Google this site

[Guest]

Google H.CON.RES.107 Read and lets hear what you think. I'm not going to comment till people read it.

[Guest]

google h.con.res.107 read and lets hear what you think. I'm not going to comment till people read it.

lol

[Guest]

Google H.CON.RES.107 Read and lets hear what you think. I'm not going to comment till people read it.

Are you referring to the bill from 1999 or the current one on use of military ?

Strange that the 1999 bill leads Google

[Guest]

Google ranks their results by a score that is affected over time. The 1999 bill has obviously been around a lot longer. The more 'hits' the 2011-2012 bill gets, the higher it'll rank.

Having read the bill, it doesn't say much except that Congress would "consider" a condition. Doesn't seem to actually dictate a statute. I would imagine that, if it were to have more teeth in it, it would ahve to delineate what kind of actions the President COULD take - because some of our troops are under NATO command and that's got more chefs stirring the pot.

[Guest]

Google ranks their results by a score that is affected over time. The 1999 bill has obviously been around a lot longer. The more 'hits' the 2011-2012 bill gets, the higher it'll rank.

Having read the bill, it doesn't say much except that Congress would "consider" a condition. Doesn't seem to actually dictate a statute. I would imagine that, if it were to have more teeth in it, it would ahve to delineate what kind of actions the President COULD take - because some of our troops are under NATO command and that's got more chefs stirring the pot.

As I understand it is a "required" first step !!

[Guest]

And the shoes begin to drop....

"“This week it was Secretary of Defense Panetta’s declaration before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations,” Tancredo writes. “This led to Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introducing an official resolution calling for impeachment should Obama take offensive action based on Panetta’s policy statement, because it would violate the Constitution.”

Obama impeachment bill now in Congress (http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/obama-impeachment-bill-now-in-congress/?cat_orig=us)

"In an exclusive WND column, former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo claims that Jones introduced his House Concurrent Resolution 107 in response to startling recent comments from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta."

Quite a difference from the bill you cited to begin this thread !!!

[Guest]

I posted this YouTube link on a different thread titled "What the Heck?!?!?" It is straight from the horse's mouth-Panetta...or would it be the other end of the horse?

Obama Admin Cites 'Int'l Permission,' Not Congress, As 'Legal Basis' For Action In Syria - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5zNwOeyuG84)