Not at all. Democrats are steering the debate, not me. They keep insisting the Iran attack is "illegal" and was unnecessary based on the absence of an "imminent threat". I'm just trying to help them flesh out their arguments. The only time the debate doesn't go the way I hoped is when Dems try to avoid explaining themselves.
Originally Posted by lustylad
Your feelings for me aren't really a part of the conversation, and I don't care about them either way. You can give strangers on a forum your approval or disappointment if you want to, but it doesn't mean much to me. You might want to keep it for someone who finds it motivating.
The main point was pretty simple: saying what a columnist thinks doesn't answer the legal or factual questions about whether something is imminent or whether Congress has authorized it. An op-ed makes a case, but it doesn't settle the issue on its own.
Since then, the thread has gone off on a mix of red herrings and a pretty typical Gish gallop. It started with Libya, then went through ten different historical military actions, and now it's going through decades of presidential war powers. This approach doesn't address the core issue; it merely expands the argument by incorporating every conceivable point.
At that point, it doesn't seem like a focused discussion anymore; it seems more like an attempt to drown out the thread with noise. I prefer not to argue about U.S. foreign policy for the last 50 years in a forum thread; let's discuss the original topic instead.