PA-01’s Republican congressman once again has shown his constituents that he has mastered the art of doing nothing useful in Congress.
First on March 5 and then again on April 16 Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick voted “No” on resolutions based on the 1973 War Powers Act which would have reasserted Congress’s sole responsibility to declare war, a constitutional responsibility Fitzpatrick apparently is scared of. The 1973 Act forces the President to end military actions in a foreign country within 60 days if Congress has not declared war or authorized the intervention. The President would have 30 days after the 60 day period to safely complete the withdrawal of military forces.
Fitzpatrick’s first “No” vote on March 5, just days after the president launched this poorly planned, unnecessary war of choice on Iran, allowed Trump to have the war-making powers of a king.
Fitzpatrick claimed after this first vote:
“The resolution is written so broadly that it would require the immediate termination of ‘all hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran or any part of its government,’ language that could encompass not only direct military engagement, but also long-standing counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and cyber operations targeting the Iranian regime and its terrorist proxies.“
His logic and that statement are deeply flawed and inaccurate. Here is exact wording from a portion of the resolution that was voted on:
Nothing in this joint resolution may be construed to influence or disrupt any intelligence, counterintelligence, or investigative activities relating to threats in or emanating from Iran conducted by, or in conjunction with, the United States Government involving —
(1) the collection of intelligence;
(2) the analysis of intelligence; or
(3) the sharing of intelligence between the United States and any coalition partner if the President determines such sharing is appropriate and in the national security interests of the United States.
That language specifically authorizes the continued actions against Iran that Fitzpatrick claims it does not authorize.
READ: Tax Corporate War Profiteers Making a Killing on Iran Conflict
The comparison is blatant and shocking. The resolution’s wording matches almost exactly what Fitzpatrick said that it did not include. Did Fitzpatrick not read the entire resolution that was voted on?
Fitzpatrick reacted to the most recent resolution presented to the House, which his “No” was the deciding vote, by writing his own and submitting it to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. His proposed alternative resolution is deeply flawed, poorly written, and as a result has no chance of passing. He even tries to re-write the 1973 War Powers Act – something he has no right to even attempt to do.
In his resolution, Fitzpatrick feels the need to write about all of Iran’s transgressions on the international stage. Why? No one has ever contested the fact that the Iranian government has sponsored terrorism and has violently suppressed its own people. That, however, has nothing to do with whether or not the President is authorized by Congress to attack Iran militarily.
Fitzpatrick’s resolution goes on for a page and a half unnecessarily detailing Iran’s unacceptable actions. He concludes that long section of his resolution by writing:
(7) Since the start of Operation Epic Fury, 13 United States service members have been killed, and 381 have been wounded, according to United States 7 Central Command.
In the context of his resolution, one gets the impression that Fitzpatrick is adding the deaths of, and injuries to, U.S. servicemembers to the list of Iran’s unacceptable and violent actions – and somehow justifying President Trump’s military actions. However, those deaths and injuries occurred AFTER President Trump began hostilities against Iran. Coming where it does in his resolution, that statement constitutes an intentional misrepresentation at minimum or simply a flat out lie.
Even more troubling than his misrepresentation/lie is his additional wording that attempts to alter the War Powers Act as it was approved in 1973. In so many ways his wording, and the arrogance of it, is simply mind-boggling – without addressing any of the complaints that he said justified his “No” votes. In regard to the 60-day period during which the original War Powers Act said the President must come to Congress and request a declaration of war, Fitzpatrick includes the following language that is absolutely NOT authorized in the original act:
b) Tolling of time period.—Any day that is on or after the commencement of Operation Epic Fury during which the United States engages in cease-fire negotiations with the Government of Iran or has entered into a negotiated cease-fire shall not count as one of the 60 days described in subsection (a).
Truly, who does Fitzpatrick think he is? You do not get to rewrite an act of Congress in your personal resolution! However, Fitzpatrick does not stop his rewriting of the law with just that invented cease-fire statement. Later in his resolution he adds – in the middle of a long list – a statement that completely negates any substance that passage of the resolution would have accomplished. It is another mind-boggling addition:
Congress directs the President to begin the phased removal of the Armed Forces from Iran, other than those elements of the Armed Forces that may be necessary to defend the United States or an ally or partner of the United States from imminent attack, or prevent the procurement of a nuclear weapon,…
The resolution that was voted on March 5 and April 16 includes language – not surprisingly – that allows the United States forces to defend themselves from imminent attack. But look what Fitzpatrick adds: or prevent the procurement of a nuclear weapon. That short phrase gives President Trump the clear ability to continue hostilities forever, because isn’t that Trump’s entire justification for the undeclared war against Iran. That 7-word phrase takes Congress entirely out of having any say about the war in Iran.
It is obvious that Fitzpatrick has written this ridiculous, misleading resolution for two audiences. The first one is his diehard base in PA-01 who blindly think (without checking any facts) that he is a thoughtful, caring, effective, honest Congressman. The second one is the usual Republican audience of one: Trump.
Meanwhile, more innocent lives are lost, the global economy is rocked, the United States looks weaker than it ever has, and the Republican-created affordability crisis here at home continues to get worse as a result of the war on Fitzpatrick’s votes. Is this the representation we want in Pennsylvania’s first congressional district?
