Are you actually saying that Truman, JFK, LBJ, Reagan, both Bush's and
Clinton violated the constitution?
Really?
I mean, you do know that war hasn't been declared by congress since
1941, and we've been blowing shit up ever since then, right?
Even if you are just a staunch republican hater (which is fine), Jesus
H., the "undeclared" wars in Korea and Vietnam make anything any
republican has done look like a Girl Scout fight in a school yard.
On Mar 23, 11:41 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Here is the Constitution:http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.txt
>
> POINT to where you imagine such is endorsed.
>
> Regard$,
> --MJ
>
> I am for relying, for internal defense, on our
> militia solely, till actual invasion, and for
> such naval force only as may protect our coasts
> and harbors from such depredations as we have
> experienced; and not for a standing army in time
> of peace, which may overawe the public sentiment;
> not for a navy, which, by its own expenses and
> the eternal wars in which it will implicate us,
> will grind us with public burdens, and sink us
> under them. I am for free commerce with all
> nations; political connection with none; and
> little or no diplomatic establishment. -- Thomas Jefferson
>
> At 10:59 AM 3/23/2011, you wrote:
>
>
>
> >I happen to like Pat, but its not unconstitutional. Nor was Iraq nor
> >Afghansitan (yea, I know, at least Bush asked congress, but he didn't
> >have to), Desert Storm (BEGGED by the UN), Bosnia/Kosovo (no asky),
> >Grenada (indeed asky), Vietnam or Korea.
>
> >Pat is right on Grenada, as there were indeed 500 American students in
> >immediate peril, but thats about it.
>
> >On Mar 23, 8:56 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > A Foolish and Unconstitutional Warby Patrick J. Buchanan
> > > "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."
> > > So said constitutional scholar and Senator
> > Barack Obama in December 2007 -- the same man
> > who, this weekend, ordered U.S. air and missile
> > strikes on Libya without any authorization from Congress.
> > > Obama did win the support of Gabon in the
> > Security Council, but failed with Germany. With
> > a phone call to acquitted rapist Jacob Zuma, he
> > got South Africa to sign on, but not Brazil,
> > Russia, India or China. All four abstained.
> > > This is not the world's war. This is Obama's war.
> > > The U.S. Navy fired almost all the cruise
> > missiles that hit Libya as the U.S. Air Force
> > attacked with B-2 bombers, F-15s and F-16s.
> > > "To be clear, this is a U.S.-led operation,"
> > said Vice Adm. William Gortney.
> > > "In wartime, truth is so precious that she
> > should always be attended by a bodyguard of
> > lies," said Winston Churchill. Obama is a quick study.
> > > In his Friday ultimatum, he said, "We are not
> > going to use force to go beyond a well-defined
> > goal -- specifically, the protection of civilians in Libya."
> > > Why, then, did we strike Tripoli and Moammar Gadhafi's compound?
> > > So many U.S. missiles and bombs have struck
> > Libya that the Arab League is bailing out.
> > League chief Amr Moussa has called an emergency
> > meeting of the 22 Arab states to discuss
> > attacks that have "led to the deaths and
> > injuries of many Libyan civilians." We asked
> > for a no-fly zone, said Moussa, not the "bombardment of civilians."
> > > What caused Obama's about-face from the
> > Pentagon position that imposing a no-fly zone
> > on Libya was an unwise act of war?
> > > According toThe New York Times, National
> > Security Council aide Samantha Power, U.N.
> > envoy Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton flipped
> > him. The three sisters feel guilty about us not
> > invading Rwanda when Hutu were butchering Tutsi.
> > > They did not want to be seen as standing by
> > when Gadhafi took Benghazi, which he would have
> > done, ending the war in days, had we not intervened.
> > > While Obama is no longer saying Gadhafi must
> > go, Hillary insists that has to be the outcome.
> > No question who wears the pants here.
> > > As U.S. prestige and power are committed, if
> > Gadhafi survives, he will have defeated Obama
> > and NATO. Hence, we must now finish him and his
> > regime to avert a U.S. humiliation and prevent another Lockerbie.
> > > The Arab League and African Union are
> > denouncing us, but al-Qaida is with us. For
> > eastern Libya provided more than its fair share
> > of jihadists to kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq. And
> > jihadists are prominent among the rebels we just rescued.
> > > Yet, even as Obama was announcing U.S.
> > intervention to prevent "unspeakable
> > atrocities," security police of Yemen's
> > President Saleh, using sniper rifles, massacred
> > 45 peaceful protesters and wounded 270. Most of
> > the dead were shot in the head or neck, the work of marksmen.
> > > Had Mahmoud Ahmadinejad done this in Tehran,
> > would U.S. protests have been so muted?
> > > In Bahrain, 2,000 Saudi soldiers and troops
> > from emirates of the Gulf have intervened to
> > save King Khalifa, whose throne was threatened
> > by Shia demonstrators in the Pearl roundabout
> > in Manama. The town square was surrounded, the
> > Shia driven out, the 300-foot Pearl monument destroyed.
> > > This crackdown on Bahrain's Shia has been
> > denounced by Iran and Iraq. Grand Ayatollah
> > Sistani, most revered figure in the Shia world,
> > ordered seminaries shut in protest. This is serious business.
> > > Not only are the Shia dominant in Iran, and
> > in Iraq after the Americans ousted the
> > Sunni-dominated Baathist Party, they are
> > heavily concentrated in the Eastern Province of
> > Saudi Arabia, where the oil deposits are located.
> > > They are a majority in Bahrain, where the
> > U.S. Fifth Fleet is based. Shia Hezbollah is
> > now the dominant military and political force in Lebanon.
> > > Riyadh must have regarded the threat to
> > Bahrain a grave one to have so exacerbated the
> > religious divide and raised the specter of sectarian war.
> > > Yet, again, why are we bombing Libya?
> > > Gadhafi did not attack the West. He faced an
> > uprising to dethrone him and rallied his troops
> > to crush it, as any ruthless ruler would have
> > done. We have no vital interest in who wins his civil war.
> > > Indeed, Gadhafi has asked of Obama, "If you
> > found them taking over American cities by force of arms, what would you do?"
> > > Well, when the South fired on Fort Sumter,
> > killing no one, Abraham Lincoln blockaded every
> > Southern port, sent Gen. Sherman to burn
> > Atlanta and pillage Georgia and South Carolina,
> > and Gen. Sheridan to ravage the Shenandoah. He
> > locked up editors and shut down legislatures
> > and fought a four-year war of reconquest that
> > killed 620,000 Americans a few more than have
> > died in Gadhafi's four-week war.
> > > Good thing we didn't have an "international community" back then.
> > > The Royal Navy would have been bombarding
> > Lincoln's America.www.buchanan.org
>
> >--
> >Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> >For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> >* Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> >* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> >* Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment