The radical left is enraged that President Joe Biden got something right this week. Democratic lawmakers blasted the president for flattening the Houthi rebels who have been firing missiles and bomber drones toward U.S. warships and at merchant vessels incessantly for months.

In their critiques, ceasefire Democrats like Reps. Val Hoyle (Ore.), Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), Cori Bush (Mo.), Barbara Lee (Calif.), and Ro Khanna (Calif.), erroneously suggested the massive retaliatory attack against Hamas' allies — executed in concert with Britain and supported by Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, and Bahrain — was illegal.

What's the background?

Houthi forces, dropped from the list of foreign terrorist organizations by the Biden administration, announced after the Hamas terror attacks on Israel that ships associated with the Jewish nation attempting to transit the Bab al-Mandeb strait constituted "legitimate" targets for additional attacks.

Blaze News previously reported that the Houthis also threatened to target American warships if U.S. naval forces hit ground installations in Yemen.

The terrorists made good on their threats in recent months, launching hundreds of drone and missile attacks against civilian transport ships transiting the strait connecting the Gulf of Aden to the Red Sea — one of the world's busiest shipping routes.

In December, the U.S. attempted to launch an international task force to address the terrorist threat but was only able to recruit Britain, Bahrain, Canada, France, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Seychelles, and Spain.

There was an escalation on Dec. 30, when American forces, attempting to protect a commercial ship from another Houthi attack, were fired upon. Evidently unwilling to suffer any further indignities, U.S. Navy helicopters dispatched from the USS Eisenhower and USS Gravely blew three Houthi vessels out of the water.

Last straw

In an apparent retaliation for having their boats blown to smithereens, the terrorists targeted American ships on Jan. 9 with 21 drones and missiles, which Reuters indicated British naval forces managed to shoot down. Then, on Jan. 11, Houthis fired an anti-ship ballistic missile into the strait. This proved to be the straw that broke the camel's back.

Biden authorized strikes Thursday "in direct response to unprecedented Houthi attacks against international maritime vessels in the Red Sea — including the use of anti-ship ballistic missiles for the first time in history."

"These targeted strikes are a clear message that the United States and our partners will not tolerate attacks on our personnel or allow hostile actors to imperil freedom of navigation in one of the world’s most critical commercial routes," added Biden.

60 rebel targets were hammered in 16 locations in Yemen.

— (@)

The terrorists responded by calling the attacks "barbaric" and stressing "all US, UK interests have become 'legitimate targets.'"

Turkish dictator Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whose nation still is apparently a NATO member, said the U.S. and U.K. were "trying to turn the Red Sea into a sea of blood," reported Al Jazeera.

A NATO spokesman said, "These strikes were defensive, and designed to preserve freedom of navigation in one of the world’s most vital waterways. The (Houthi) attacks must end."

Ceasefire radicals attempt to pass as constitutionalists

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) said, "This is why I called for a ceasefire early. This is why I voted against war in Iraq. Violence only begets more violence. We need a ceasefire now to prevent deadly, costly, catastrophic escalation of violence in the region."

Despite the terrorists' vow to indiscriminately strike American interests, Lee added, "The U.S. must demand an immediate ceasefire."

Jayapal (D-Wash.) wrote, "This is an unacceptable violation of the Constitution. Article 1 requires that military action be authorized by Congress."

Anti-Israeli activist Rep. Tashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) joined Jayapal in feigning interest in the law, similarly claiming Biden was "violating Article I of the Constitution by carrying out airstrikes in Yemen without congressional approval."

— (@)

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) claimed Thursday, "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."

Khanna added, "Section 2C of the War Powers Act is clear: POTUS may only introduce the U.S. into hostilities after Congressional authorization or in a national emergency when the U.S. is under imminent attack. Reporting is not a substitute. This is a retaliatory, offensive strike."

Khanna's post on X was slapped with community notes highlighting that in this circumstance, Biden had the legal power to authorize the strikes as Houthis had previously launched a missile attack on both U.S. and British ships. Furthermore, the notes highlighted that the congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001 was still in effect.

The Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel has argued in recent years that there are two conditions under which the president can exercise authority without Congress' approval: if he reasonably determines action serves "important national interests" and that the "nature, scope and duration of the conflict must not rise to the level of war" that would encroach on Congress' constitutional powers, reported Newsweek.

The War Powers Resolution explicitly allows for the president to introduce U.S. armed forces "into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Dr. Richard Johnson of Queen Mary University in London told Newsweek, "The War Powers Act clarifies that if the president follows the third path, then he should 'in every possible instance shall consult with Congress' before sending forces into hostilities. The term, consultation, has ironically empowered the president."

"'Consultation' is different than specifying that the president needs to ask Congress's permission before sending armed forces in to hostilities," added Johnson. "'Consult' in practice has transformed into 'inform' after the decision was already taken."

While Biden appears to have been in the right in this circumstance, he held former President Donald Trump to a different standard in 2020 when Trump had Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani whacked.

Biden wrote, "Let's be clear: Donald Trump does not have the authority to take us into war with Iran without Congressional approval. A president should never take this nation to war without the informed consent of the American people."

— (@)

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!