Formal Declaration of War-no; however, Bush was authorized by Congress to invade Iraq. It wasn't a secret that we would be crossing Iraq's border to engage in combat operations. For purposes of this discussion, the nuances between a formal Declaration of War and Congress authorizing the use of military forces against Iraq are irrelevant.

 

Would you care to answer my question as to how you would feel if a country sent their military forces into the US (without our permission) to kill an enemy? No one has accepted that challenge yet.[/QUOTE]

I accept your challenge. If the enemy was a world known terrorist responsible for killing thousands, killed innocents without hesitation. Men, women, children, black, white, Christian, Muslim, Jewish . . . he didn't care - personally I would not have an issue with it! Bin Laden had openly said he had declared war on the USA. America had given sufficient warning that he would be pursued anywhere in the world. Pakistan, in particular, had been told multiple times that we would go into their country to get Bin Laden.

Former President George W. Bush set the legal framework - in the U.S. judicial code - for bin Laden's killing just one week after 9/11. Public Law 107-40 gave congressional authorization to the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." Bin Laden was, without question, one of those persons.

Formal Declaration of War-no; however, Bush was authorized by Congress to invade Iraq. It wasn't a secret that we would be crossing Iraq's border to engage in combat operations. For purposes of this discussion, the nuances between a formal Declaration of War and Congress authorizing the use of military forces against Iraq are irrelevant.

 

Would you care to answer my question as to how you would feel if a country sent their military forces into the US (without our permission) to kill an enemy? No one has accepted that challenge yet.[/QUOTE]

I accept your challenge. If the enemy was a world known terrorist responsible for killing thousands, killed innocents without hesitation. Men, women, children, black, white, Christian, Muslim, Jewish . . . he didn't care - personally I would not have an issue with it! Bin Laden had openly said he had declared war on the USA. America had given sufficient warning that he would be pursued anywhere in the world. Pakistan, in particular, had been told multiple times that we would go into their country to get Bin Laden.

Former President George W. Bush set the legal framework - in the U.S. judicial code - for bin Laden's killing just one week after 9/11. Public Law 107-40 gave congressional authorization to the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." Bin Laden was, without question, one of those persons.

 

OBL may have declared war against the US. Did Pakistan? Don't think so.

 

Did President Obama determine that Pakistan had "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." ? If so, I missed it. If not, he did not have Congressional authority under Public Law 107-40 to invade Pakistan's sovereignity as I read your post.

 

OBL may have declared war against the US. Did Pakistan? Don't think so.

 

Did President Obama determine that Pakistan had "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." ? If so, I missed it. If not, he did not have Congressional authority under Public Law 107-40 to invade Pakistan's sovereignity as I read your post.

 

Did you have the same objections when Reagan sent troops to Grenada without Congressional approval?

 

Did you have the same objections when Reagan sent troops to Grenada without Congressional approval?

 

Yes as a matter of fact I did. I was never comfortable with the justification given by President Reagan for invading Grenada.

 

Do you think President Reagan was justified in invading Grenada?

 

OBL may have declared war against the US. Did Pakistan? Don't think so.

 

Did President Obama determine that Pakistan had "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." ? If so, I missed it. If not, he did not have Congressional authority under Public Law 107-40 to invade Pakistan's sovereignity as I read your post.

September 20, 2001, in a speech before a joint session of Congress, Bush changed the direction of American foreign policy. He made terrorism its focus.

"We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network," Bush said.

The speech is perhaps best remembered for this remark. "[W]e will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism," said Bush. "Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."

In early 2011, intelligence revealed that bin Laden was hiding in a compound in Pakistan, and apparently had been for more than five years. His mere presence in Pakistan indicates to me that they were harboring a known terrorist. Pakistan had been warned about providing a safe haven for bin Laden.

September 20, 2001, in a speech before a joint session of Congress, Bush changed the direction of American foreign policy. He made terrorism its focus.

"We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network," Bush said.

The speech is perhaps best remembered for this remark. "[W]e will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism," said Bush. "Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists." In early 2011, intelligence revealed that bin Laden was hiding in a compound in Pakistan, and apparently had been for more than five years. His mere presence in Pakistan indicates to me that they were harboring a known terrorist. Pakistan had been warned about providing a safe haven for bin Laden.

BINGO!

Maybe the President should call in the Special Ops to rescue the economy. I would gladly support his taking credit for that call.

Maybe the President should call in the Special Ops to rescue the economy. I would gladly support his taking credit for that call.

 

But there would be a whole bunch of folks on here that wouldn't.

But there would be a whole bunch of folks on here that wouldn't.

 

IDK, most everyone on here is a or act like they are as Liberal as the Pres. It seems every time someone puts something on here about him, they are labeled racist, no tolerance, a crazy Christian, or out of touch.

IDK, most everyone on here is a or act like they are as Liberal as the Pres. It seems every time someone puts something on here about him, they are labeled racist, no tolerance, a crazy Christian, or out of touch.

 

I agree mountain ref, and yet in the last election McCain carried the commonwealth of Kentucky easily; therefore, I don't think BGP is very representative of the state's thinking at all.

IDK, most everyone on here is a or act like they are as Liberal as the Pres. It seems every time someone puts something on here about him, they are labeled racist, no tolerance, a crazy Christian, or out of touch.

 

That may be the funniest thing I've read on here in a month of Sundays. BGP - a bastion of Liberalism!

That may be the funniest thing I've read on here in a month of Sundays. BGP - a bastion of Liberalism!

 

 

Without a doubt. Are there even 10 of us on here? :lol: :lol: :lol:

IDK, most everyone on here is a or act like they are as Liberal as the Pres. It seems every time someone puts something on here about him, they are labeled racist, no tolerance, a crazy Christian, or out of touch.

 

Just because people disagree with things you say or post doesn't make them a liberal.

I agree mountain ref, and yet in the last election McCain carried the commonwealth of Kentucky easily; therefore, I don't think BGP is very representative of the state's thinking at all.

 

Name the bastion of 'liberals' on BGP. I'll get you started.

 

PP92, mcpapa, rockmom.

 

 

Who else is there? 3.....2.....1....... Go.....

Without a doubt. Are there even 10 of us on here? :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Hope not, we'd have to throw some off. That quota thing you know.