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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (174128)	11/4/2005 1:04:13 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

That's wholly irrelevant. Of course it is.. TO YOU!! Because you don't want to acknowledge the complicity of the Clinton Administration is this "alleged" manipulation of US intelligence you hypothesized occurred. But facts are stubborn things.. as are people like yourself who don't want to accept them... Which explicitly prohibited the use of US Forces. Funny.. I looked at the act and could not find the word "prohibited" used there with regard to military force. news.findlaw.com; That only mention was that nothing in this act should be contrued as authorization to use force... And that makes sense.. because Clinton would have needed to go back to Congress (AS BUSH DID) for such an explicit authorization to use force.. So that brings to mind.. Did Clinton go to Congress for such an authorization when he launched Operation Desert Fox not more than a month after this act was passed??? Funny, I don't remember him doing that... Hawk