With that violence as the backdrop, Democratic leaders offered support for Obama to use a 2002 law authorizing then-President George W. Bush to take action in Iraq as the legal authority for new strikes.

“I do not believe the President needs any further legislative authority to pursue the particular options for increased security assistance discussed today,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement released after the meeting. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has previously backed that position.

See: http://thehill.com/policy/defense/209838-obama-to-leaders-iraq-plan-wont-require-congressional-vote

and of course, W's 'old' law covers just about anything that happened/s.

If the government of a state, in being and recognized, should request assistance in suppressing rebellion, and receive it, in no sense is the country that government rules considered to be attacked by the power assisting its government.

Is America now in the business of judging who are the rebels in another country and how bad they are enough for one nation to bomb another? How legitimate is the requesting government, or not? What about the U.N., isn't that their role in an international conflict?

Do you agree America should be not only the world police but also the judge and executioner?

A government is the agent of a country. If the government solicits a foreign power's military assistance in some crisis, said military action is not carried out against the country, but on its behalf. You may think the action wrong or misguided on any number of levels, should it occur, but it is not 'an attack on the country' or 'America judging' or being 'judge and executioner'. You might as well say that a wife being struck be her husband who calls police for assistance is calling for an attack on her family....

Get with the plan.

If DU people truly are in favor of expertise over political expediency and opinion, then why the disagreement with the experts?

Is that any better than cons not believing the experts on climate disruption?

One is based pretty much on opinion and the other is based upon FACT.

of more trust in the experts than the others.

. . . if requested by Iraq. I understand that's already happened. Not a straightforward or wise action, imo, but I don't think such a response would be outside of the law.

Obama has stated that won't happen.

But...there are other "boots on the ground" that slip in the door that won't be called that ...is what worries ME.

There's NO WAY Obama wants Iraq to disintigrate before his eyes..and he will do all in his power to keep that from Happening....whether it's concealed or uncovered later....it just isn't going to happen on "HIS WATCH."

BUT....it's possible we will find out later after years of discovery when he is long gone....what the truth of it all was....and, by then, no one will care.

And....I'm not blaming HIM but our System of Governance..for a few decades now.