|
How do I defend his actions?
As the acting arm of the National government his most basic function is to provide for the common defence of America. In war you serve no master but your ambition, however the American political climate doesn't allow for that. If people had their way we would no doubt need lawyers embedded with our troops for all circumstances of engagement and action lest the big bad America commit some "grievous" war crimes.
Why is it that the executive is vested with the power and command of the armed forces? Because if it was in the hands of congress it would be entirely to political, which is exactly what is going on in Iraq, or the broader "war on terra". It is arguable in many instances whether Bush violated international law, but in instances where he did, I could really give two shits because I have yet to see any violation of sovereign American rights, and that's all I am concerned with.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.
|