Giordano,

The fact that you are ignorantly restating is due to your Libya example. You need to understand that Obama's attack on Libya was unconstitutional but the politics of it all has kept it contained.

That is why, this time he has tried to follow the constitution and get congressional approval first. If you don't believe me, check the news which clearly says Obama wants to get congressional approval.

If you support unconstitutional moves, then may god help your ignorant soul.

In 2007, then-candidate Barack Obama told the Boston Globe in an interview that no president could authorize military action without Congress unless the U.S. was in imminent danger.

"The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," Obama had said.

But now, obviously, like a sinister politician, he is going back on his own words like his strike in Libya but now he is getting some sense after seeing opposition in Britain.