No, your rhetoric is nonsense. Waxing hysterical over one salvo of cruise missiles, when the United States hasn't declared war on anyone in over 75 years, is about as nonsensical as you can get.
I guess you'd prefer a declaration of war so things could really get geared up and escalated?
In any event, your hypersensitivity about what is basically a semantic consideration is simply absurd.
A declaration of war—thereby telegraphing the operation—is inadvisable on both theoretical and practical grounds.
I'm satisfied with Ted Cruz's take on this incident. He made a thoughtful, incisive statement, as did the President. Ted Cruz is being a statesman; if he—at some point in the future—becomes hysterical regarding the Constitutional propriety of this limited military operation, then I'll re-evaluate my position.
Until then, this remains a matter for calm, rational thought, as opposed to disingenuous and/or knee-jerk accusations of unconstitutionality...
when the United States hasn’t declared war on anyone in over 75 years, is about as nonsensical as you can get.
In other words, because for a long time courts considered Federal Minimum Wages constitutional, pointing out that they aren’t is ‘as nonsensical as you can get’.
In sargon’s world breaking the law is something not to be opposed if it’s been done for a long enough time.
Firstly, there is no hysteria on my part.
Secondly, your rhetoric is disingenuous. For example, you allege that I would “prefer a declaration of war so things could really get geared up and escalated”. I have said nothing of the sort. Like your allegation of hysteria, your rhetoric is baseless nonsense.
Thirdly, violating the clear terms of the Constitution is hardly a “semantic consideration”.