You didn't say anything in your #25 that required a response from me.
You don't see a point in this thread. Ok, good for you. Why are you responding to it then?
I posted a quote from the former Attorney General and then asked some questions about it. Feel free to try and answer them or not, it's up to you and it's no skin off my nose either way. :shrug:
And if you don't know that there is a difference, legally and practically, between officially declaring war and not officially declaring war then I can't really help you.
So why did you respond to this one?
You don't see a point in this thread. Ok, good for you. Why are you responding to it then?
Because, as I told dcwusmc, you Paul Pods constantly wail that the Iraq war was undeclared, but never seem to say what difference it makes. Would Paul have supported going to Iraq if it had been declared formally? Of course not. Is there any other stance he has taken that would have changed? Uh uh. So why all the jibber-jabber? I want to know. You don't want to say. Usually, that means there IS no answer.
And if you don't know that there is a difference, legally and practically, between officially declaring war and not officially declaring war then I can't really help you.
Neither you nor Paul have elucidated why the difference matters. If either of you could, it would be as easy as linking to a speech in which he explains it, or your addressing it AT LEAST ONCE in the maddog thread, which you have failed to do. It doesn't speak well of a supposedly serious politician that one of his bullet points is a red herring.
Enjoy your illusion.