@Curtmungus your honor of being more famous than me is quite deserved. I salute you.
Govt. Response to Katrina
-
Mary,
For the millionth time CONGRESS GAVE BUSH THE AUTHORITY TO USE FORCE. Ie, go to war, to commit troops in iraq, to commit troops to enforce UN resolutions. Pick your terms, I don’t care which one you call it, but CONGRESS GAVE BUSH THE AUTHORITY. If you have a problem you should take it up with your Congressmen.
From OCT 10, 2002
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/iraq.us/
EDIT:
Spelling
Also this is Oct 10 2002 which predates your article, which is why Bush says I commit troops blah blah blah in your article. He IS the Commander in Chief of the US army.
EDIT 2:
I don’t know how or why the moderators still let you post. This is just trolling. It took about 10 seconds to Google some links to prove you wrong yet again.
I think that comment is unnecessary.
It only took me about one second to do a google search and prove YOU WRONG. So are you now a troll?
Ya gotta stop listening to Moore or Franken or any of those other kooks who spew that garbage.
Edit 3
Your piece about the lawyers is an opinion piece. They say argue against, but it is just not the case. I’m guessing this case was thrown out or at the very least went nowhere as we did go to war in March of that year and it was Congress who authorized it and Gave Bush the power to Commit troops.
You can quibble of wording all you want, no it wasn’t an Official Dec of War, however it gave Bush the power to use force/commit troops, etc. I don’t know signs like a Dec of War to me, but we won’t call it that.
On a historical note I don’t believe we have had a Declartion of War in this Country since WW2.
-
Getting sick of Editting, but this will be my last post on Iraq and War resolutions. As they are off topic.
This is a loink of when the US has had a Dec of War and when it hasn’t. and in the case of no, they list what gave the authority, ie Tonkin Resolution etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States
Here’s the link for the War in Iraq from the same site:
Again, both the House and Senate voted to give Bush the power.
Take this up with your Senators and Congressmen if you dissapprove, but don’t blame Bush when he clearly got approval from Congress.As I said this will be my last post on Iraq in this thread, and sorry for any of my derailing, however I had to set the record straight and correct lies when I see them.
-
Darth, giving authority to go to war and declaring war are two different things. Congress did not declare war on Iraq. Bush did. Find a link if you think otherwise.
-
Jen, find just one news site with “Congress declares war on Iraq”, and link it here. Otherwise, STFU because you have no clue what you’re talking about.
-
I’m breaking my own rule. :D
Darth, giving authority to go to war and declaring war are two different things. Congress did not declare war on Iraq. Bush did. Find a link if you think otherwise.
I fail to see how.
Whatever. I provided links show how Congress Authorized the use of force.
And Links as to when Dec of War was used. Which was last in WW2.
There was no Dec of War for Korea, Vietnam, Gulf 1, among other conflicts since 1950.
You can quibble about wording all you want, but the authorization WAS given by Congress to the Pres.
It is like the thing with China in Apr of 01, does Regret mean I’m sorry. It is semantics.
Use of Force means war, what did these Congressmen/women think they were doing. If they didn’t know what they were voting for they should be removed for incompetence.
I think this is an issue that the Dems must sort out amongst themselves.
You should be mad at the Dems who gave the authority and try to remove them from office if you feel it was wrong.Getting mad at Bush does you no good. If your elected Democrat officials go against what you believe you have to start voting for some different people.
-
Reagan killed the Soviet Union and brought peace in his time, thus saving us from nuclear annihilation - the same annihilation that Kennedy and Carter and Johnson and everyone else between Truman and Reagan couldn’t save us from.
Maybe you should look up “annihilation” as deeply as you looked up “tax evasion”- If they did not save you from annihilation … how comes you can still keep annoying me with your postings?
Anyway … i am so tired of your senseless blablabla. Go to the army, go to war … i don’t care as long as you just go.
-
I’m breaking my own rule. :D
Darth, giving authority to go to war and declaring war are two different things. Congress did not declare war on Iraq. Bush did. Find a link if you think otherwise.
I fail to see how.
Whatever. I provided links show how Congress Authorized the use of force.
And Links as to when Dec of War was used. Which was last in WW2.
There was no Dec of War for Korea, Vietnam, Gulf 1, among other conflicts since 1950.
You can quibble about wording all you want, but the authorization WAS given by Congress to the Pres.
It is like the thing with China in Apr of 01, does Regret mean I’m sorry. It is semantics.
Use of Force means war, what did these Congressmen/women think they were doing. If they didn’t know what they were voting for they should be removed for incompetence.
I think this is an issue that the Dems must sort out amongst themselves.
You should be mad at the Dems who gave the authority and try to remove them from office if you feel it was wrong.Getting mad at Bush does you no good. If your elected Democrat officials go against what you believe you have to start voting for some different people.
So you agree Congress did not declare war on Iraq. That’s all I wanted.
-
You people are hopeless, this thread is about the Hurricane, NOT THE WAR!!!
-
I’m breaking my own rule. :D
Darth, giving authority to go to war and declaring war are two different things. Congress did not declare war on Iraq. Bush did. Find a link if you think otherwise.
I fail to see how.
Whatever. I provided links show how Congress Authorized the use of force.
And Links as to when Dec of War was used. Which was last in WW2.
There was no Dec of War for Korea, Vietnam, Gulf 1, among other conflicts since 1950.
You can quibble about wording all you want, but the authorization WAS given by Congress to the Pres.
It is like the thing with China in Apr of 01, does Regret mean I’m sorry. It is semantics.
Use of Force means war, what did these Congressmen/women think they were doing. If they didn’t know what they were voting for they should be removed for incompetence.
I think this is an issue that the Dems must sort out amongst themselves.
You should be mad at the Dems who gave the authority and try to remove them from office if you feel it was wrong.Getting mad at Bush does you no good. If your elected Democrat officials go against what you believe you have to start voting for some different people.
Giving someone the power to use force does not = using force yourself. The state of California authorizes police officers to use force when necessary. Does that mean California beat up Rodney King? Lol.
Congress was told Iraq had WMD’s, ties to Al Queda, and was on the verge of getting a nuke. Rather than DECLARE WAR on Iraq, they gave Bush authority to DECLARE WAR, shifting the repsonsibility of DECLARING WAR to the White House. The hope was, if Saddam knew that Bush can DECLARE WAR himself, perhaps Saddam will finally comply with all resolutions.*
*Some phrases were highlighted for clarity.
Now, do I blame Congress? To some extent, yes. They were too trusting that Bush would use diplomacy, instead of rushing to war like he did. But blame ultimately lies with those who lied to Congress, chose to go to war, and had no clue what to do after we “won”: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz.
-
Giving someone the power to use force does not = using force yourself. The state of California authorizes police officers to use force when necessary. Does that mean California beat up Rodney King? Lol.
president bush AND congress give the soldiers the authority to kill iraqi soldiers and insurgents in iraq. does that mean president bush and congress killed iraqi soldiers and insurgents?
if your paying such attention to detail, you should note that Bush didnt declare war either, since he is not capable. only congress can declare war. under the war powers act, the president can use the military for up to 90 days i think, but then he must be authorized by congress to extend that. so yes, congress authorized bush to use force, and no, bush did NOT declare war.
-
Giving someone the power to use force does not = using force yourself. The state of California authorizes police officers to use force when necessary. Does that mean California beat up Rodney King? Lol.
president bush AND congress give the soldiers the authority to kill iraqi soldiers and insurgents in iraq. does that mean president bush and congress killed iraqi soldiers and insurgents?
if your paying such attention to detail, you should note that Bush didnt declare war either, since he is not capable. only congress can declare war. under the war powers act, the president can use the military for up to 90 days i think, but then he must be authorized by congress to extend that. so yes, congress authorized bush to use force, and no, bush did NOT declare war.
The Authorization of Force bill that Congress passed gave Bush the authority to use the military against Iraq, which he did very quickly. He might not have said, “Thus I declare war on Iraq”, but it was the White House that ordered “Shock and Awe” to begin. Once the bombs start dropping, you’re at war.
Once again: Congress gives Bush authority to attack. Congress did not order the invasion. Bush did.
-
Of Course!
Bush IS the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. that is his job. It is laid out in the Constitution.Of course he tells the army where to go. Ultimately Generals/Admirals/etc advise the Pres and the Pres makes the call, that is what the Commander in Chief does.
Congress Authorized the use of force against Saddam.
But Congress can’t tell the Army what to do, only the Pres can. -
Yes, both Bush and Congress were necessary conditions for the Iraq war- one to give authority and the other to actually use it. But Other factors tip the balance of blame over to Bush: It was his party in control of both houses of Congress, and the Bush administration either misstated the reasons for going to war or out-and-out lied.
-
Becaue you do not agree with it, or choose to focus in on only one reason (wmd) does not make it a lie.
From the Wiki link - reasons listed in war resolution:
_The act cited several factors to justify a war:
Iraq’s noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire
Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a “threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region”
Iraq’s “brutal repression of its civilian population”
Iraq’s “capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people”
Iraq’s hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of George Bush Sr, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War
Iraq’s connection to terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda
Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States_I do not know why some people are so eager to defend Saddam. Who cares why he was removed. It is a good thing he is out of power.
-
@marine36:
You people are hopeless, this thread is about the Hurricane, NOT THE WAR!!!
Your buddy Jen brought it up by comparing the two.
-
Becaue you do not agree with it, or choose to focus in on only one reason (wmd) does not make it a lie.
From the Wiki link - reasons listed in war resolution:
_The act cited several factors to justify a war:
Iraq’s noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire
Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a “threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region”
Iraq’s “brutal repression of its civilian population”
Iraq’s “capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people”
Iraq’s hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of George Bush Sr, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War
Iraq’s connection to terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda
Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States_I do not know why some people are so eager to defend Saddam. Who cares why he was removed. It is a good thing he is out of power.
Without WMD’s, nukes, and links to Al Queda, an invasion of Iraq never would have taken place. Those were THE defining reasons for going to war.
And if anyone is eager to “defend” Saddam, it was America, back in the 80’s. Ever seen that picture of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam’s hand? Or the weapons we supplied Hussein with? He was the same bad guy back then as he was in 2002.
-
Now now Mary . . .
Afterall - SH had WMD - gas - supplied by the US in his possession.That’s kind of interesting. How different is this than a cop with tons of marijuana at home, planting marijuana on someone, and then arresting them for possession after he lights up . . . ?
-
From the Wiki link - reasons listed in war resolution:
you do realize anyone can put anything in a wiki link right? not bashing you just saying, quoting that is like quoting something we have said on this message board as stone cold evidence to acquit OJ…
-
:D No duh. I just didn’t feel like pasting this in, since I already had the wiki link and it did a nice job of summarizing.
Read and enjoy ALL the reasons are there. You, Mary and the others can choose to ignore them if you wish.
How can you guys defend Saddam?
Yeah Mary, the same Saddam where Chirac had a nice French Nuclear Reactor built for him.
Thank goodness the Isreali’s took it out.
We also partnered with Stalin in WW2 another mass murderer. But I’m sure you liked him as well. Communism was a real Boom for them. :roll:
Who gives a sh** why he was taken out? I don’t care if took him out cause he was a Yankees fan. I really don’t care, nor do I care if he and Reagan and the Pope and Mother Teresa all had Christmas dinner together.
And if anyone is eager to “defend” Saddam, it was America, back in the 80’s. Ever seen that picture of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam’s hand? Or the weapons we supplied Hussein with? He was the same bad guy back then as he was in 2002.
LOL!!! So What!
So you’re happy we finally did the right thing and got that ass out of power.
We corrected a grieveous error. We paid for our mistakes. Why do you defend Saddam now.So you’re happy we removed him from power. Good to have you on board Mary. :D
_IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION
107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
October 10, 2002JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in
material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the Presidentto take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations’;Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677’;
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it
supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 andconstitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,’ and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688’;Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to
work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and towork for the necessary resolutions,’ while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable’; Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002’.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to–
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to–
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that–
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
© War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
© RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution._ -
Darth, giving authority to go to war and declaring war are two different things. Congress did not declare war on Iraq. Bush did. Find a link if you think otherwise.
H.J. Res. 114,
October 16, 2002Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (H.J.Res. 114) was a resolution passed in October 2002 by the United States Congress authorizing what was soon to become the Iraq War under the War Powers Resolution. The authorization was sought by U.S. President George W. Bush, and it passed the House by a vote of 296-133 and the Senate by a vote of 77-23, receiving significant support from both major political parties. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.
The act cited several factors to justify a war:
- Iraq’s noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire
- Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a “threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region”
- Iraq’s “brutal repression of its civilian population”
- Iraq’s “capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people”
- Iraq’s hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of George Bush Sr, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War
- Iraq’s connection to terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda
- Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States
The act praised President Bush’s diplomatic efforts at the UN Security Council to “obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.” It authorized him to use military force to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.” Before being permitted to use force, the President was required to determine that further diplomatic efforts alone would not satisfactorily protect the United States or ensure Iraq’s compliance with UNSC resolutions.
The act was significant in that it did not require the President to obtain UN Security Council authorization. Further, even if Iraq complied with UNSC resolutions, the President was still authorized to attack in order to protect the United States. This was, in effect, approval for Bush to act unilaterally. This was viewed among American conservatives as a major impetus for the UNSC’s unanimous adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 a few weeks later.
Will you be quiet now? That was Congress passing a DOW. Just as much as it was Congress who passed the DOW in Vietnam and Korea.
Suggested Topics
