Obama during campaign: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack’ (Brown, laws)

[Sunny-Days-in-Florida]

Libs are scrambling to come up with an answer to this Obama lie.

[evilnewbie]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

Any decent politician or lawyer could assemble a number of rationale... some more obvious and honest than others.

One might be... Oil trading above $100 a gallon is an imminent threat to the nation.

And as cynical as that might be... it is also true.

Please... your interpretations of oil price and imminent threat is outlandish... why you even choose to put up such drivel is beyond me...

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by oz in SC

So Bush was correct to attack Iraq...glad you supported GWII.

GWII?

George Washington the Second?

Since the invasion of Iraq actually drove up the cost of oil, you appear to be confused.

[bluebeard]

Originally Posted by oz in SC

So Bush was correct to attack Iraq...glad you supported GWII.



Oh,or was THAT different somehow?

IMO, every president after WWII has been involved in crap he shouldn't have been, from Carter to GWB.
Carter Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bush Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[At_Last_2009]

Bush had a Congressional vote behind him. Obama used the U.N. and bypassed Congress.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by outbacknv

Assembling rationale is a means of justifying or excusing an action.

I suggest you don't really know what "rationale" means.

Rationale could be true, false or somewhere in between.

Originally Posted by outbacknv

It has little to do with an actual threat.

Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. It depends.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by At_Last_2009

Obama used the U.N. and bypassed Congress.

Actually... no he didn't. You really need to read the War Powers resolution. To this point he has followed it to the letter.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

Actually... no he didn't. You really need to read the War Powers resolution. To this point he has followed it to the letter.

I did... LOL. he didnt evidently

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by evilnewbie

Please... your interpretations of oil price and imminent threat is outlandish... why you even choose to put up such drivel is beyond me...

Well.. for starters my "drivel" was designed to demonstrate that it's not hard to come up with rationale. So anybody who imagines for a second that Obama has not already done so is deluding themselves. I don't really think that was the reason. I just wanted to show how easy it is.

That said...You don't think that oil above $100 a barrel is a threat to the US?

Really?

You got some magic energy source burning a hole in your pocket do you?

[bluebeard]

Originally Posted by evilnewbie

Please... your interpretations of oil price and imminent threat is outlandish... why you even choose to put up such drivel is beyond me...

I think his point is that the law and morality aren't the same. He might or might not agree with any of the mentioned actions taken. His point is that based on current laws, they have been defended successfully. That doesn't mean they are what we should actually be doing.
Slavery was implicitly defendable in the original constitution, that does not mean it was right and we should have agreed with it.