ADVERTISEMENT

Dems rip Biden for launching Houthi strikes without congressional approval

binsfeldcyhawk2

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 13, 2006
37,359
52,614
113
The Hamas caucus is pissed. ;)

A group of progressive Democratic lawmakers on Thursday responded furiously to President Joe Biden’s move to launch retaliatory strikes against the Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen without first seeking congressional approval.

The strikes marked the first major U.S. military response to the group’s ongoing attacks on commercial ships since the start of the Israel-Hamas war.

The Biden administration justified the joint strikes with the United Kingdom, supported by the Netherlands, Canada, Bahrain, and Australia, as conducted “in accordance with the inherent right of individual and collective self-defense, consistent with the UN Charter.”


Lawmakers argued that the move violated Article 1 of the Constitution, which requires military action to be authorized by Congress. Biden notified Congress but did not request its approval.
“This is an unacceptable violation of the Constitution,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who chairs the Progressive Caucus, wrote on social media.
Progressives Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) echoed Jayapal, decrying “endless war” and labeling Biden’s actions unconstitutional.
“The President needs to come to Congress before launching a strike against the Houthis in Yemen and involving us in another middle east conflict. That is Article I of the Constitution. I will stand up for that regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican is in the White House,” said California Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) on X, formerly known as Twitter. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) retweeted Khanna.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) responded to Khanna’s post in agreement, writing that ”the Constitution matters, regardless of party affiliation.” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), also praised Khanna’s “principles” in a social media post. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said that he was open to striking Yemen, but questioned why the decision had not been made by Congress.
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wisc) also demanded the White House work with Congress before continuing the strikes. “The United States cannot risk getting entangled into another decades-long conflict without Congressional authorization,” he wrote in a post on social media.
Some Republicans, meanwhile, couched their praise of the strikes in broader criticism of the administration.

Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement that he welcomed the U.S. strikes, writing that the use of force was “overdue.”

“I am hopeful these operations mark an enduring shift in the Biden Administration’s approach to Iran and its proxies. To restore deterrence and change Iran’s calculus, Iranian leaders themselves must believe that they will pay a meaningful price unless they abandon their worldwide campaign of terror,” McConnell added.

Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member Sen. Roger Wicker, (R-Miss), said in a statement: “This strike was two months overdue, but it is a good first step toward restoring deterrence in the Red Sea. I appreciate that the administration took the advice of our regional commanders and targeted critical nodes within Houthi-controlled Yemeni territory.”

“Terrorists know only the language of force and it is about time the administration acted on that fact. This action should have been taken weeks ago,” said Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“Biden must now act every day to end the ability of Houthi forces and all Iran-back terrorists to attack the US and our partners,” he added.

Iowa senator and veteran Joni Ernst also called the action “overdue” and wrote that “Iran-backed Houthis should never have been emboldened to wreak havoc on U.S. troops and global commerce.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said he was “very supportive” of the decision, adding that “the only language radical Islamic groups understand is force. I hope the Biden Administration understands that their deterrence policy has completely failed.”

 
Are those questioning the strikes wrong though? There is a reason we have a constitution.
I consider this a justified "police action". If it's a sustained campaign I agree with you.

I'm pretty sure this is a well deserved one time punch in the face.

The president has authority to respond to something like this in a timely fashion. Telegraphing the one time punch by debating it through congress would....

A. Lesson the punch's effectiveness
B. Endanger US and coalition lives.
 
I consider this a justified "police action". If it's a sustained campaign I agree with you.

I'm pretty sure this is a well deserved one time punch in the face.

The president has authority to respond to something like this in a timely fashion. Telegraphing the one time punch by debating it through congress would....

A. Lesson the punch's effectiveness
B. Endanger US and coalition lives.
Sets a dangerous precedent
 
Sets a dangerous precedent
I don't think so...

Presidents have had this kind of authority to take immediate action for quite some time now.

I agree that if this was a "boots on the ground" type sustained action they should have to go through congress.

I think there is plenty of justification for this action.


If the President is confronted with an unforeseen attack on the territory and people of the United States, or other immediate, dangerous threat to American interests and security, the courts have affirmed that it is his constitutional responsibility to respond to that threat with whatever means are necessary, including ...

 
Such as not defending our troops would do? Quit being obtuse

Talk about projection. I simply think before we bomb any country we should have approval from our elected representatives. Once that’s happened blow the fukers to pieces for all I care.
 
I'm not sure that it still qualifies as a precedent when similar actions have been taken by many presidents. Our Constitution is still very good in many ways, but antiquated in others. I agree with Bins.
I do remember Obama droning the fuk out of the Middle East. Not sure I like that either. Just seems like we have a checks and balances system for a reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KFsdisciple
I’m good with it as long as it’s just a strike to let them know to back off. If it’s going to get more complex than that conversations should occur first, but they need to k ow that if you attack us or our allies we will respond and you won’t like it.
 
As a first-term senator, Joe Biden signed on as a co-sponsor to what would become one of the most hotly contested and debated laws governing U.S. wars: the War Powers Act, which delineates the responsibilities of the legislative and executive branches for war-making. The legislation was passed in response to President Richard Nixon’s secret bombing of Cambodia and sought to assert congressional authorities over the power to declare war and to require the president to inform Congress within 48 hours of the commencement of military action. It also mandates the termination of any use of U.S. armed forces 60 days after the commencement of military action if Congress has not officially declared war or authorized the use of force. The act contained certain exceptions, including imminent threats or attacks on the United States. It also gave Congress the power to force the end of military action if the president has not complied with the law. Nixon vetoed the bill and Congress overrode him, making it law. Biden would spend decades fighting successive presidential administrations, many of which openly defied the law and refused to abide by its terms. On numerous occasions throughout his Senate career, Biden tried and failed to revise the law and make its powers more clear. It was one of his most consistent campaigns throughout his lengthy Senate career.

While Democratic administrations such as President Bill Clinton’s sought ways to circumvent and weaken the law, Republican administrations openly declared that the War Powers Act was an unconstitutional infringement on the powers of the executive branch and stated that they would never abide by its requirements. Despite his clear public position on war powers, Biden periodically supported military action that circumvented the law he co-sponsored and, in some cases, argued that the requirement to follow the law was subservient to the urgency for military action.

During Biden’s time as vice president, the Obama administration officially argued that it did not need congressional authorization to use force in Libya in 2011. Some constitutional experts accused President Barack Obama of openly flouting the law, with Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman writing, “Mr. Obama is creating a decisive and dangerous precedent for the next commander in chief, who is unlikely to have the Harvard Law Review on his résumé.” Through its actions in Libya, Ackerman argued, the Obama administration set a dangerous precedent. “Allowing the trivialization of the War Powers Act to stand will open the way for even more blatant acts of presidential war-making in the decades ahead,” he wrote. In what had become a common pattern in his career, Biden claimed that he opposed U.S. military action in Libya at the beginning but then publicly defended it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hwk23 and Scruddy
I was pretty sure the President has the authority to command the military as Commander In Chief, but only congress can authorize war. The president doesn't need congress' approval for individual conflict resolution.

I support Biden's use of the military, but should this conflict result in a war proceeding then yeah get congress involved.
 
I was pretty sure the President has the authority to command the military as Commander In Chief, but only congress can authorize war. The president doesn't need congress' approval for individual conflict resolution.
I think this action falls squarely in the Presidents purview. If it's a sustained action then he needs to go through congress.
 
I think this action falls squarely in the Presidents purview. If it's a sustained action then he needs to go through congress.
If something were to go wrong with this, I'm sure Biden will face all the blame whether he went to congress before hand or not. As divided/polarized as the two parties are... if he sought congress' approval for every military action we'd be in a world of hurt.
 
I think this action falls squarely in the Presidents purview. If it's a sustained action then he needs to go through congress.
My concern with that approach is that if it isn’t going as the admin hopes in a month or two, they’re in a worse spot to approach Congress for support. Then what? Escalate without Congress? Pull back and thus be exposed impotent?

Basic Sun Tzu, don’t start the fight before you’ve won. That means having everything victory requires lined up. This looks like starting a fight hoping to win.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Tom Paris
No question we have the best ISR and precision weapons on the planet. The best that our best money can buy.

So whackamole will begin.

And then threat evolution.

How long before semisubmersible unmanned boats are in the straits hunting targets?

I don’t think that idea is staying in the Black Sea.

The viability of low budget denial seems to have exploded in the last few years.
 
I was pretty sure the President has the authority to command the military as Commander In Chief, but only congress can authorize war. The president doesn't need congress' approval for individual conflict resolution.

I support Biden's use of the military, but should this conflict result in a war proceeding then yeah get congress involved.
This 10000%!

This was also a joint action with our UN allies after Congress was notified. Not just something the US did on their own. Judging from the support of the GOP on this, it would have passed even if it was put up for a vote.

You'll never get 500+ to unanimously agree on everything.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: KFsdisciple
I don't think so...

Presidents have had this kind of authority to take immediate action for quite some time now.

I agree that if this was a "boots on the ground" type sustained action they should have to go through congress.

I think there is plenty of justification for this action.


If the President is confronted with an unforeseen attack on the territory and people of the United States, or other immediate, dangerous threat to American interests and security, the courts have affirmed that it is his constitutional responsibility to respond to that threat with whatever means are necessary, including ...


This. . . the president can't seek congressional approval for every single strike he needs to carry out. Sustained actions should require congress of course but dropping bombs on terrorists?

And we've been doing these sort of strikes without congressional approval for forever now.
 
My concern with that approach is that if it isn’t going as the admin hopes in a month or two, they’re in a worse spot to approach Congress for support. Then what? Escalate without Congress? Pull back and thus be exposed impotent?

Basic Sun Tzu, don’t start the fight before you’ve won. That means having everything victory requires lined up. This looks like starting a fight hoping to win.
Pretty good chance the Houthi's quiet the F down after this...but we'll see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkeyetraveler
My concern with that approach is that if it isn’t going as the admin hopes in a month or two, they’re in a worse spot to approach Congress for support. Then what? Escalate without Congress? Pull back and thus be exposed impotent?

Basic Sun Tzu, don’t start the fight before you’ve won. That means having everything victory requires lined up. This looks like starting a fight hoping to win.

These are airstrikes against terrorists. What exactly are they going to do? Bomb us with their stealth bombers?

Nothing about this necessarily requires escalation to involve ground troops. The only escalation would be on the terrorist's part, if they want to keep FAFO.
 
I consider this a justified "police action". If it's a sustained campaign I agree with you.

I'm pretty sure this is a well deserved one time punch in the face.

The president has authority to respond to something like this in a timely fashion. Telegraphing the one time punch by debating it through congress would....

A. Lesson the punch's effectiveness
B. Endanger US and coalition lives.
I actually agree with you here. If he plans on a sustained military operation he needs to get support from Congress. If he's just giving a "You f****d around and now you need to find out", well this is what you do. It's kind of how it's supposed to work.
 
At the time it made sense as it is a humanitarian disaster but they FAFO and we've been monitoring their attacks for weeks compiling max ability to wipe out most of their attack capabilities in one mission.
 
I actually agree with you here. If he plans on a sustained military operation he needs to get support from Congress. If he's just giving a "You f****d around and now you need to find out", well this is what you do. It's kind of how it's supposed to work.
The President needs to have the leeway and flexibility to respond to something like this. This is a pretty clear case of where this is appropriate.

If we're in an extended campaign then congress needs to get involved.
 
It’s abundantly clear that the Democrats in the Squad hate the United States with every fiber of their body.
No, they don't hate the United States. They aren't stealing classified information and then selling it to our enemies. They aren't trying to dismantle the entire democratic process of our government. However, they have some unrealistic ideas of how the world works. But that's what great about this country. They can have those views. Since they are in the minority with their opinions, it won't go any farther than some chirping on social media.

Of course, if they convince young people to not vote for Biden because of it they will probably be the biggest factor to a Republican win in November. If there is ever a threat of that, they will shut up real fast because that would be a far worse outcome for them.
 
Of course, if they convince young people to not vote for Biden because of it they will probably be the biggest factor to a Republican win in November. If there is ever a threat of that, they will shut up real fast because that would be a far worse outcome for them.
I think this is an empty threat being used to effect the administrations policy's.

These folks ain't voting for Trump and I'm pretty sure it'll be pretty easy to get them to vote against him.

The hand wringing over this segment of the D base isn't necessary.
 
I think this is an empty threat being used to effect the administrations policy's.

These folks ain't voting for Trump and I'm pretty sure it'll be pretty easy to get them to vote against him.

The hand wringing over this segment of the D base isn't necessary.
It's the remnants of the Bernie Bros more radicalized and idiotic than before.
 
It's the remnants of the Bernie Bros more radicalized and idiotic than before.
The thing is I think that segment learned their lesson in 2016. Sitting out an election with Trump on the ballot isn't an option.

It's an empty threat trying to influence Israel policy.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT