World War Three?

[Mountain Man]

I love how all the Democrats agree this was a REALLY BAD MAN, HOWEVER.....

(If Obama had taken him out, it would have been one more success!)

I understand that Obama had to be pushed into ordering the strike against Bin Laden, and it eventually came down to his security team saying, "We're going to take him out whether you order it or not, but it would play much better for you politically if you signed off on it."

[JimL]

I understand that Obama had to be pushed into ordering the strike against Bin Laden, and it eventually came down to his security team saying, "We're going to take him out whether you order it or not, but it would play much better for you politically if you signed off on it."

Where did you come up with that one, MM? Let me guess, Breitbart? Btw, Bin Laden wasn't an official of a foreign country.

[Bill the Cat]

Where did you come up with that one, MM? Let me guess, Breitbart? Btw, Bin Laden wasn't an official of a foreign country.

That is not a consideration on what makes one a lawful combatant.

[Cow Poke]

Btw, Bin Laden wasn't an official of a foreign country.

That's the facade the Democrats were trying to hide behind in defending this terrorist, Jim. Rather than simply acknowledge he was a terrorist in a war zone to do harm to our people, they pretend he's some kind of honored diplomat. He was a terrorist, Jim, pure and simple.

[rogue06]

I love how all the Democrats agree this was a REALLY BAD MAN, HOWEVER.....

(If Obama had taken him out, it would have been one more success!)

It'd be regarded as just another drone attack (one of several hundred he ordered), albeit a highly successful one and that success would be praised by the MSM and other Democrats.

[Mountain Man]

Where did you come up with that one, MM? Let me guess, Breitbart? Btw, Bin Laden wasn't an official of a foreign country.

No, it wasn't Breitbart.

[Cow Poke]

It'd be regarded as just another drone attack (one of several hundred he ordered), albeit a highly successful one and that success would be praised by the MSM and other Democrats.

And while the Republicans might not praise him, or maybe begrudgingly praise him, I doubt that they'd be pitching hissy fits and attacking him as a war criminal.

[Mountain Man]

And while the Republicans might not praise him, or maybe begrudgingly praise him, I doubt that they'd be pitching hissy fits and attacking him as a war criminal.

When Bin Laden was assassinated (just borrowing the latest liberal term of the day ), both parties gave Obama a standing ovation.

https://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/05...den/index.html

[Cow Poke]

When Bin Laden was assassinated (just borrowing the latest liberal term of the day ), both parties gave Obama a standing ovation.

https://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/05...den/index.html

Well, he was the One!

[JimL]

I don't think you can back that up with fact, Jim. The "Imminent threat" was not a factor. It was dumb to try to make that claim, because it wasn't required.
What law did Trump break?

The president is required to inform Congress within 48 hrs of a military strike and provide evidence of an immanent threat as his reasoning for it. They didn't do that, and when they did finally brief congress they claimed the evidence to be classified so provided no evidence for their claim. It's also against International law with the same stipulation of there being absolute evidence of impending and immanent threat of an attack.

[rogue06]

The president is required to inform Congress within 48 hrs of a military strike and provide evidence of an immanent threat as his reasoning for it. They didn't do that, and when they did finally brief congress they claimed the evidence to be classified so provided no evidence for their claim. It's also against International law with the same stipulation of there being absolute evidence of impending and immanent threat of an attack.

They definitely knew about it within 48 hours of it taking place. Just 48 hours after.

[Cow Poke]

The president is required to inform Congress within 48 hrs of a military strike and provide evidence of an immanent threat as his reasoning for it. They didn't do that, and when they did finally brief congress they claimed the evidence to be classified so provided no evidence for their claim. It's also against International law with the same stipulation of there being absolute evidence of impending and immanent threat of an attack.

Jim, just repeating the same thing over is not proof. Again, I ask, what law did Trump break?

[JimL]

Jim, just repeating the same thing over is not proof. Again, I ask, what law did Trump break?

That is the law, CP, both U.S. law with respect to the war powers resolution and International law.

[Cow Poke]

That is the law, CP, both U.S. law with respect to the war powers resolution and International law.

Jim, if it were "the law", you'd be able to cite it. Just saying it's the law proves nothing.

[NorrinRadd]

If he broke "the law," the dummycrats would already have another set of impeachment documents drawn up. It would be his first *actual* case of law-breaking.