Post removed

[patrice]

11. I am not saying that at least some of that is not true. The REAL question is *H*O*W* to deal with

the problems created by the AUMF: through his executive power to veto or not - which would NOT have done one damn thing about any of it other than progress the crimes geometrically IN NEW LAW, the NDAA - or - through saying NO to that by the only means available to him and then to address the problems in a wider arena of constitutional law that relates the NDAA to AUMF.

And, though this line of reasoning is out there in the ethersphere, including here on the DU, and basic logic is its own justification, you CAN google key terms in the issue or go to Thomas and read the various forms NDAA 2012 took as it evolved from what JOHN MCCAIN & CARL-never-met-a-bank-deregulation-he-didn't-like LEVINE wrote, to what it became after the President threatened veto and Senator Feinstein proposed and then achieved amendments to that original legislation.

The differences between you and our President are about calculation of that RISK + whatever tools he has available to him, or NOT, to address the same, though qualitatively different, problems had a Presidential veto been over-ridden.