Here’s another example of how not to argue about congressional control over foreign policy — this one from Representative Eric Swalwell.

Here’s Swalwell’s first tweet:

Okay, fair enough. That’s my view, too — although it’s a little much to describe Trump as a “dictator” given that he’s following the same bad precedent as all U.S. presidents have since 1950.

Here’s Swalwell’s second tweet — published two days later:

Sigh. So Swalwell doesn’t actually believe a word of what he said before, does he? He’s just reaching for any weapon to hand, irrespective of how it meshes with the others. Quite obviously, these two positions cannot go together. It cannot simultaneously be unacceptable — moronic, even — that the attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities were “telegraphed,” and be the case that Congress ought to have “voted on, and [] set parameters on this action.” One has to pick a lane. If, like me, you believe that, constitutionally, Congress is required to debate, vote on, and set parameters for the foreign policy of the United States, then you are obliged to accept that this carries a significant practical cost: In the modern world, transparency leads ineluctably to forewarning. If, unlike me, you believe that the president can do whatever he wants, then I guess you can complain that the president is loose-lipped, but you certainly can’t accompany that complaint with a repudiation of your own position. In effect, Swalwell is contending that Trump ought to have been more unilateral and more secretive than he was, while insisting at the same time that such a course was unconstitutional. That’s silly — and not only is it silly, it’s illustrative of why, despite both parties making noises about the war-making power when a president they dislike is in office, neither of them ever actually does anything to fix the issue.