Nmysys wrote: What is interesting is that not one of you Liberals can actually defend this. Munch away Archer, on your popcorn, but try and think of one good reason except for your Infamous quote of The End Justifies The Means, to truly justify this action. The OP, which BTW I posted, says that Obama does not have the authority to wage war without going to Congress first. What say you about that??????? Nothing, of course, just your snide remark about the Right!!
How does the current action differ from that of Reagan on April 15, 1986?
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Nmysys wrote: What is interesting is that not one of you Liberals can actually defend this. Munch away Archer, on your popcorn, but try and think of one good reason except for your Infamous quote of The End Justifies The Means, to truly justify this action. The OP, which BTW I posted, says that Obama does not have the authority to wage war without going to Congress first. What say you about that??????? Nothing, of course, just your snide remark about the Right!!
How does the current action differ from that of Reagan on April 15, 1986?
simple....this action was taken by a democrat......the righties here hate it when the democrats do something they would normally approve of, they have to spin in circles making up reasons why it was wrong.
Archer: I swore off attacking but I can't resist. The only thing simple here is you. Have you even read the OP? How do you justify his waging a war of intervention without Congress' approval? I see, with an attack on the right instead of an answer. Who knew??? Duh!!!!!
And to you Oh, 4eyed cat. I remember a nightclub being bombed and Americans killed. Oh, BTW, it was an immediate response, not a long drawn out hemming and hawing!!! Is that different enough?
The Left does it again, instead of an answer, it is always a question!!!!!! Must be the playbook!
FYI. I am consistantly against messing around in the middle east.. the only action I have supported was going after Bin Laden, and I think we would have done better with special ops on that.
I Am just amused by the righties bitching about something Obama does that they would have applauded if it were done by a republican president.
You may now return to you regularly scheduled Obama rant.
Something the Dog Said wrote: What is funny about today's "outrage" is that then President Reagan authorized bombing of Libya without congressional approval on April 15, 1986 and these "outraged" conservatives had no problem with it.
Yeah, I've been thinking about that... The F-111's and stealth fighters that bombed him practically in his bed? Funny thing about that.. I don't remember any anti-Constitutional outrage at the time...
And, A) We haven't declared WAR on Libya...(any more than we declared WAR on Iraq or Afghanistan...) If someone can post a link to this "Declaration of War", I'd love to see it....
You can actually show pictures of the bodies of the civilians killed by the tanks, Libyan aircraft, etc. I'm STILL waiting for the proof of the WMD's in Iraq... You guys ever come up with that yet?
Only five wars have been started in US history with a formal declaration of war by Congress (the last one was WWII). If you take a strict interpretaion of the Constitution, it seems you should have a formal declaration of war.
Other wars, such as Iraq and Afganistan, got "approval" by Congress, but no formal declaration.
On at least 125 occasions, the President has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress.[12] These include instances in which the United States fought in Korea in 1950, the Philippine-American War from 1898–1903, and in Nicaragua in 1927.
I think it's clear there is too much latitude about what's required to wage war. This needs to be settled by the Supreme Court, IMO. But I do feel Obama should of at least gotten Congressional approval before bombing Libya. But he does have plenty of precedents where no authorization was obtained, the biggest being the Korean War.
Nmysys wrote: And to you Oh, 4eyed cat. I remember a nightclub being bombed and Americans killed. Oh, BTW, it was an immediate response, not a long drawn out hemming and hawing!!! Is that different enough?
Where in the Constitution does it say it's OK to commit an act of war without authorization of Congress if it's an immediate response? You need to be consistant. Either both Reagan and Obama were in violation of the constitution, or they were not. I think they should of both gotten "permission". And by the way, Reagan's attack on Libya occured 10 days after the Berlin bombing, so it wasn't all that immediate anyway. So much for your arguement.
So are you saying if Obama had attacked Libya a couple of weeks ago then you would not of had a constitutional issue with it? Really??
Nmysys wrote: Archer: I swore off attacking but I can't resist. The only thing simple here is you. Have you even read the OP? How do you justify his waging a war of intervention without Congress' approval? I see, with an attack on the right instead of an answer. Who knew??? Duh!!!!!
And to you Oh, 4eyed cat. I remember a nightclub being bombed and Americans killed. Oh, BTW, it was an immediate response, not a long drawn out hemming and hawing!!! Is that different enough?
The Left does it again, instead of an answer, it is always a question!!!!!! Must be the playbook!
The nightclub was in Germany so the US was not under attack and Reagan consulted with European and Middle East allies, just as President Obama has done. What constitutional authority did Reagan act under? Why does the timing make a difference or that a German nightclub had been bombed under the Constitution?
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
The liberal spin is outstanding, I love it..you nitwits are funny..obama lied and many died! Obama believes that their are WMD's in Libya he attacks, your messiah is clueless and yet you moonbats spin like a top defending him...keep watching folks, this is going to get very interesting to say the least... :woo hoo:
:hijacked: Back on topic libs, quit spinning :Crying:
You can actually show pictures of the bodies of the civilians killed by the tanks, Libyan aircraft, etc. I'm STILL waiting for the proof of the WMD's in Iraq... You guys ever come up with that yet?
