[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse" "Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD" "Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy" Woodworking and Construction Hacks "CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination" "NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law" "Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing" Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn. After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending. Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar” "Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny" "Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is" Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner. Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally "It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive' (Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl "Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race" He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom! "Kamala’s Inane Talking Points" "The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics" Easy Drywall Patch Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind" Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’ Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer? hurricanes and heat waves are Worse 'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA. Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence. Status: Not Logged In; Sign In U.S. Constitution See other U.S. Constitution Articles Title: President Obama Goes to War - Without Congress Source: American Thinker URL Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog ... dent_obama_goes_to_war_wi.html Published: Mar 20, 2011 Author: Wesley Clark, MD Post Date: 2011-03-20 16:49:31 by We The People Keywords: None Views: 117752 Comments: 105 Regardless of one's inclination toward the "freedom fighters" and the "monster" in Libya, or the wisdom of United States military intervention, there are certain formalities that are required, and that President Obama and his administration, including Secretary of State Clinton, appear determined to ignore, in violation of both the Constitution and United States Law. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution specifies that it is the Congress that has the power to declare war. United States Code (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548), the War Powers Act, specifically states that the president may undertake the use of military force only in the case of "... a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." It further states that the President must consult with Congress, "...in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities ..." Membership in the United Nations does not grant the Security Council the authority to order U.S. forces into action, and being the President does not permit Obama to violate the Constitution and the Law, to commit an act of war without the authorization of the People, through their Congress. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Comments (1-40) not displayed.       .       .       . #41. To: We The People (#39) No. That's what 'neoconservatives' live and die for. Then the Tea Baggers must be neoconservatives. "http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi" Rek  posted on  2011-03-27   12:49:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #42. To: lucysmom, Rek (#40) Isn't that 'might makes right' stuff what 'conservatives' live and die for? They like that power over everything stuff when in power and still think its their birth right when out of power. Conservatives haven't been 'in power' for decades, neoconservatives or the left have. Is that what this discussion is reduced to? Irrefutable facts have been presented, clearly outlining an unconstitutional and criminal act by a President of the United States, and all you two have is insults for conservatives who have had nothing to do with any of this middle eastern adventurism. We The People  posted on  2011-03-27   12:50:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #43. To: Rek (#41) Then the Tea Baggers must be neoconservatives. OK. Well, have a great day. We The People  posted on  2011-03-27   12:50:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #44. To: We The People (#38) Note that notification is not the same as authorization, which is what the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution requires. "the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth— (A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces; (B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and (C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement. (b) Other information reported" So whats your point? You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand lucysmom  posted on  2011-03-27   12:54:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #45. To: lucysmom (#44) So whats your point? ...that notification is not the same as authorization... We The People  posted on  2011-03-27   12:58:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #46. To: We The People (#42) Irrefutable facts have been presented, clearly outlining an unconstitutional and criminal act by a President of the United States, and all you two have is insults for conservatives who have had nothing to do with any of this middle eastern adventurism. Are you kidding? This is being done to obtain energy and security for that center piece of conservativism......"Free Markets" "http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi" Rek  posted on  2011-03-27   13:00:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #47. To: We The People (#42) Conservatives haven't been 'in power' for decades, neoconservatives or the left have. Somehow I have a feeling you reject those Conservatives too. From 1936 to 1976 the more centrist of the Republican party frequently won the national nomination with candidates such as Alf Landon, Wendell Willkie, Thomas E. Dewey, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford. The mainstream of the Republican party was generally supportive of the New Deal, and the far right was the more marginalized faction. In the 1950s conservatives like Barry Goldwater, who rallied against "me-too Republicans",[7] were considered outside of the mainstream of the then-centrist GOP; serious consideration was given to leaving the GOP and forming a new conservative party in cooperation with conservative Democrats.[8] Wikipedia You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand lucysmom  posted on  2011-03-27   13:03:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #48. To: We The People (#45) ...that notification is not the same as authorization... Obama was obligated to provide notification within 48 hours after the fact and did so. You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand lucysmom  posted on  2011-03-27   13:05:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #49. To: lucysmom (#32) Obama's written report: www.whitehouse.gov/the-pr...encement-operations-libya TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE March 21, 2011 Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:) At approximately 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, on March 19, 2011, at my direction, U.S. military forces commenced operations to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council and undertaken with the support of European allies and Arab partners, to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya. As part of the multilateral response authorized under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, U.S. military forces, under the command of Commander, U.S. Africa Command, began a series of strikes against air defense systems and military airfields for the purposes of preparing a no-fly zone. These strikes will be limited in their nature, duration, and scope. Their purpose is to support an international coalition as it takes all necessary measures to enforce the terms of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. These limited U.S. actions will set the stage for further action by other coalition partners. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized Member States, under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in Libya, including the establishment and enforcement of a "no-fly zone" in the airspace of Libya. United States military efforts are discrete and focused on employing unique U.S. military capabilities to set the conditions for our European allies and Arab partners to carry out the measures authorized by the U.N. Security Council Resolution. Muammar Qadhafi was provided a very clear message that a cease-fire must be implemented immediately. The international community made clear that all attacks against civilians had to stop; Qadhafi had to stop his forces from advancing on Benghazi; pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya; and establish water, electricity, and gas supplies to all areas. Finally, humanitarian assistance had to be allowed to reach the people of Libya. Although Qadhafi's Foreign Minister announced an immediate cease-fire, Qadhafi and his forces made no attempt to implement such a cease-fire, and instead continued attacks on Misrata and advanced on Benghazi. Qadhafi's continued attacks and threats against civilians and civilian populated areas are of grave concern to neighboring Arab nations and, as expressly stated in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, constitute a threat to the region and to international peace and security. His illegitimate use of force (irony?) not only is causing the deaths of substantial numbers of civilians among his own people, but also is forcing many others to flee to neighboring countries, thereby destabilizing the peace and security of the region. Left unaddressed, the growing instability in Libya could ignite wider instability in the Middle East, with dangerous consequences to the national security interests of the United States. Qadhafi's defiance of the Arab League, as well as the broader international community moreover, represents a lawless challenge to the authority of the Security Council and its efforts to preserve stability in the region. Qadhafi has forfeited his responsibility to protect his own citizens and created a serious need for immediate humanitarian assistance and protection, with any delay only putting more civilians at risk. The United States has not deployed ground forces into Libya. United States forces are conducting a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster. Accordingly, U.S. forces have targeted the Qadhafi regime's air defense systems, command and control structures, and other capabilities of Qadhafi's armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian populated areas. We will seek a rapid, but responsible, transition of operations to coalition, regional, or international organizations that are postured to continue activities as may be necessary to realize the objectives of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973. For these purposes, I have directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive. I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution. I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action. BARACK OBAMA We The People  posted on  2011-03-27   13:10:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #50. To: lucysmom (#48) Obama was obligated to provide notification within 48 hours after the fact and did so. Obama was obligated to follow the US Constitution and the War powers Resolution of 1973 and did not. We The People  posted on  2011-03-27   13:11:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #51. To: Rek (#46) Are you kidding? This is being done to obtain energy and security for that center piece of conservativism......"Free Markets" Really? Cause that's not what Obama states is happening. We The People  posted on  2011-03-27   13:13:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #52. To: lucysmom (#48) Obama was obligated to provide notification within 48 hours after the fact and did so. Are you saying that you believe the 'notification within 48 hours' relieves him of his obligation to gain Congressional 'authorization', in a case which is CLEARLY not an imminent threat to the US? We The People  posted on  2011-03-27   13:15:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #53. To: We The People (#49) Okay. Again, what is your point? Obama explained his reason for acting as he did. That explanation fulfills his War Powers Act requirements. You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand lucysmom  posted on  2011-03-27   13:17:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #54. To: lucysmom (#53) (Edited) Obama explained his reason for acting as he did. That explanation fulfills his War Powers Act requirements. Come now. You're an intelligent person. You can't possibly believe that statement. If that's the case, then ANY president can take this nation into hostilities or war and his only requirement is to explain his actions? We The People  posted on  2011-03-27   13:21:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #55. To: We The People (#51) Really? Cause that's not what Obama states is happening. He's playing to HIS audience. "http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi" Rek  posted on  2011-03-27   13:23:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #56. To: We The People (#52) Are you saying that you believe the 'notification within 48 hours' relieves him of his obligation to gain Congressional 'authorization', in a case which is CLEARLY not an imminent threat to the US? I would say that Libya is the same level, if not greater threat to the US as Grenada was when Reagan invaded. You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand lucysmom  posted on  2011-03-27   13:24:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #57. To: Rek (#55) Really? Cause that's not what Obama states is happening. He's playing to HIS audience. I'd much rather discuss the facts of this issue, rather than your feelings or hunches. Unless you're privy to some high level communications that the rest of us aren't privy to, your comments are mere speculation and poor attempts at justification. We The People  posted on  2011-03-27   13:25:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #58. To: We The People (#54) Come now. You're an intelligent person. You can't possibly believe that statement. For the moment, yes. It ain't done yet. You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand lucysmom  posted on  2011-03-27   13:26:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #59. To: lucysmom (#56) I would say that Libya is the same level, if not greater threat to the US as Grenada was when Reagan invaded. You're trying to justify an illegal act. Neither Libya or Granada is or was a threat to the US. We The People  posted on  2011-03-27   13:27:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #60. To: lucysmom (#58) For the moment, yes. It ain't done yet. My hunch about your intelligence was correct. And, that was meant as a compliment, not an insult. We The People  posted on  2011-03-27   13:29:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #61. To: We The People (#59) You're trying to justify an illegal act. Neither Libya or Granada is or was a threat to the US. I'm not sure the act is illegal. It will be debated. Don't confuse a call for consistency with an attempt at justification. You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand lucysmom  posted on  2011-03-27   13:31:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #62. To: lucysmom (#61) Don't confuse a call for consistency with an attempt at justification. To be perfectly honest, I'm not seeing that consistency. I see you hesitating to accept facts about one president that you readily accept about others, concerning the same issue. We The People  posted on  2011-03-27   13:36:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #63. To: We The People (#57) I'd much rather discuss the facts of this issue, rather than your feelings or hunches. Unless you're privy to some high level communications that the rest of us aren't privy to, your comments are mere speculation and poor attempts at justification. Maybe selling it to the Tea Baggers would be a better move in your book. Or believing Bush's rationale for two wars years after the true facts came out. One fact that's set in stone is that all politicians lie to get their way. "http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi" Rek  posted on  2011-03-27   13:37:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #64. To: We The People (#60) (Edited) My hunch about your intelligence was correct. And, that was meant as a compliment, not an insult. Makes me think of the song; I'm Living Up To Her Low Expectations You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand lucysmom  posted on  2011-03-27   13:37:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #65. To: All (#52) Are you saying that you believe the 'notification within 48 hours' relieves him of his obligation to gain Congressional 'authorization', in a case which is CLEARLY not an imminent threat to the US? His own 48 hour explanation says not one word about Libya being a threat, imminent or otherwise, to the US. His justification for these actions are UN Resolutions and humanitarian reasons. This is a clear violation of the Constitution and the War Powers resolution. Both require the authorization of Congress. Not simply notification after the fact. We The People  posted on  2011-03-27   13:40:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #66. To: We The People (#62) I see you hesitating to accept facts about one president that you readily accept about others, concerning the same issue. I'm saying what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If Obama is wrong, than so was the sainted Ronald Reagan. You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand lucysmom  posted on  2011-03-27   13:42:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #67. To: Rek (#63) Maybe selling it to the Tea Baggers would be a better move in your book. Selling what? Your comments make little sense. Or believing Bush's rationale for two wars years after the true facts came out. Who believes Bush's rationale? Me? If that's what you think, then you are so far from correct it's ridiculous. And why are you trying to change the subject of this thread? We The People  posted on  2011-03-27   13:43:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #68. To: lucysmom (#66) (Edited) If Obama is wrong, than so was the sainted Ronald Reagan. I don't (think) I'm the one that has a problem with that statement. We The People  posted on  2011-03-27   13:45:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #69. To: We The People (#65) His own 48 hour explanation says not one word about Libya being a threat, imminent or otherwise, to the US. His justification for these actions are UN Resolutions and humanitarian reasons. Wasn't enforcing a UN resolution the justification Bush used for his Iraq invasion? Destabilizing the region is not the same as humanitarian reasons. You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand lucysmom  posted on  2011-03-27   13:48:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #70. To: We The People (#67) Who believes Bush's rationale? Me? If that's what you think, then you are so far from correct it's ridiculous. And why are you trying to change the subject of this thread? Okay..... you can believe every rationale that politicians give, please be my quest. Especially since they were presented as set in stone facts, very similiar to this situation. "http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi" Rek  posted on  2011-03-27   13:50:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #71. To: lucysmom (#69) (Edited) Wasn't enforcing a UN resolution the justification Bush used for his Iraq invasion? That and a BS threat of WMD's. And let's not forget that we were 'liberating' the Iraqi people and we would be greeted with roses. Bush should also be in prison. Along with his entire cabinet. We The People  posted on  2011-03-27   13:51:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #72. To: Rek (#70) Okay..... you can believe every rationale that politicians give, please be my quest. You're making less and less sense with each post. We The People  posted on  2011-03-27   13:52:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #73. To: We The People (#72) You're making less and less sense with each post. You don't believe documented facts and you don't like opinion, so why are you here? "http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi" Rek  posted on  2011-03-27   13:55:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #74. To: We The People (#71) That and a BS threat of WMD's. And let's not forget that we were 'liberating' the Iraqi people and we would be greeted with roses. But did you believe it to be BS at the time? "http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi" Rek  posted on  2011-03-27   13:57:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #75. To: lucysmom (#64) Makes me think of the song; I'm Living Up To Her Low Expectations Sorry, I don't know the song. I plugged the title into youtube but just got political stuff. We The People  posted on  2011-03-27   13:57:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #76. To: Rek (#74) But did you believe it to be BS at the time? My rants against the Iraq war are public record. I believed at the time that, OF COURSE Iraq had WMD's, because WE gave them to Iraq to use against Iran. Still, they had no way to deliver any payload to the US, so they were not a threat. I was wrong, they had no ongoing WMD program. I was FOR going into Afghanistan to get Al Qaeda, and even to depose the Taliban who was harboring Al Qaeda. I was NOT for the nation building afterward and to this day. We won the war quickly, when we should have come home. I was never for the Iraq war. We The People  posted on  2011-03-27   14:02:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #77. To: Rek (#73) You don't believe documented facts and you don't like opinion, so why are you here? LOL! You're a funny guy. What 'documented facts' are you referring to? We The People  posted on  2011-03-27   14:03:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #78. To: We The People (#76) I was FOR going into Afghanistan to get Al Qaeda, and even to depose the Taliban who was harboring Al Qaeda. I was NOT for the nation building afterward and to this day. We won the war quickly, when we should have come home. So you were Bush's audience at the time, because there was a lot of opposition to the Afghan War. Plus we never got OBL which was said to be the primary objective, so how can you say we won that war? "http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi" Rek  posted on  2011-03-27   14:13:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #79. To: Rek (#73) (f5) (f5) (f5) (f5) (f5) We The People  posted on  2011-03-27   14:13:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #80. To: We The People (#79) (f5) (f5) (f5) (f5) (f5) I don't understand your reply. "http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi" Rek  posted on  2011-03-27   14:15:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #81. To: Rek (#78) So you were Bush's audience at the time I just explained to you how I was NOT Bush's audience. Plus we never got OBL which was said to be the primary objective, so how can you say we won that war? You win a war when you remove your enemy's ability to wage or engage in war. We did that in VERY short order. I take it you've never served in the military? Regime change is a political objective, not a military objective. The primary military objective of any military at war is to remove your enemy's ability to wage or engage in war. We The People  posted on  2011-03-27   14:18:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply         .       .       . Comments (82 - 105) not displayed. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com