NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Debate on Capitol Hill continues to rage over whether President Donald Trump started a “war” with the strikes he carried out against Iran last weekend, a key consideration for whether the president must look to Congress for authority to continue Operation Epic Fury.
Where Republicans see a narrowly-tailored attack designed to prevent a U.S. adversary from securing nuclear capabilities, Democrats see a conflict that could easily spill into a broader conflict.
“Congress is not supposed to be an after-the-fact spectator, the Constitution makes plain,” Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., told Fox News Digital.
“President Trump has not said, like in Venezuela, ‘this is a police operation,’ that it’s ‘an arrest,’” Kaine said, comparing the strikes to the January capture of Nicolás Maduro.
Democrats like Kaine have blasted Trump for dragging the U.S. into a conflict that, in their view, looks a lot like a war — something only Congress has the power to declare. It is that determination that makes them believe lawmakers should use the War Powers Act of 1973 to curb Trump’s powers in Iran.
That law prevents the president from continuing hostilities against a foreign power that extends past 60 days.
Republicans like Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., see no reason to invoke the War Powers Act, given the scope of the current conflict.
A measure to kill a Democrat-led war powers resolution aimed at handcuffing Trump’s military operations in Iran passed on Wednesday in a 53-47 Senate vote.
“I mean, even if you disagree with this, I just don’t think you can dispute [that] they’re complying with the statute. The president has the authority under Article II to do what he has done so far,” Hawley said, referring to the Constitution’s military power granted to the country’s commander in chief.
Last Saturday, the U.S. conducted a series of strikes in collaboration with Israel, targeting the country’s military leadership and killing the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Trump administration has framed the attack as a necessary campaign to halt Iran’s work towards obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Although Hawley supports the administration’s work so far, he has a firm red line in mind for where the conflict would require Congressional say-so.
“Ground troops would be a different deal,” Hawley said. “But [Trump] just said, ‘We’re not going to do ground troops,’ so, I just say to my Democrat friends — I think they’re just looking for something to vote against the president on.”
REPUBLICANS HAND TRUMP THE WHEEL ON IRAN — BUT ONE RED LINE EMERGES
Democrats remain unconvinced.
Some Democrats noted that the language the administration has used suggests it views the conflict as something more than isolated strikes.
“The president and the secretary of state have called it a war. So have the generals. If we’re at war, Congress has to provide authorization,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said.
Other Democrats, like Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., attacked the administration’s stated reason for the attack.
“There was no imminent threat to the United States. There were threats to Israel, but in terms of an imminent threat, there was not one. Consequently, this is the president’s war of choice,” Warner said.
NIKKI HALEY SLAMS DEMOCRATS WHO SAY IRANIAN REGIME ‘WAS NO THREAT TO AMERICA’: ‘ABSURD’
“You have to come before Congress,” Warner added.
To Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the consideration should deal less with technicalities and more with consideration of the cost that could come with Trump’s attacks.
“The American people make the decision on going to war because it’s their sons and daughters that will lose their lives. I still think that’s the case, regardless of who the president might be,” Durbin said.
Related Article
Read the full article here
