Thread: Is Mullah Osama.. errrr... Barack Obama done

Originally Posted by dalem

... then what? And Congress has no responsibility regarding war except for controlling the money. They have no qualification or input in strategy.

Perhaps that is why congress is beginning to discuss revoking or limiting funds. Bush has had unfettered access to do what he wishes and he hasn't even given congress reason to believe he is capable of succeeding. His bull-headed policy of "staying the course" made him a lame duck. Then, instead of making significant changes to his strategy and soliciting assistance, suggestions, etc. from others (not necessarily congress mind you), he made the decision to do the opposite of what everyone (well most people) hoped for and 'reinforce' his previous actions (his old 'course').

I did read it a few times. I still get a message of "reverse-illegitimacy" from your words, I'm sorry. Perhaps I'm just being thick-headed.

It was legalized/legitimized, though for the wrong reasons. The U.S. destroyed a country over unsubstantiated evidence and vagueries. Under the authorization of the President to use armed forces, he need only provide:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq;

with the only qualification that:

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.
In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Subjectivity entered the equation. Congress was stupid to have passed it. But, wanting to appear strong on national defense, it was passed. He need only say "I believe that (1) and (2)," to receive the free ticket to war. How unbelievably stupid.

The legitimacy of the war is tenuous at best precisely because congress was too childishly afraid to stand up to boorish stupidity for purely political purposes.

Ahh, well you may believe it was wrong but that doesn't make it "illegitimate".

Like I said above, it was legitimized, at least in the eyes of the law. But that doesn't make it good or right.

Hardly bandying - I just like to see real criticisms, not fake ones. I know too many people who are interested in debating or discussing things that simply never happened, or are not factual. Because there are real problems and situations that need to be discussed I don't support wasting a single second talking about the fake ones.

You're right. I apologize for lashing out. Nit-picking is something I enjoy as much as it appears you do

Oh, I'm aware of the talkers. What I've never, ever read about is a group of Muslims actually doing something along the lines of what I suggest. Even the Jordanian street protests a year or so ago, which I hailed as a great step forward, only happened because Zarqawi finally blew up a bunch of Jordanians instead of Iraqis. But I'll take what I can get.

-dale

Like I've said, you're perfectly entitled to not be content with what they are doing (talking) or how they go about changing things, but to say none are doing anything at all simply because you haven't heard of anything is an over-generalization.