The Conversation

Obama Actually Has More Legal Right to Arm *Assad*

In response to Friendly Reminder to Obama: It's Illegal to Arm Terrorists:

I did a podcast last night with my cobloggers @drewmtips, @gabrielmalor, @johnekdahl, and my Life Coach @jongabriel. 

Either @drewmtips or @gabrielmalor made a very interesting point:  Because the standing authorization for the use of military force permits the president to order military action against Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda-affiliated groups, there actually exists (arguably) legal authority for Obama to go to war in Syria... against the rebels. 

And none at all to go to war on their side.

The President, of course, will unilaterally send our troops into battle, and not a single figure in the media will bother to note that a declaration of war is required for this, or, short of that, compliance with at least the War Powers Act.  Which will once against be ignored, without any mention by the media, as it was previously ignored by Clinton in Bosnia and Obama in Libya.

At some point we will have to get David Gregory on the record for his sage opinion as to whether the Constitution permits unilateral executive warmaking so long as the President is a Democrat.

Have no doubt, this is David Gregory's position, and all the rest of the low-IQ news presenters.  But we ought to get them to state this secret belief aloud.

 




advertisement

Send A Tip

Breitbart Video Picks

advertisement

advertisement

From Our Partners