RonMoonbat should read the war powers act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Act
We have one commander in chief, not 500+. War is one thing, preventing an attack is another.
No imminent attack on us? 2/26/93, 9/11/01? 23 attacks?
Chris pounded the GOP candidates re: whether or not the president can use force, constitutionally, without Congressional approval. He refered to some apparent legislation by Hillary that requires the president to get Congressional approval before striking Iran.
In light of Bill Clinton’s past, how can this be a serious question framed within the Hillary context, and why did he hound the GOP so much on it but not call Hillary on her hypocrisy. Someone tell me when Clinton got Congressional approval to bomb Iraq in 1998 (3 days after the Monica story broke).
Chris also asked whether they would take action even if Congress denied authority, which is precisely what Clinton did in Kosovo. How long will this charade continue where the GOP is pounded for being willing to act in the threat of danger in light of recent history where a president acted in light of no imminent danger to the US (Kosovo) and against a country we’re now supposed to believe was no threat to us at all and had no weapons?
Chrissy needs to be called on this so that he asks Hillary to explain her hypocrisy, or perhaps Hillary needs to have another talk with Bill about why the rules are one way for him but different for her, as was recently shown to be the case with torture and the ticking time bomb scenerio.
I can see the dems and their media enablers are going to try to play the Goldwater Daisy meme by painting the GOP as wild press the button types meanwhile, history has shown a) Clinton bombed a country w/o Congressional approval and b) he did so when there was no threat whatsoever to the US and in the face of explicity Congressional denial of authority. Clinton had the US engaged in more conflicts than Bush. Bush got Congressional authorization, unlike Bill, from people now claiming it was a sham and yet they claim they have the judgment to lead when it was their judgment in part that lead us to Iraq.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1908878/posts
Enough_idiocy should read what Paul wanted to do after 9/11.
Paul, calling the World Trade Center terror attacks an act of "air piracy", introduced the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. Letters of marque and reprisal, authorized by the Constitution, Article One, Section Eight, would have targeted specific terrorist suspects, instead of invoking war against a foreign state.[34] Paul reproposed this legislation as the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
POS pro-abortionist Rudy isn't fit to shine Paul's shoes.