DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mnottertail
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: mnottertail
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Add this background to Kens question.....particularly in light of the fact that public law 107-40 was not enacted at that time.
You aren't going to show how 107-40 applied to Libya or Uganda, are you? I understand. You can't. You'll keep ignoring that fact so you can keep blathering on about it.
You have been called out.
I dont understand, I have repeatedly shown how it applied to libya and uganda, as well as it did to iraq and afghanistan. And I have asked you how it doesnt apply, no answer from you, other than to keep yakking about constitution and war powers act, none of which you have read, or understand. so call your own self out.
But tell you what, you been wrong on the constitution, the war powers act, so lets make this a trifecta; here is the first of 2 specifics to the law:
That the President is
authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those
nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
We're fucked if we ever get a woman president, hah?
That is still law, no sunset, no recension, no deprecation, no repeal, no superseding.
OMG!!! He actually explained himself!! Woo Hoo!! This is the first time I've seen any sort of explanation on how Libya or Uganda situations apply to 107-40.
So, what did President Obama determine Uganda did? Did Uganda plan, authorize, commit or aid the terrorists in the attacks on 9/11? Are they harboring such organizations or persons that were involved in the 9/11 attacks?
I have yet to see anything where the President has stated his determinations to that effect. 107-40 does not apply unless he actually has made that determination.
I'm not going to type it all out, but 107-40 has nothing to do with our Libyan military actions either.
Now, you can stop referring to 107-40 with regards to Libya and Uganda. It does not apply.
And, I have read the US Constitution. I have read the War Powers Resolution. I have read the Federalist Papers. I'm still working on getting my very own copy of the Anti-Federalist Papers so I can read those, too.
Ok, now you explain how this document relates to Iraq since we have proof that they did not have a thing to do with 9/11 nor did they harbor or organize or train any group associated with it.
And knew that none of those things were true at the time of the documents signing.
you have been called out for at least the 3rd time.
Well, I don't agree that we knew that Saddam wasn't continuing to make WMD's, nuclear weapons and the like.
If Bush and Co. knew this, they were wrong for going in. I have already stated in another thread, that I don't know what is true and what isn't true. I can see your side of it, where the attack on Iraq wasn't necessary. Bush did get Congressional approval prior to attacking Iraq, though. Don't forget that Hilary Clinton and John Kerry have already been quoted as believing that Iraq had WMD's. While in office, Bill Clinton made the claim that Saddam had WMD's. Under 107-40, Bush had the authority because he determined Iraq harbored, trained, or funded the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11.
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder ... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread