I don’t know if bombing Iran was the right thing. I suspect it was. Heck, we probably should have done it in 1979 and periodically in the intervening years. History will judge.
I do know the hysteria over Trump not coming to Congress first and declaring war is pure partisan rhetoric and a lot of TDS.
Nearly every president, starting with Washington, initiated military action without declaring war. Some of the same Congressmen now shouting foul had nothing to say when Clinton went into the Balkans and Obama bombed Libya.
Give it a rest. Is anyone really on Iran’s side here?
17 comments:
I, for one, am pleased.
I echo Cappy. Very pleased. And please remember it OK for Dem's to do it but not alright, for anything, if done by DJT.
It's an epic mistake, the consequences of which will echo through the ages. Libya was a mistake (mostly for Europe) but it was actually a well-intentioned attempt to help a rebelling population. Who exactly do you think bombing Iran will help? It certainly won't help America. And being pleased that you have bombed a country is utterly sick, Cappy. Delude yourself into thinking it was necessary if you wish. But being pleased to be an aggressor is a horrible look.
Iran's had this coming for a very, very long time.
I for one believe they absolutely mean it when they chant, "Death to Israel. Death to America."
Bombing Iran's n7clear capabilities makes the entire world a better, safer place.
TDS is no great look either.
We have been at war with Iran from the instant they breached the embassy compound in 1979.
This is the trouble with never-ending wars. They never end.
For instance, Rocket Man of the Norks may or may not be shaking in his boots at this point...
Sorry...that was me. Stupid Google login was not logged in.
You know what I find perplexing? I can tell you because I know you will understand this. The powers that be are projecting technological advances, the likes the world has never seen, AI has taken over almost everything, America has been progressing at a rapid speed AND YET the American people are being forced to live smaller, live without, go back to gardening for food, economizing as if it was The Great Depression, going without, giving up, can't buy groceries, can't afford rent or a mortgage, living in tents, sleeping on the streets, suffering through massive layoffs and an affordability crisis....in other words, Americans are living as if it were 1929 yet the government and the powers that be are planning on landing on Mars, building super spaceships, executing an advancement in weaponry and Artificial Intelligence as if it were 2035. Does this make any sense to you because it doesn't make any sense to me? Human Beings are losing!!!!
Socialism is a deadly disease. Hopefully we're eradicating it.
"It's a new low. I'm so ashamed" - Animal House
Let’s be honest—presidents from both parties have stretched their military powers. Clinton in the Balkans. Obama in Libya. Even Reagan in Grenada. Those actions raised constitutional questions, and critics were right to raise them.
But what makes Trump’s bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites different—and more dangerous—isn’t just the scale. It’s the legal vacuum he acted in and the catastrophic potential of what this could unleash.
Think back to 2003: GWB made the case that Iraq was building WMDs. Even though Iraq wasn’t responsible for 9/11 and had no direct role in attacking the U.S., he still had to go to Congress. He got an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)—a full debate, a vote, and the backing of the American people through their representatives.
Now look at Iran in 2025. There’s no AUMF which unlike previous administrations after 9-11, gave the president power to go after “nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks... or harbored such organizations or persons.” There’s no direct attack from attacks from Iran on U.S. forces. There’s only a claim that Iran might be enriching uranium—not a new fear, and one that the U.S. and global powers were previously managing through the now-defunct nuclear deal.
And yet, despite all this, Trump launched multi-site attacks on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure—without so much as a formal briefing to Congress, let alone a vote. That’s not a "military response." That’s a strategic strike on the core of a sovereign nation’s defense program. That’s an act of war.
Let’s not forget: there are over 40,000 U.S. troops in striking distance of Iran. This isn’t about flexing power for headlines. It’s about potentially dragging us into a conflict with massive regional and global consequences.
So for everyone saying “Well, Clinton and Obama didn’t ask Congress either.” That’s true—but those were limited engagements, often under the pretext of humanitarian relief or fighting stateless terror groups. And even then, the overreach was hotly debated.
This moment is different.
Trump didn’t just cross a line. He erased it.
If the invasion of Iraq—a country that hadn’t attacked us—on the premise of stocking WMDs required Congressional approval, then surely bombing nuclear facilities in Iran does too. What laws have change? None?
This isn’t about being pro-Trump or anti-Trump. It’s about defending our system of checks and balances—the very idea that we don’t let one person, no matter how popular, start a war on his own.
And if we keep moving the goalposts now—just because "our guy did it"—we won’t have any ground left to stand on when the next president decides to do the same.
We can agree to disagree. One strike is no different than the Clinton or Obama or even Reagan cases you cited above and no more (or less) an act of war..
I think we all know the current Democrat party hates Trump so much that had he briefed Congress the strike would have been leaked instantly. There are some that would hurt the US if it meant “getting” Trump
During the last few months of Obama's presidency...
Bomb Drops:
Syria: 12,192
Iraq: 12,095
Afghanistan: 1,337
Libya: 496
Yemen: 35
Somalia: 14
Pakistan: 3
Clinton, Obama, Reagan all conducted strikes without explicit congressional approval, but they usually tied them to existing authorizations:
Reagan's 1986 Libya strike invoked self-defense due to terrorist threats.
Obama cited the 2001 AUMF when acting in Libya, Syria, and against terrorist groups.
Trump’s 2017 strike in Syria relied partly on the 2002 AUMF.
Trump’s Iran strike has no clear AUMF or statutory authorization—it wasn’t covered by the 2001 or 2002 AUMF.
Past strikes targeted terrorists or limited military targets, often with low risk of broader conflict. For example, Reagan struck a specific Libyan compound.. Obama’s interventions were framed as humanitarian or counterterror operations .
The Iran strike targeted hardened nuclear sites in a sovereign nation, with 40,000+ U.S. troops nearby, and high potential for regional escalation—or war .
Past presidents often framed their strikes as responses—limited, tactical, defensive.
Trump’s Iran strike, by contrast, looks like a strategic act of war: it directly attacked national infrastructure, risked triggering a broader conflict, and carried no immediate defensive justification.
The War Powers Resolution requires notification within 48 hours and withdrawal after 60 days without approval.
Many previous actions at least included some reporting, even if contested .
There’s no evidence Trump submitted the required formal written report for the Iran strike—only informal briefings .
And finally Joe, I hear you—and I’ll even grant that leaks are a real concern in today’s politics.
But if we’re saying the president can ignore Congress because he doesn’t trust them, then we’re saying one man can decide when America goes to war—and the Constitution never gave anyone that crown.
That’s not loyalty to Trump—that’s surrendering to fear and letting partisanship override our founding principles. And if we’re okay with that now, what happens when a president you don’t trust does the same thing?
Democrats lie?
https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/06/23/democrats-caught-in-a-huge-lie-about-trumps-iran-strike-n4941081
I've lost way too much to their lies to ever believe ANYTHING they say again.
If their mouths are moving or their fingers are typing, they're lying.
Looks like the war is over and peace — at least temporarily- will reign. Makes the panic and hand wringing a little silly.
At least until a democrat judge somewhere says it is illegal because Trump.
Funny how certain groups only ever want peace when they're getting their a$$e$ kicked. Then when everyone backs off, they're right back to "DEATH TO [whomever]!".
Post a Comment