Nope. You're Unamerican for not supporting existing treaty's and commitments. Deterrence dumb ass. I hated his bullshit too.
Play the scenario where a Nato member is attacked. President already has authorization. Do reiterate what you're undermining? Policy. Not the presidency. It is seditious.
Deployment here is deterrence. It isn't direct deployment because no lawmakers would authorise it. Outside of limited defense, aid, and sanctions. They'd faster have no control.
In any event the mudslinging continues. Although putting it out as why go there, and why not stay at home. He might as well have interviewed a cuckoo or a traitor or asked another crackhead. It wouldn't make any difference. Deployment to existing treaty, above, if attacked has authorization. Bolstering those ranks is therefore deterrence.
Supporting intervention in Europe isn't fully upto any lawmarkers. The president commands the army. It has existing commitments and treaties. Lawmakers aren't cancelling treaty's. They authorise war, within some reasons often already specified, and the sale of arms, and sanctions.
Bemoaning further deployment, who cares what rag says what. It wouldn't make any difference.
No one but the profiteers has ever cared about Ukraine, but now you are unAmerican if you don't.
I'm not fighting Russia so they can keep their money.
Nope. You're Unamerican for not supporting existing treaty's and commitments. Deterrence dumb ass. I hated his bullshit too.
Play the scenario where a Nato member is attacked. President already has authorization. Do reiterate what you're undermining? Policy. Not the presidency. It is seditious.
Deployment here is deterrence. It isn't direct deployment because no lawmakers would authorise it. Outside of limited defense, aid, and sanctions. They'd faster have no control.
In any event the mudslinging continues. Although putting it out as why go there, and why not stay at home. He might as well have interviewed a cuckoo or a traitor or asked another crackhead. It wouldn't make any difference. Deployment to existing treaty, above, if attacked has authorization. Bolstering those ranks is therefore deterrence.
Sure argue some other conspiracy. Tediously.
Clearly direct intervention wasn't granted.
Supporting intervention in Europe isn't fully upto any lawmarkers. The president commands the army. It has existing commitments and treaties. Lawmakers aren't cancelling treaty's. They authorise war, within some reasons often already specified, and the sale of arms, and sanctions.
Bemoaning further deployment, who cares what rag says what. It wouldn't make any difference.