Sorry, your blind rage overwhelmed your reading comprehension. Nowhere did I dismiss Nixon or accuse him of violating a particular law. Since you're such a stickler for following the law, does that include international law?
It's been fun watching the shift in attitude over the years, as well as the shift in focus from "Saddam has WMD...but he moved 'em to Syria" (that was -Jeriko's favorite rant, IIRC) to "well, at least we killed the bastard" to a kind of Paulist isolationism that, you're right, pretty much leaves Dayton as the last holdout. What would be really nice is if the lesson learned was to take each potential intervention on a case-by-case basis, rather than being so divided along partisan lines that some of us are almost willing to characterize Ghaddafi as some sort of "victim of U.S. imperialism."
So let me get this straight: It is OK to remove Khaddafi because he's a tinpot dictator, but it was wrong to remove Saddam because...he was a tinpot dictator?
No but if we go into one war amidst assurances that it will paid for out of loot from the conquered nation and it ends up costing hundreds of billions of $ and thousands of lives while we get into another with no such assurances and it ends up costing no lives (that they're telling us about) and about a billion dollars, I'd say it's a good way of judging credibility.
There's no blind rage. I'm pushing back against the points you're obviously missing. No matter what tactic I use, you still don't seem to get the point that the WPA is a law that exists for a good reason and that Obama is breaking it. Why are you worried about international law? It's clear Obama doesn't care for the finer points of American law. Still, though, you're stil dodging the question.
QFT - Unless it's Bosnia and, OH YEAH, another Democratic president doing the bidding of our "allies". If we're fighting in our own interests, well, that's just eevvviil!
As long as I don't agree with you that Obama is the "incompetent one, a closet socialist, a terrorist sympathizer, communist sleeper agent, secret muslim" you're not going to agree with anything I say. Of course that's helped along by your insistence that nothing matters except now, now, now!!! We can only talk about Obama, because putting things in context complicates things.
Looks like the months of stalemate might have been put to good use: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2016005626_libyarebuild28.html
Why would we be outraged over a war started with UN approval and the backing of congress? Why shouldn't we be outraged at a war fought WITHOUT congressional approval... when congress was screaming for it?
I wonder how much better off the Libyans will be now that they have got rid off Gaddafi? I was under the impression Libyans generally had it good compared to most Africans, including the other Arab countries where revolts have taken place. Of all the recent revolutions, this one stinks the most of western meddling. And that can't be a good thing for the Libyans who had the highest standard of living in Africa prior to this 'regime change'.
Does Khadafi mandate pictures + statues etc. of himself all overthe nation like Saddam did? If so, I'm guessing those will be toast within minutes as they were in Iraq. Wasn't anything depicting Saddam without holes in it, except Saddam himself, but you can't have everything!
Nope. You don't have to agree about any of those things. But if you can't agree that an argument can be made for at the very least the first two of your strawmen, then yeah, you're probably right. Because you're ignoring overwhelming evidence. Why shit, everything from condemning the arrest of that professor awhile back--without knowing the details, needing a teleprompter to speak to elementary school children, his inability to work with the legislature, and his tendency to petulantly hurl insults when things don't go his way all speak to the first point. The fact that he, at more than one place in his two autobiographies (to say nothing of his policies while in office) speaks to the second point. Heck, one could make a pretty strong case that he isn't even a closet socialist.
Doesn't bother me a bit. It was your hero Bush who said the Constitution was just a "goddamn piece of paper".
Was that before or after he went to Congress for approval for invading Iraq? Before or after going to Congress for approval for invading Afghanistan? Tell me again where that was in historical relationship to Obama getting approval for attacking Libya past the deadline of the War Powers Act. You know, the one Mr. Obama said was so important when he was a Senator:
Are you really comparing the deployment of 248k American ground troops with the use of AWACS and other manned air assets early on (we've since scaled both back) and the current use of drones?
So you're saying that . . . drones don't count? It doesn't count as a proper military action as long as only a tiny bit of the military is visibly involved?
