She violated the Constitution when she authorized Bush to go into Iraq, without a declaration of war, in the first place! No where in the Constitution does it say that the US goes to war IF the United Nations approves the action first! Now, because Hillary Clinton, and everyone else who authorized Bush to go into Iraq, didn't do their Constitutional duty and either declare war or not, they can all say: "If I knew then, what I know now.".
Well damn it! She knew it was unConstitutional to go war without a declaration of war!
The United States Military is not the United Nations Military!
When are people going to demand that their representatives uphold and defend the Constitution?
2007-09-11 05:19:57 · 15 answers · asked by LittleLamb 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
don, You bet your seat cushion I do. Everyone knows that a declaration of war could have been sought and obtained to go into Afghanistan. But bush didn't even attempt it, because he knew that he couldn't get a declaration of war to go into Iraq.
I said "everyone" who violated the Constitution. I didn't make any exceptions due to political party. But Hillary Clinton is actually attempting to pass herself off as an antiwar candidate now. She is anything, but an antiwar candidate.
2007-09-11 05:38:50 · update #1
THERE HASN'T BEEN A DECLARATION OF WAR FROM CONGRESS SINCE WORLD WAR II.
2007-09-11 05:41:42 · update #2
Goldenrae, The War Powers Act is unConstitutional! The Founders gave us a way to amend the Constitution and those guidelines were not followed to implement the War Powers Act. Therefore the War Powers Act itself is unConstitutional. These people can't simply makeup the rules as they go along. We have a Constitution and they've all taken an oath to uphold and defend that Constitution.
2007-09-11 05:56:14 · update #3
furious george, You are exactly right! The only Democrats that I have any respect for are the ones that voted against giving Bush authority to go into Iraq. Sen. Byrd is the only one, that I can remember, who was raising hell about the fact that the War Powers Act is unConstitutional. I could be wrong about that. There could have been others. But I know for a fact that Hillary Clinton violated the Constitution when she authorized Bush to go into Iraq without a declaration of war.
2007-09-11 06:16:09 · update #4
Stiggo, Maybe you aren't aware of it, but Hillary Clinton is now saying that she thought she was giving Bush authority to get permission from the UN to go into Iraq.
2007-09-11 06:40:59 · update #5
she VOTED for the WAR,.,, she's a douchebag. The people have spoken... They want more Douchebag. thats what I got to say about that
2007-09-11 05:23:48 · answer #1 · answered by 2008 matters 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
To say "If I knew then what I know now" is understandable...we all do it. I'm just looking for a leader that is smarter than that and had figured out what the logical consequences of going into Iraq would be, and Hillary certainly doesn't qualify. The democrats own every bit as much of this war as the republicans, and continue to do nothing to stop it.
2007-09-11 05:29:02 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I would read up on the War Powers act, Iraq is technically not a war but a conflict.
I don't get the connection you are bridging between the UN and the US. The US does have international obligations which includes working with the UN. Isolationism is only a backward turn.
2007-09-11 05:27:11 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Ummm...what? You're right, we didn't declare war. What was approved was a military action. We're not actually at war. As to the UN, I don't know what you mean. Not only did we not need UN approval, we wouldn't have been given such approval, as the UN didn't think the alleged violations of UN sanctions warranted a military response.
We had asked for UN approval, since the pretense of our invasion was due to Iraq's violation of UN sanctions. Under international law, that was the proper thing to do. Obviously, since we went in anyway, we don't care what the UN says.
2007-09-11 05:27:01 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Because Hillary Clinton is a flip flooper like Kerry who doesn't really stand for anything. If your looking for a candidate to uphold the constitution Paul looks good.
2007-09-11 05:24:09 · answer #5 · answered by Space Pope Nick XVIII 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
She can do or say anything she wants. She's a Liberal. Today's negative story on Campaign contributions being returned was buried in my local Newsrag. She gets nothing but positive headlines on the front page, so why bother?
2007-09-12 09:14:18 · answer #6 · answered by Stereotypemebecauseyouknow 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hillary is vacuum packed from the neck up.
2007-09-11 05:30:57 · answer #7 · answered by Jim C 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
So, you dispise Bush for the war too?
2007-09-11 05:23:40 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
You got it! That's why Ron Paul is the only choice.
2007-09-11 05:24:34 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Is this your question? You may need to find an open forum website on this subject.
2007-09-11 05:24:22 · answer #10 · answered by orchard_littlejoe 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋