Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
This is a great example of how people start with a conclusion and try to fit an argument around it.We aren't 'attacking' them. We're implementing a 'no fly zone' as requested by the UN. Can't implement a 'no fly zone' without removing the threats to the 'no fly zone'. I don't know why that's hard to understand.
please
Dropping bombs and lobbing missiles at civilian an/dor military targets inside a soverign state are acts of war.
Enforcing a 'no fly zone' inside the airspace of a soverign state is a blockade; a blockade is an act of war.
There's no way to soundly argue that Libya has not been attacked - it's embarassing that you would even try.
If there was a Republican president in the White House, is there any doubt that our conservative friends would be placing an entirely different "spin" on how the US should be dealing with Gaddafi?
It has recently come to my attention (thanks to The Daily Show) that, in December of 2007, Barack Obama made the following statement:
“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,”
An interesting statement, in light of recent events in Libya.
Obama:
How many times must you be told "when his lips move, he's lying"?
The War Powers Act - giving the president authority to commit forces - has arguments for and against it's constitutionality. I personally think it's unconstitutional and waaay too expansive. For right now, it's been deemed constitutional by our SCOTUS.
That being said, selective hatred of Barry Oblammy is a bit hypocritical.
Anyone saying this is "not an attack" is currently either under heavy medication, painfully stupid, or willfully lying.
We aren't 'attacking' them. We're implementing a 'no fly zone' as requested by the UN. Can't implement a 'no fly zone' without removing the threats to the 'no fly zone'. I don't know why that's hard to understand.
To be fair, the founders lived in a different time. A time when you usually had months of warning leading up to a war.Presidents take us into armed conflicts using the War Powers Act...then Congress falls in line...every time. It's a total giveaway that the Founding Fathers never would have wanted. They didn't want the President to have the power he has now.
In todays world as part of his job Defending this nation and it's interests. the President is often presented with Time Sensitive Issues. It is not practical to expect him to get approval from the Full Congress before acting all the time. Sometimes if you do not act now, you might as well not act at all.
Now that said, Obama had 3 weeks leading up to this attack on Libya in which it was becoming more and more clear we might have to act. Why he did not go to congress until Friday night is beyond me.
Well then - if this is "good enough" for the liberals, they have absolutely no standing to complain about GWB and Iraq.The foregoing circumstances, the prolonged attacks, and the increased numbers of Libyans seeking refuge in other countries from the attacks, have caused a deterioration in the security of Libya and pose a serious risk to its stability, thereby constituting an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.
You miss - or, perhaps, avoid - the point.If there was a Republican president in the White House, is there any doubt that our conservative friends would be placing an entirely different "spin" on how the US should be dealing with Gaddafi?
Iraq wasn't really immanent. Bush stated he never called it immanent, but he did
linkie with citations
