The Arab League and Britain (and even Germany now, too) have backed out, and Carter said AND. France isn't going to put this up for a vote, either, because it would lose. Everyone knows this. Obama MUST get Congressional approval, otherwise he will be going against the standard that he and Biden set in 2007.
Shut the *&^% up Carter, anyway.
Right, don’t get the permission of our own legislative body, it’s the foreign legislative body that’s important. When is this 89 year old embarrassment going to die??
F the UN. Its illegal w/o the consent of the UNITED STATES Congress.
About the kind of stupid statement I’d expect from the 2nd worst president.
Jonah Goldberg at the National Review talks about this obsession with getting the UN’s approval:
It’s always better to have friends and allies pitching in — many hands make light work, and all that. But if something is in America’s vital national interest, it doesn’t cease to be because Belize or Botswana won’t lend a hand. Posses aren’t more moral in proportion to the number of white hats who sign up.
Somehow this basic fact was lost in the last decade or so. According to liberals in the Bush years, the essence of wise foreign policy boiled down to: “It’s better to be wrong in a big group than to be right alone.”
Anyway, what I really don’t get is the investment of moral authority in the Security Council or the U.N. generally. The permanent members of the U.N. Security Council are France, Great Britain, the United States, China, and Russia. The other nations of the 15-member body rotate on and off the council. They also don’t get a veto the way the permanent five do. But, for the record, they currently are: Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan, Guatemala, Luxembourg, Morocco, Pakistan, South Korea, Rwanda, and Togo.
Now, taking nothing away from the great and glorious accomplishments of the Luxembourgeois, Togoans, and Rwandans — never mind the invaluable insights the Pakistanis have into what constitute America’s vital interests — I am at a near-total loss to see how gaining their approval for a measure makes that measure more worthwhile. If you believe Bill Clinton was right to bomb the Balkans to stop ethnic cleansing (which I do), do you think that action was any less moral or right because he did it without the support of the U.N. and therefore — according to international law — illegally? I don’t.
What say you?
To the Democrats illegal is OK if it comes from the heart , ROFL
Carter vs Obama, thats a fight that nobody would pay to see. The fur will fly!!
Foreign policy expert Carter weighing in. The only thing he declared war on was the US economy.
As usual, Carter is half wrong. It would be legal if Obama got UN Security Council approval, but also legal if he got the U.S. Congress to grant him the authority.
LOL, Carter manages to be wrong about whose authorization we need and manages to throw Obama under the bus at the same time.
LOL, Carter manages to be wrong about whose authorization we need and manages to throw Obama under the bus at the same time.
Barack Obama, War Criminal.
Gee I like the sound of that...
Cool - that way Obimbo will be a Nobel Peace Prize Winner AND a war criminal!
The President does not need permission from Congress to legally go to war. It is a reasonable question to ask though.
The President does not need permission from a foreign body to legally go to war. It is a traitorous person who even considers the legal need for foreign permission.
Anytime a dem wants to go to war, they SHOULD have to take that step of getting UN buy-in, since THEY’RE the ones pushing it.
I’m not sure where it is in “international law” that you need “broad support from NATO and the Arab League”.
Damn. When you’re a liberal, and you’ve lost Jimmy Carter, you’ve lost the war.
So not only was Desert One a mistake, it was illegal too Mr. Persident?
Err.... Ummm... I’m late for my Exlax... Err...