On Tuesday, April 5, 2011, the United States Senate voted on a motion by Senator Rand Paul. The motion contained the language:
“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
ZERO Democrats voted in favor of this language. Not one. If you know Rand Paul, you know why he made the motion. He doesn't want the U.S. Military used "as the world's police." But there was more to the specific language put in the motion.
John Yoo wrote about this in National Review Online. I like John Yoo. You might not agree with what he believes, but he is not afraid to say it, he has been brutally honest with his legal opinion, and lesser minds have tried to hang him for his opinion. (Plus, if I were him, you bet I would'a been quoted, "Yoo gotta do what Yoo gotta do"...and stuff like that).
I Googled the entire quote. Guess what I found:
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
Who? What? Where? When? Why?
Barack Obama. Answer to question while being interviewed by Boston Globe. Boston, I guess. 2007. He wanted to get elected President.
I found the questions in the interview delightfully lame. The Globe might as well have asked, "If President Bush didn't actually do something, but I ask a question as if he did...would you oppose it?"
We all know Obama's response to that: "I would never agree...to sign off...on something President Bush were accused of doing...even if...I knew...he didn't do it....as long as I could do it...once elected."
1 comment:
Sadly, it takes bloggers to hold Obama accountable for what he said and for what he does -- which means very little in the scheme of things.
Post a Comment