpose
(IAEA was initially unable to confirm or deny the nature of the site because Syria failed to provide necessary cooperation with the IAEA investigation}
WAY OFF
This 10W (approximately) of power is purely from radioactive decay. It is distinct from the 23 gigawatt-hours/kg of energy released during a fission explosion.
And their plan once they’ve detected a 10 megaton thermonuclear weapon is what? A ship occupied by Iranian sailors? PARADISE IS A CLICK AWAY. They will blackmail the West and Israel until when?
Once a person lies to me, I am done with them. It is comical on one hand and very sad on the other to watch any one, and especially officer of the law, lie with impunity. They look like second graders who got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
When I applied to another university program, years ago, I was required to take a psych test. I cannot remember the name specifically. There were a number of questions such as, “Do you agree: I like to play with fire. Fire fascinates me. Etc. There were other questions asking, “Do you hear voices in your head?” etc.
I asked one of my undergraduate professors about the test. I said, “I don’t see how any sane person could take this test seriously. The questions are bizarre and almost comical.”
To that he replied, “You are right. To a sane person. But, to someone who is insane, they won’t seem out of place.”
That is how I see those who are possessed with TDS. They are rabid and truly insane. These are the people who think it is okay to put male prisoners in women’s prison. They are the ones that foist such bizarre ideas as to have grown men use the women’s bathroom. They are the ones who cannot answer a question about how is it possible for a man to get pregnant. They are insane and harmful. They are the ones who have taken over the Democratic Party. Dare to question them, and a person will be subject to a foul-mouthed diatribe.
So, why should any person who is sane ever believe another word they say? The answer is that those who lap up their drivel are not sane or too lazy to care. Perhaps, they could use Flip Wilson’s old line, “The devil made me do it.”