Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Democrats Furious at Trump Decision to Bomb Iran’s Nuke Sites

Democrats Furious at Trump Decision to Bomb Iran’s Nuke Sites

When tweets outnumber tactics, it’s clear who’s not ready for primetime.
Posted by Saturday, June 21, 2025 at 10:59pm

If you scrolled through progressive Twitter this evening, you’d see Democrats in full meltdown mode over Trump’s strike on Iran. Anger boiled over as AOC and others went so far as to call for his impeachment—again—claiming the move was unauthorized and reckless. From indignation to outright hysteria, the tone among House and Senate Democrats was clear: they’re furious, divided, and ready to go after Trump for once again protecting America.

For a party that once claimed to support “defending democracy,” their response to a targeted strike on a hostile regime sounds more like a tantrum than a strategy. When tweets outnumber tactics, it’s clear who’s not ready for primetime.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:
, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Skip | June 21, 2025 at 11:08 pm

Of course they are, and it’s not all TDS

    diver64 in reply to Skip. | June 22, 2025 at 6:39 am

    Trump removes Iran’s nuclear capability
    Dems hardest hit as Obama rages.

      rduke007 in reply to diver64. | June 22, 2025 at 10:12 am

      Use RICO to permanently abolish the Democrat Crime Cabal

      Had the corrupt Democrat cabal pulled off coup 2.0 Iran would have a bomb already.

      They are domestic enemies of the Republic and there is much dirt for the special counsel investigating coup 1.0 to prosecute including crimes against humanity in addition to treason and sedition.

      USe RICO and bunker-bust the democrat crime cabal

    pfg in reply to Skip. | June 22, 2025 at 10:47 am

    Is there really a down-side if Trump authorized the use of a GBU-57?

    Maybe there’s a violation of the War Powers Act (1973). But given that statute’s language, maybe there’s not. Even if there is, it’s not as if the House (R-controlled, though just barely) is gonna vote to impeach.

    And if this one act topples the mullahs and Iran gets a new government, that’s all to the good. Trump’s numbers will go up even more.

    ArmyStrong in reply to Skip. | June 25, 2025 at 6:57 am

    It was a great day! Trump put the Iranian nuclear program back decades if not permanently, removed a massive threat to this nation and our allies, and the “squad” is throwing a temper tantrum. Sounds like a win-win-win to me!

oldschooltwentysix | June 21, 2025 at 11:12 pm

That’s why social media sucks. Everyone has to chime in about everything. Or take photos of everything they experience As if what they opine or their feats matter?

The Democrats’ outrage is so feigned. No one believes these people anymore. No one listens. Another nail in their coffin. So extreme. They would prefer Iran with nuclear weapons. “Death to America!” Just a slogan. Let this be the end of Obamism.

Where’s Fetterman’s tweet? Any others like him with a semblance of common sense?

    midge.hammer in reply to oldschooltwentysix. | June 25, 2025 at 6:33 am

    I wish that were true, that nobody believes or listens to their dumb asses. But at any given moment, somewhere between 30-70% of all of us at least do sometimes, and/or are sufficiently lacking intestinal fortitude to stand against it, and/or are simply evil and delight in dishonesty.

    This is a problem.

Virginia42 | June 21, 2025 at 11:15 pm

Morons on parade.

Oracle | June 21, 2025 at 11:15 pm

Many Presidents engaged in wars that were not declared, starting with the Quasi-War under John Adams. These types of limited war actions were eventually approved as Police Actions by the Supreme Court.

    Milhouse in reply to Oracle. | June 22, 2025 at 1:30 am

    These types of limited war actions were eventually approved as Police Actions by the Supreme Court.

    No, they weren’t. No one ever asked the courts to “approve” them; that is not a court’s job. And the term “police action” did not exist before the 1950s. The “Quasi-War” was a war.

    The courts recognized that a state of war existed between the USA and France, regardless of the fact that neither party ever bothered declaring it. A declaration of war is simply not necessary for a state of war to exist.

    The courts reaffirmed that decision in the Prize cases after the Civil War, ruling that the war began the moment the first shot was fired at Fort Sumter, not when Congress got around to making its declaration.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | June 22, 2025 at 2:40 pm

      Upvoted.

      Also, a state of war doesn’t require the agreement of both parties. If one country believes it is at war with another country, those countries are, in fact, both at war (even if the other doesn’t acknowledge it).

      Iran has been at war with us for decades, usually through its proxies, and by the use of their proxies against our proxies and allies (e.g. Israel). Therefore we’ve been at war with Iran, whether we want to acknowledge it or not.

      I remember when G. W. Bush famously stated that we weren’t in a “holy war” against the Taliban. But the Taliban considered itself in a holy war with us, making the conflict a holy war no matter what Bush thought about it.

    kelly_3406 in reply to Oracle. | June 22, 2025 at 6:24 am

    Presidents of both parties seem to assert the right to order limited strategic strikes (not nuclear, but strategic, nonetheless) without authorization from Congress. Trump did it in his first term.

    There is always muted criticism in Congress about unconstitutional military action. But this time it is different — there is real anger.

    What’s the difference? Israel is involved. Netanyahu is involved. The Ds are trying to appease their core constituency, which we see flying Palestinian flags. They are anti-US, anti-Israel, and like to shout “From the River to the Sea.” They probably would not mind if Iran got a nuclear bomb.

      Milhouse in reply to kelly_3406. | June 22, 2025 at 7:01 am

      1. Presidents of both parties don’t recognize the War Powers Act as valid. They comply with it voluntarily, but continue to assert the view that it’s not a binding law. So long as they voluntarily comply no one can test it in court.

      2. Valid or not, the WPA allows such strikes; the president must inform Congress within 48 hours of committing US troops, and if he doesn’t obtain approval within 60 days he has further 30 days to withdraw them. I don’t think anyone imagines the current involvement will take longer than that.

4rdm2 | June 21, 2025 at 11:16 pm

They are all 100% wrong.

    Milhouse in reply to 4rdm2. | June 22, 2025 at 1:31 am

    I don’t think they’re 100% wrong. They do have a point, it’s just not a very strong one. I’d say they’re 80% wrong.

      henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | June 22, 2025 at 3:01 am

      And the other 20% is covered by “we just used your rules, Democrats.”

      AF_Chief_Master_Sgt in reply to Milhouse. | June 22, 2025 at 6:51 am

      I spent 30 years running to virtually every shit hole on this planet, and in not a single instance did Congress declare war. And nearly every damned deployment was due to a Democrat president.

      So the democrats can fuck off. After spending years in the Middle East, many of us were ready to turn those nations into glass plates.

      I was in Somalia when Ilhan Omar’s brethren decided to kill the very people who were feeding them. To me, a good terrorist is a dead terrorist .

        Milhouse in reply to AF_Chief_Master_Sgt. | June 22, 2025 at 9:21 am

        I spent 30 years running to virtually every shit hole on this planet, and in not a single instance did Congress declare war.

        That’s not true. Congress declared war in 1964, 1991, 2001, and 2002. Also on other occasions, I don’t have the full list.

        Nonetheless, a declaration of war is not necessary for a state of war to exist. Often the USA finds itself at war without anyone having declared anything. That’s what happened on Sep-11-2001; President Bush announced that day that the USA was at war. Not that he was declaring war, which he couldn’t do; but that it was already at war, declaration or not.

          ztakddot in reply to Milhouse. | June 22, 2025 at 7:06 pm

          Congress has not declared war since WW2. Congress has authorized military engagements, They’re different although I can’t explain how at this time.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | June 23, 2025 at 12:05 am

          ztakddot, it is extremely silly to believe that a declaration of war requires the use of some magic formula such as “We Declare War”. The law does not deal in magic; any joint congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force is literally a declaration of war, regardless of what it is called or how it is phrased.

          It’s not like Catholic sacraments, where if the priest doesn’t say the right words the magic doesn’t happen; the person is not baptized, the host is not consecrated, etc. Here there are no specific words required. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was a declaration of war, and so were the AUMFs of 1991, 2001 and 2002.

      4rdm2 in reply to Milhouse. | June 22, 2025 at 7:08 am

      They have zero point, by the rules as they exist. None whatsoever. In any way.

        Rick the Curmudgeon in reply to 4rdm2. | June 22, 2025 at 9:49 am

        You know that, I know that, THEY know that. What they’re doing now is trying to stir up their mouth-breathing voter base.

        DaveGinOly in reply to 4rdm2. | June 22, 2025 at 2:43 pm

        This wouldn’t prevent them from impeaching and removing Trump from office, if they had the votes. They’re interested in exercising raw political party for their party’s and their own advantage, without care for the condition of situation of the country.

      paulscott in reply to Milhouse. | June 22, 2025 at 7:18 am

      They’re 100% wrong by *their* rules. There seems to be no short term memory. Either that or “it’s fine when we do it”

      ztakddot in reply to Milhouse. | June 22, 2025 at 1:08 pm

      They’re f’g hypocrites. I remember when Clinton bombed aspirin factories in Sudan in a trye wag the dog moment to try and distract from Monica and her blue dress. Democrats said……..
      yeah that’s right. Nothing. There are 10-20 such instances, perhaps more. So tired of their BS.

        DaveGinOly in reply to ztakddot. | June 22, 2025 at 2:46 pm

        These idiots are being seriously ratioed on X. (I encourage everyone here to pile on.) You can see dozens of tweets there from people reminding these idiots of all the times actions like this by other presidents were met with nary a peep (or a tweet) from them.

    CommoChief in reply to 4rdm2. | June 22, 2025 at 4:13 pm

    Agreed. Congress has long since delegated to POTUS the authority to take.such actions. Heck there’s also the AUMF for GWOT still in place as well. Would it be ‘nice’ if we could trust Congress with operational info to ask for a vote of authorization for a strike with narrow objectives like this? Sure but the Congress leaks like a sieve and doing more than informing Speaker HoR/Sen Maj Leader would almost.certainly have compromised the mission.

artichoke | June 21, 2025 at 11:18 pm

Pramila says the US public is overwhelmingly opposed. No, but maybe so in her district, after all they elected her.

Hakeem says this increases the risk of war in the middle east. What does he think was going on since 10/7?

NavyMustang | June 21, 2025 at 11:22 pm

According to O’Reilly, President Trump has the authority in accordance with public law 107-40, passed days after 9/11.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XziBhe-W9-0

    NavyMustang in reply to NavyMustang. | June 21, 2025 at 11:28 pm

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/23/text

    Applicable text:

    “Section 2 – Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

    (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

      Milhouse in reply to NavyMustang. | June 22, 2025 at 1:59 am

      That doesn’t apply unless the President has made such a determination about Iran. Has he discovered new evidence that Iran was involved in planning, authorizing, committing, or aiding the attacks, or that it harbored those involved in perpetrating it?

      I remember there was some evidence that Iran had given refuge to some al Qaeda people during the Afghanistan invasion, but I don’t remember much about it. And I’m not sure that discovery would be enough to authorize an attack 25 years later, when those people are no longer (as far as we know) in Iran.

      But yes, an AUMF is a declaration of war, and the USA remains at war with anyone who was involved, in any way, in those attacks 25 years ago.

      Milhouse in reply to NavyMustang. | June 22, 2025 at 2:07 am

      O’Reilly’s words: “So if a nation is harboring terrorists, which Iran certainly is, and funding and everything else, the President of the United States can whack them”.

      But that is not correct. He’s pulling a fast one over his audience (and he knows it). It’s not enough for Iran to be harboring or funding terrorists in general. It must be harboring or funding the terrorists who were involved in those attacks. The organizations or the persons. Harboring other terrorists doesn’t count.

TrickyRicky | June 21, 2025 at 11:24 pm

Thanks for providing this list. I’m going to have to buy a lot more pins for my Voodoo doll.

Alex deWynter | June 21, 2025 at 11:24 pm

A sure sign you’ve done the right thing is AOC reeeeeing about it.

walls | June 21, 2025 at 11:26 pm

American public opinion supports the strike. Americans are against boots on the ground. Once again, the Dems choose the losing side.

irishgladiator63 | June 21, 2025 at 11:30 pm

They’re just mad the ayatollah won’t be sending them campaign contributions anymore.

schmuul | June 21, 2025 at 11:38 pm

No calls for impeaching Obama when he regularly targeted Pakistan , Afghanistan , Lybia , Syria and Yemen over and over again. Funny how that is ?

    Milhouse in reply to schmuul. | June 22, 2025 at 2:08 am

    Actually there were calls for impeaching him over Libya.

      mailman in reply to Milhouse. | June 22, 2025 at 3:10 am

      Him and Clinton should have been, metaphorically speaking, strung up for that one! The stench oh Bho incompetence mixed with Clinton delusion was everywhere!

      And where was the media? Where they doing 24/7 outrwaaaaage farming? The fuck they were! They were right their looking adorably up at Barry Hussein while they sucked him and Clinton off 🤔

      Iran is a very different beast from Lucia though.

      paulscott in reply to Milhouse. | June 22, 2025 at 7:19 am

      By his own party presumably ?

Olinser | June 21, 2025 at 11:42 pm

This is what, the 20th time they’ve ‘called for impeachment’?

Nobody listens to these idiots but their idiot base.

MarkSmith | June 21, 2025 at 11:48 pm

“Congress is a coequal branch of government, even if the President does not agree. Today’s unauthorized strikes were yet another piece of evidence that this Administration is dangerous and unaccountable.”

What? Sorry Congress is not the President

    Milhouse in reply to MarkSmith. | June 22, 2025 at 2:08 am

    No, Congress isn’t the president. But it is a coequal branch of the US government.

      henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | June 22, 2025 at 5:34 am

      That gets them a Shiny Badge, but it doesn’t get them a Big Red Button.

      4rdm2 in reply to Milhouse. | June 22, 2025 at 7:10 am

      Which has its own set of powers. Not all powers belong to all branches of government.

      4rdm2 in reply to Milhouse. | June 22, 2025 at 7:20 am

      That doesn’t mean they get an equal say in all decisions. Just like the president doesn’t get an equal say in all congressional actions.

        DaveGinOly in reply to 4rdm2. | June 22, 2025 at 3:24 pm

        Exactly. When was the last time a POTUS sued Congress because it wasn’t passing a budget item POTUS wanted funded?

      DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | June 22, 2025 at 3:19 pm

      Yes, each with its own power, authority, and responsibilities. National security, and taking action to secure same, are executive responsibilities and powers, respectively. How the POTUS uses that power is largely left to his judgment. We elect the POTUS with the understanding that his judgment will guide his actions. Even if Iran didn’t pose an “imminent” threat in fact, it’s within the authority of the POTUS to declare Iran an imminent threat when he believes it has become one and to act appropriately. When and if a threat materializes is a judgment that we wouldn’t want Congress making.

guyjones | June 21, 2025 at 11:55 pm

What else would one expect from the utterly vile, stupid, witless, subversive, feckless and emasculated Dhimmi-crat fifth columnists?

The Dhimmi-crats have always supported the U.S.’s foreign adversaries, whether the Soviet Union, communist China or sundry Islamofascist/Muslim terrorist states and groups.

The witless Dhimmi-crats are too stupid to comprehend that the Iranian regime has already been at war with the U.S. and its allies, since 1979.

healthguyfsu | June 21, 2025 at 11:59 pm

Didn’t we settle this decades ago with Bush 1 and Clinton?

Paul | June 22, 2025 at 12:12 am

Won’t these stupid wh*res ever STFU?

DSHornet | June 22, 2025 at 12:24 am

Why did Trump not take this up with congress before he struck the nuclear plants in Iran? Two reasons:

1) The passage in Genesis where God tells Abraham He will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you, so backing up Israel is a good idea.

2) Y’all are too stupidly arrogant, or arrogantly stupid, to keep your mouths shut.
.

    Milhouse in reply to DSHornet. | June 22, 2025 at 2:17 am

    The first reason is invalid. First of all the USA is not Christian or Jewish, and the Bible can’t form the basis for government action. Second, even if it were such a basis, it still doesn’t give him authority to bypass Congress.

    The second reason is the correct one. There are only two alternatives:

    1. The president had no way of consulting Congress without it leaking. He might as well have notified Iran directly.

    2. The president could have consulted Congress, in the person of the relevant intelligence committee members, without one word leaking of such consultation, in which case how do you know he didn’t? By definition, if those people are trustworthy, they’re not talking. If they talk they prove that they can’t be trusted.

    My money is on #1. Had he consulted, operational security would have been blown to smithereens. Iran would have known about it five minutes after the intel committee members did. So he didn’t do that.

      ztakddot in reply to Milhouse. | June 22, 2025 at 1:14 pm

      In the (now distant) pass the president would have pulled aside congressional leaders from both parties and informed them. Those days are gone. These days it would be a horse race to see which of the leaders would leak first and to whom. None of them are trustworthy.

    diver64 in reply to DSHornet. | June 22, 2025 at 6:07 am

    Not so much the first, entirely the second. If Trump had gone to Congress Iran would have known about it 5 min later.

Sanddog | June 22, 2025 at 12:29 am

The shrieking harpies of the left can pound sand. Iran has been at war with the USA for over 45 years and we’ve taken hit after hit and pretended it wasn’t any big deal (except for the families of dead and maimed service members). I was living in Jeddah when the embassy fell in Tehran. My mom and I had planned a trip there 6 months before and cancelled because things were looking too unstable. I joined the military a year after they bombed the barracks in Beirut. None of this crap is ancient history to me. The only thing I’m angry about is that we waited this long to take care of business.

oden | June 22, 2025 at 12:54 am

The US bombed Kosovo before the full Congress authorized such an action. There were non-binding House resolutions, and many argue that these resolutions provided sufficient legal justification. Did the Democrats cry foul and advocate impeaching Clinton? Of course not. Was Kosovo a threat to the US? No? Did the UN authorize the war? No. The US was taking sides in favor of Islam. Such is the power of Arab money to influence US policy.

A president is subject to impeachment for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Disagreements over policy do not qualify. Evidently some Democrats (Republicans too) don’t understand the legal basis for impeachment. The GOP has long been known as “the stupid party,” while the Democrats known as “the evil party.” Unfortunately with the passage of time, the stupid party has become evil, while the evil party has become stupid. Such is the dismal state of the republic in the 21st Century.

    CommoChief in reply to oden. | June 22, 2025 at 8:18 am

    Impeachment is a political act and Congress can attempt it as they wish. If a majority extend in the HoR to impeachment and a supermajority in the Senate to successfully convict and remove a POTUS over pretty much anything they could. The check on this political action is by ‘we the People’ at the next election for those who voted for it.

    That said, the d/prog outrage seems very selective. I don’t recall much outrage or calls for impeachment from d/prog and their surrogates when Clinton and Obama acted. Typical self serving hypocrisy from the d/prog b/c in their view it is (D)ifferent when they do it.

    I suspect the vast majority of US Citizens are ok with taking out Iranian nuke program to deny that potential weapon to a theocratic terrorist regime. The d/prog whining is very unlikely to be effective in changing that.

George_Kaplan | June 22, 2025 at 1:10 am

So why was it constitutional when Obama did it?

    guyjones in reply to George_Kaplan. | June 22, 2025 at 7:54 am

    Obama can kill American citizens using drones, without a scintilla of Dhimmi-crat opprobrium, but, #47 can’t take out the nuclear weapons facilities belonging to a rabidly genocidal, totalitarian, belligerent and psychotic Islamofascist regime, without the vile Dhimmi-crats waxing outraged.

henrybowman | June 22, 2025 at 3:04 am

So impeach him, or STFU.
When your impeachment fails, then just STFU.

mailman | June 22, 2025 at 3:12 am

And just like that Democrats are anti-involvement in someone else’s conflict again 😂

    AF_Chief_Master_Sgt in reply to mailman. | June 22, 2025 at 6:59 am

    You have to admit, dropping a few bombs on Iran was more effective than what Biden gave to Ukraine.

    At least with yesterday we can be assured that the money didn’t line the pockets of democrats.

    The democrats are just pissed that they can’t get political donations through a money laundering scheme.

      AF_Chief_Master_Sgt in reply to AF_Chief_Master_Sgt. | June 22, 2025 at 12:56 pm

      Sigh!

      Downvoted by the Parry of One “I love laundering money through a Ukrainian Dick-Tater” group.

      I am dismayed.

      I guess I shall crawl into a corner and cry myself to sleep.

        ztakddot in reply to AF_Chief_Master_Sgt. | June 22, 2025 at 1:16 pm

        There there. You are in good company.

        I sent mail to LI a few weeks ago about this. I was told there was nothing they can do. They can’t tell whose doing. I remain skeptical.

wendybar | June 22, 2025 at 3:57 am

What AREN’T Democrats furious at Trump about??? It’s how we know he did the right thing….again!!!

diver64 | June 22, 2025 at 6:10 am

I’d rather have had Trump give or sell Israel the bombs as they don’t appear to need out help that much.
I’m a little leery about any President doing things like this without Congressional approval unless an attack on the US or it’s assets like military bases, people etc in imminent. I agree that the problem of Iran had to be solved once and for all considering what they have done in the MidEast via proxies and outright attacks but I’m not sure we had to do it at this time.

    AF_Chief_Master_Sgt in reply to diver64. | June 22, 2025 at 7:01 am

    Iran was kind enough to kill Americans through their support of proxies.

    Of course, Obama gave them the cash to do so.

    Milhouse in reply to diver64. | June 22, 2025 at 7:07 am

    What other time was there? The Israeli attacks set the timetable. Now is when the sites are vulnerable, so now is when they have to be taken down.

      CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | June 22, 2025 at 10:08 am

      Agreed. The ongoing Israeli strikes had degraded Iranian air defense so much that Israel was doing daylight missions; Iran was unable to effectively engage our strike. Then add in the declawing of Iranian proxy forces in Yemen along with devastation of Hamas and Hezbollah leadership/organization. Then add in Syrian regime change. Then add the fact that the Sunni Nations in the region and most of the rest of the world’s Nations seem fed up with Iranian terrorism and belligerent antics.

      No doubt this was the correct moment to strike.

    rebelgirl in reply to diver64. | June 22, 2025 at 9:43 am

    They’ve been threatening the US for over 40 years and, as their nuclear ambitions were coming fruition, Iran’s ability to use nuclear attack weapons is far greater than their ability to use good judgment.
    Israel did not have the delivery system for the bombs so that wasn’t going to happen.

    I don’t think that people remember that Iran refers to us as the ‘Great Satan’ and Israel is merely the ‘Little Satan’.

    Johnny Cache in reply to diver64. | June 22, 2025 at 11:27 am

    There is only one plane that can carry these giant bombs, and Israeli doesn’t have one.

    Can you tell me why we didn’t have to drop them now? The Pallet Of Cash strategy didn’t seem to be working for some weird reason.

MoeHowardwasright | June 22, 2025 at 6:52 am

The War Powers Act gives the President a 90 day window to engage in kinetic war before seeking approval from Congress. The President has broad powers to act. As far as the Gang of 8 notification, he has 48 hrs after an operation has begun to notify them. He did so at 10pm last night. The preening demonrats tweet storm is a pathetic reaction by demonrats on the wrong side of history.

    Milhouse in reply to MoeHowardwasright. | June 22, 2025 at 7:12 am

    In principle, the president ought to consult Congress before voluntarily involving the USA in a war it could avoid. Congress’s power to declare war ought to mean something, and if the president can just involve us in any war he likes and then come to Congress to rubber stamp it, what choice does it have? The war is already in progress; refusing to declare it won’t stop it. So it has to approve it, which makes the power a nullity.

    The counter argument, though, is operational security. This attack’s success depended on the surprise factor, and informing Congress in advance would have blown that. So he couldn’t do that.

      4rdm2 in reply to Milhouse. | June 22, 2025 at 8:17 am

      Apparently, he did notify Congress. Just not the Democrats and Congress.

      Danny in reply to Milhouse. | June 22, 2025 at 10:32 am

      There is a difference between a one time strike or series of strikes and a war.

      Was it a war with Syria in Trump’s first term when he struck Syrian air bases? Or war when Trump struck the head of the IRGC?

      henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | June 22, 2025 at 11:52 am

      “Congress’s power to declare war ought to mean something”
      And it might, if they hadn’t consistently fled in terror from it and thrown it like a hot potato into the White House for the past 80 years.

        DaveGinOly in reply to henrybowman. | June 22, 2025 at 4:05 pm

        Exactly. Congress has abdicated its responsibility in order to deflect criticism from itself and to make the POTUS solely responsible for unpopular interventions, even when the POTUS is so constrained by a situation that he must act in the interest of national defense.

      AF_Chief_Master_Sgt in reply to Milhouse. | June 22, 2025 at 1:13 pm

      Congress has no principles. They only have “campaign donations” that keep all of them in power.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | June 22, 2025 at 4:02 pm

      Although I agree with your first paragraph (as well as the 2nd), in this situation Trump couldn’t avoid a war that we have been in for decades. Iran has been at war with us, and that means we have been, and are in, a war with Iran, like it or not.

      Maybe Congress could pass a law requiring other countries to inform Congress when they’re at war with us.

Ironclaw | June 22, 2025 at 6:55 am

Well of course. You didn’t expect the communists to want what’s best for America did you? No, they’re all in for Iran.

azguy | June 22, 2025 at 7:17 am

Barack Obama, John Kerry, and Joe Biden have all worked to help Iran obtain nuclear weapons, even giving them billions of dollars in cash to finance it. So, I can understand why Democrats would be furious that President Trump has taken decisive action to prevent or at least delay Iran’s plans.

    AF_Chief_Master_Sgt in reply to azguy. | June 22, 2025 at 1:12 pm

    Did you not expect a Muslim like Obama to not give money to his brethren?

    Iran having a nuclear weapon would give Obama and his buddies the King they are looking for, through a Caliphate.

      Milhouse in reply to AF_Chief_Master_Sgt. | June 23, 2025 at 9:57 am

      Sigh. 0bama is not a Moslem. He is an atheist, and always has been. The only god he worships is himself.

      But if he were a Moslem he would certainly be Sunni, and therefore he would hate the Iranian mullahs and refuse to help them.

Wrathchilde | June 22, 2025 at 7:54 am

Damn, that’s a lot of useless verbiage spewed across our screens.

Presidents get 90 days before an official declaration of war is required. Committees make horrible commanders.

    Whitewall in reply to Wrathchilde. | June 22, 2025 at 8:19 am

    Some of those committees have members who think it is their duty to ‘out’ members of ICE for doing their jobs. As CinC there is no way I would breathe a word about this operation to Congress.

    4rdm2 in reply to Wrathchilde. | June 22, 2025 at 8:20 am

    Military action can’t take place at the speed of Congress

      AF_Chief_Master_Sgt in reply to 4rdm2. | June 22, 2025 at 1:15 pm

      What do you mean? They have successfully resolved immigration, presented a balanced budget, properly represented their constituents, and looked out for the general welfare of Americans.

      I’m sorry. I tried to write this with a straight face, and I failed.

    healthguyfsu in reply to Wrathchilde. | June 22, 2025 at 10:22 am

    I don’t think we will declare anyways. We have bombed many countries without a declaration in the past.

    DaveGinOly in reply to Wrathchilde. | June 22, 2025 at 4:10 pm

    “Committees make horrible commanders.”

    Which is why we have a unitary executive responsible for national defense and security. A POTUS is elected to exercise his judgment concerning these responsibilities. If he errs, the political rebuke should come at the polls, not via impeachment (which is a political process that removes a POTUS for crimes, not for policy missteps).

rduke007 | June 22, 2025 at 9:02 am

Most terrorists are….

dmacleo | June 22, 2025 at 9:25 am

joke ’em if they can’t take a f**king.

E Howard Hunt | June 22, 2025 at 9:28 am

Alas, the siren call of the Obama-Biden era’s three fates is falling upon deaf ears.

Demonized | June 22, 2025 at 9:49 am

F the whole lot of them. Donald Trump is our President and they can pound sand.

Tsquared | June 22, 2025 at 9:57 am

At least he didn’t bomb an American citizen.

    Milhouse in reply to Tsquared. | June 23, 2025 at 12:25 am

    Maybe he did. Who cares? If there were American citizens at these sites, they’re fair targets.

    It has never been the case that we check an enemy’s passport before killing him. It’s irrelevant. Maliki was an enemy soldier, we had every right to kill him, so we did so. The fact that he held a US passport doesn’t change anything.

BigDaveLA | June 22, 2025 at 10:24 am

The Dims with the “vapuhs” can consume feces and croak as far as I’m concerned!

Danny | June 22, 2025 at 10:31 am

I read all of the examples and it looks like the Democrats fear mongering, and their panic inducements are word for word identical to the words of Tucker Carlson.

Tucker Carlson should seriously consider a lawsuit for plagiarism.

scaulen | June 22, 2025 at 1:57 pm

He got around congress very simply. He made the Air Force pilots temporary Marines from when they were told to go to when they landed.

OnTheLeftCoast | June 22, 2025 at 10:40 pm

Pelosi is furious. Trump failed to tell her what he was going to do and when he was going to do it.
That played hob with her usual brilliantly timed investment moves and probably cost her a lot of money.

MosesZD | June 23, 2025 at 4:11 pm

In 2016, the U.S. military dropped approximately 26,171 bombs, primarily in Iraq and Syria, during President Obama’s final year in office. This equates to about three bombs every hour, every hour of every day throughout the year. Not once did the Democrats do a damn thing about it.

nraendowment | June 24, 2025 at 10:04 am

Saying the communists are furious is like saying the sun rises in the east. A given.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

CONTRIBUTORS

  • William A. Jacobson

    Founder

  • Kemberlee Kaye

    Sr. Contrib Editor

  • Mary Chastain

    Contrib Editor

  • Mike LaChance

    Higher Ed

  • Leslie Eastman

    Author

  • Vijeta Uniyal

    Author

  • Stacey Matthews

    Author

  • Jane Coleman

    Author

  • James Nault

    Author

  • Elizabeth Stauffer

    Author

  • Mandy Nagy

    Editor Emerita

  • Learn more about the Contributors
Log in or register to comment.Logout

SUBSCRIBE:

APPLE PODCASTS | SPOTIFY | IHEART RADIO
Accessibility by WAH