Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (193168)	7/2/2004 6:42:30 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575480

But at the same time, I have to point out that Clinton didn't even get the congressional approval for use of force. He went to war on his own (curiously just days after he was accused of rape by a credible accuser). And it is not like these actions were split second decision. It as a deliberate attempt over days weeks and even months that lead to hostilities, so there is no excuse for Congress neglecting its duty. I agree with you that a Dec. of War by Congress is important if for no other reason then no declaration allows a president to sidestep the Geneva Conventions and other formal documents that bind us in a war situation. However, I don't see much difference in the way that either president went to war. Both were not all that concerned with Congressional approval. Furthermore, I see a real difference in the nature of the two wars. Clinton's war on Serbia was much like the Bush I war with Iraq. Both Serbia and Iraq were attacking a weaker neighbor, providing an underlying basis for the attack. Bush II provoked a war with Iraq......a much more serious and deliberate action.