Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Scootermuze
..... has determined that the president, as commander-in-chief of the military, does have the authority to recognize a "state of war" initiated against the United States and may in these circumstances unilaterally send U.S. troops into battle.
That's a far cry from saying he can just attack any country for any reason..
Further.. there was no state of war initiated against the U.S. by Iraq..
|
1. Dont play word games, even Democrats have declared "police actions" and such to skirt around the issue of who can and cannot send troops to battle. Fact is any President can and often does authorize military action without any oversight.
2. Iraq violated UN security resolutions for years(on top of violating cease fire agreements with the USA as well)and there was an order AUTHORIZING the use of force against Iraq if it did not comply. Dont give me this shit about WMD because they didnt have to actually HAVE the WMD to violate the resolution, it also states that Iraq must not SEEK WMD either.