Congress Manipulated To Only Confront Certain Enemies

When an argument, like a theory, is not valid in all cases, it is not a valid argument. This Congress is being manipulated, but pretending it is someone else's responsibility.

If a President argues that enemies must be confronted before they are physically close, the Congress cannot explain why it is not uniformly applying this rule to all people, including the President. The Oval Office is, or was, close to the Constitution.

Universally applying the rule -- "that enemies must be confronted" -- puts Congress is a bind: It has refused to confront the President, an enemy of the Constution; they have implicitly not asserted their oath. They way forward is to explore why the Cognress, despite supposedly learning the President will lie, is blindly accepting more excuses to not apply all arguments equally.

* * *

There's a fiction going around: That the US should face "enemies overseas, otherwise they'll be here."

Putting aside the issue that the insurgents in Afghanistan are land locked, do not have a Navy, and have yet to explalin what they plan to do if they do take over America, the question needs to be put on its head: If America's are being asked to confront enemies before they are close, what is the Congressional explanation for not confronting the President?

The same Congress that buys the argument that enemies must be confronted -- as a basis to blindly defer to the President -- cannot explalin why it is not challenging the President, but remaining deferential.

Conclusion

The "confront the enemies"-argument is not valid in all cases. It's just an excuse for Congress to agree to be manipulated.