PSFTMFW »« Triage

Explanation Needed

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-24/u-s-house-defeats-resolution-authorizing-u-s-military-mission-in-libya.html

Can someone please explain to me how this “failing to support the commander in chief in a time of war” is not “treason”? Cause that’s what we were told over and over and over and over for fucken years, right?

Comments

  1. Physician scientist says

    Because if a “war”-type conflict lasts over 60 days, the president has to ask congress for permission to go to war. This is in the constitution to prevent a crazy president from just declaring war on everyone without any oversight. This is why the Bush administration needed to make-up/cherry-pick the WMD data. These are the checks-and-balances that keep our democracy strong. This is not a partisan issue but rather a constitutional one, and if congress had been more diligent in the past, we would not have ended up in Iraq. I, for one, am thrilled that any commander-in-chief needs to thoroughly justify their reasons for going to war.

  2. Katharine says

    I was under the impression that it was illegal to go to war without Congress authorizing it.

    Which is the same problem we had about Bush, remember?

  3. JackDanielsBlack says

    Whatever you think about George W, at least he went to Congress first and got permission. Barack can’t be bothered. He also seems to be extending the concept of the Imperial Presidency beyond Bush or Nixon’s wildest wet dreams. Congratulations, liberals!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>