Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
ace....nice deflection after your MLK reference was exposed as irrelevant. My morality stance was directed at a nation's chief elected official....thus, my earlier reference to the oath of office.
The discussion here has NEVER been about a private citizens rights and the rule of law (on that issue, we agree), but rather the legal obligations and limitations of Congress and the president under the Constitution.
|
How about another deflection. US Presidents on more than 100 occasions have engaged in "military actions" (acts of war) against other nations without seeking Congressional authority for war. This includes former President Clinton. All of these acts could be argued as un-Constitutional and an abuse of Presidential power. Right? Or wrong because if politically you like a President, like let's say Bill Clinton - he gets a pass, is that the way it is? When one politically supports an abuse of executive power it is o.k., but otherwise, like with Bush, it is not?
Quote:
Again....nice deflection by cherry picking one response. I said earlier that she agreed with Bush on several of the questions...as do I.
Look at all 12 of her responses collectively and make the case that she would be more likely to unilaterally attempt to enhance her own executive powers than Bush as you suggest.
|
O.k., I look at another:
Quote:
2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
The President has the solemn duty to defend our Nation. If the country is under truly imminent threat of attack, of course the President must take appropriate action to defend us. At the same time, the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take military action – including any kind of strategic bombing – against Iran without congressional authorization. That is why I have supported legislation to bar President Bush from doing so and that is also why I think it is irresponsible to suggest, as some have recently, that anything Congress already has enacted provides that authority.
|
Given her above position, it seems she would be at odds with the actions taken by her husband in 1998 against Iraq. Is she?
Why does she limit her concerns to Bush and Iran? Why not make a blanket statement say she would never to military action without Congressional authority?
What does "truly imminent threat" mean? doesn't that sound like a "Bush lie" that lead us to war in Iraq?
You have to admit the Ms. Clinton chooses her words carefully, an one can easily infer from what she says and what she doesn't say. No doubt she will fight to control as much executive power as possible. In Bush's case, Chaney was the driver on Executive power. In Ms. Clinton's situation she will be the driver on that issue.
Feel free to continue ignoring these great on target points, I have more
{added} I think I got my dates mixed up. Clinton bombed Iraq in 1993. A Sudan aspirin factory in 1998. He bomb others as well, not including interns.{added}