[ticskebasse]

I don't really feel the need to answer anymore questions because you are unwilling to reciprocate.

Total cop out. I certainly would reciprocate if you asked me questions germane to the topic we're discussing and for which I had the answers. Your questions should be directed to Mr. Obama and/or Ms. Clinton. You chose to trot them out here as off topic diversions because you couldn't defend your own position and statements.

If you did you would have had to admit that this war in Libya is about money for the elite and that's it. Whether it's about "money for the elite" has no bearing on whether the President has Constitutional authority to order troops into combat. I"ll certainly "admit" that it's an adventure we should not have gotten involved in. I'm against U.S. involvement, but I'm not going to run around hyseterically declaring that it's "illegal."

I also think it's funny that you believe that certain past historical figures are above violating the rule of law. Lincoln very well might be the biggest violator of the Constitution we've ever had while FDR runs a solid second place. There is a reason why they say, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I certainly don't think they're above "violating the rule of law." However, it's very noteworthy that neither President Jefferson nor his successor, James Madison (the "Father of the Constitution"), thought they needed a Congressional declaration of war to commit U.S. forces to armed hostilities in Libya. From the early days, the Constitution was not given the interpretation you seek to impose upon it now even by the man who authored it. And Congress -- which one would expect to jealously guard its war-making power if it were indeed solely given to them -- has not agreed with your position either. These historical facts ought to give you pause.