And now that they've said that it's okay to use that authority, Obama, of course, won't.

KINGBEE! Gosh a-mighty....it's a miracle! Here, I though that bleedin' heart of your'n woulda killed you by now!

Not 'pretty much'.....I did copy it. And pasted.

No, I got that....I just find it curious that it seems okay now. I mean, since Bush is on his way out, as opposed to when he was trying to fight a war. Now that we have a kinder, gentler president--who won't actually use it, of course, because he wants to sit down and dialogue with the enemy, instead of hunt them down and kill them, as they want to do with us--suddenly it's okay. That's not weird?

Well, no, it didn't "directly address" Bush's authority; but other presidents did it without a word of opposition, and without a threat of clear and present danger, such as oh, I din't know....terrorist attacks. But Bush was exceptionally hated, so it was okay to stand in his way, and place the nation in danger. I'm glas he always found ways to outsmart his opponents; made me feel safe. Now I'm feeling increasingly vulnerable.

As to us conservatives sounding like "monarchists"; now that the liberals have finally found their Savior in Lord Obama, swooning and crying at his rallies, and trying to touch the hem of his empty suit, I guess that pretty much makes us even.

So...Clinton's years-long, deliberate avoidance of the bin Laden problem---at least three times that we know of---was just okely-dokely, though?

Yeah, the last 7 years of constant terror attacks and the resulting, untold thousands of deaths on American soil, have certainly testified to the ineptness of Bush; how terrible he was at fighting them.

You still don't---or refuse--to get it, do you? Maybe I'm wrong, but this is how I see it:

The fight in Afghanistan, though the morally (and politically) correct one, wasn't working; we needed to draw the enemy out and tie them down, for two reasons:

1. Get them out of the mountains and caves; out into the open where we could fight them, wear them down, and maybe defeat them.

2. We needed a reason for them to stay in their own region and be less likely to attack us here, on our own soil.

Voila: the Iraq War. We are Khuffar...infidels; we barely have a right to exist, let alone militarily occupy a Muslim nation, and thus must be expelled at all cost. Manipulating this obsessive behavior, based in Muslim hatred of all other ideals and religions, has worked like a charm.

Go Bush!

Iraq was, admittedly, a soft target; we knew their situation, and invaded them on the basis of the WMD programs even Clinton acknowleged, declaring, in 1998, that "regime change" in Iraq was now an official US policy. Of course, him being who he was, a man in constant need of approval, he did nothing about that. War might have affected his numbers.

I know you'll just shoot all this down, ignoring the logic I present, simply because you're a devout liberal and, as such, logic and results don't matter, only intention.

Things are pretty damn good over there now, thanks to the war he waged; a homicial dictator captured, tried and executed for his crimes. Street fairs in Fallujah, for one example, where just a few years ago, noone dared go. Electricity, running water and goods and services unavailable before the invasion.

Only people like you could find ways to turn that success inside out and upside down, and make it a bad thing.

Of course it does.  Just like 40 million in 04 was outrageous (with no recession) on the inaugeration, but 150m with a recession "is necessary".  Just like a man guilty of tax evasion is ok to handle the US money now, but not 4 years ago.

The best part of the Obama presidency will not be what he does, but the contortions the liberals go through to do a 180 to support him on it!  But they do have an ace inthe hole.  A bunch of idiots in the media that cant think for themselves, just spout their talking points like the sheep in Animal Farm.