Obama’s ‘kill list’ is unchecked presidential power

[bvar22]

94. Your post is full of unfounded balderdash and disingenuous poppycock!

Hey!
This is EASY!
All I have to do is put a smokescreen in the title line,
NOT address anything in the content of the post,
and I'm Good to Go!
.
.
.
.
...but in the interest of accuracy and education,
claims that are put in the title line really should be supported in the text.

In Post #34 you made the claim,
[font color=red]"Congress passed the AUMF and then continues to fund the military efforts against Al Qaeda. So, yes, we are at war with the groups identified in the AUMF."[/font]

You THEN added a Red Herring (look it up) about something President Lincoln did in the Civil War
that actually weakens your original claim about the AUMF.
If everything necessary for war was contained in the AUMF,
why bring up President Lincoln at all?

For the sake of clarity, civility and rational debate, I chose to ignore the Red Herring and address your claim about the AUMF.

I stated in Post #68:
[font color=blue]"Every single Democrat who voted FOR the AUMF disagrees with you,
from John Kerry to Hillary Clinton.
They claim Bush-the-Lesser FAR exceeded anything "granted" in the AUMF. "[/font]

My claim is neither "bullshit" nor a Strawman.
It IS historical fact.
If you are too young to remember the incident, I suggest Google.

You should look for statements by the Democratic Party leadership after voting FOR the AUMF.
Another period of interest is during the democratic Primaries and Campaign 2004 when many questioned whether if was a good idea to nominate someone who voted FOR the AUMF,
and their statements concerning the AUMF and what it did and did not authorize.

Again, what Lincoln DID or Did NOT do has absolutely NO bearing on the AUMF,
and only weakens your argument about the AUMF.
It is possible to find many incidents where Presidents have exceeded their Constitutional authority,
but NONE have a bearing on the AUMF.


The ODD thing is that I agree with you somewhat about the AUMF.
At the time, I opposed it because it gave Bush-the Lesser a blank check to go to War in Iraq and to target the handful of terrorists responsible for 9-11.
I STILL oppose it even though it is NOW the Democratic Party leadership that wishes to use it as blanket authority to do whatever they want to do without accountability or oversight.


You should note the following:

"Straw man – an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position"

At no time did I misrepresent your argument.
Therefore, no Strawman

Red Herring – argument given in response to another argument, which is irrelevant and draws attention away from subject of argument.

What Lincoln did or did not so has no relevance to the AUMF.
Diverting the discussion of the AUMF to something that happened in the 1860s
IS a Red Herring.


No Charge this time.