Yeah, it’s the first time

Except for all the other times:

The issue here, however, is not just a political one, but a question of the constitutional roles and responsibilities of Congress and the Executive branch on a vitally important issue: the conduct of war.

Just eight years ago, Sen. McConnell (R-KY) teamed up with Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) and others on legislation to authorize the deployment of U.S. forces for airstrikes (but not ground forces) in Kosovo. McConnell also sought to arm, train and fund the Kosovo Liberation Army—even while U.S. forces were engaged in combat in the Balkans.

The Congress at that time understood the precedents, among them, those set 25 years ago when President Reagan negotiated carefully with a Republican majority Senate and a Democratic majority House over two separate sequential authorizations related to troop deployments for Lebanon. Both authorizations moved through Congress well after he had sent U.S. forces into the country. The second war powers authorization included an 18-month time limit on its duration. It was enacted two weeks before the suicide bombing in which 241 U.S. service members in Beirut were killed.

And for the record, Lieberman CAUCUSES with the Dems. He lost in the primary. His official party Is “Connecticut for Lieberman”, not quite the same thing.

Update: I just thought of a situation that could get both sides out of this. Rather than denying the troops their needed support through a veto, maybe the president could sign the bill and issue one of his “signing statements” that says:

“Dear Congress,

I know you said that this time-table is now law, but SCREW YOU! I’m The Decider, so nyah-nyah they’re staying forever!”

Or something like that. Would that be constitutionally sound in my friend’s opinion.