They don't have to take it back because they
Tue Dec 18, 2018 2:35pm

never gave it up... they still HAVE, and have had the authority to cut the funds to force a POTUS to bring the troops home. Congress simply lacks the WILL to exercise it.

And the idea that a POTUS could deploy troops without congressional approval came LONG before Bush...

  • keep going. I did NOT "raise the issue of congress needing to TAKE BACK the power of the purse", YOU DID. My original post SAID THEY TOOK BACK THE POWER OF THE PURSE & cut his authority to commit... more
    • It really makes me angry when you do this SproutSia☺giah, Tue Dec 18 4:15pm
      I'm good with having lively discussions with you. You bring up all kinds of issues that can be interesting. But you tend to go off like a rocket on some of those things that no one else is interested ... more
    • They don't have to take it back because they — Sprout, Tue Dec 18 2:35pm
      • without their approval directly after 9/11 when they gave GWB this: "Congress passed the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) in the frantic days after the Sept. 11 attacks. It cleared ... more
        • And no President BEFORE that one everSprout, Tue Dec 18 4:48pm
          sent military forces overseas WITHOUT congressional approval? LOL
          • Did I say that? NO, I did not.Sia☺giah, Tue Dec 18 7:15pm
            Sorry that the finer points and details are so lost on you. Perhaps you might read my post in its entirety, where I clear said precisely the OPPOSITE of what you've "concluded". Admit it, you DON'T... more
      • Because as anyone with an IQ over 80 can see, you're taking both sides depending upon which post you're replying to. That's what happens to folks who not honest players. Grow up.
Click here to receive daily updates