You're correct and I should have qualified those two exceptions. As you noted however, every instance whether enacted through executive command or the lawful process of Congressional War Powers, was based on propagation of a false narrative in conjunction with false flag events. All instances were known to be false and untrue from their genesis yet still pushed forward by the administration in power and happily repeated and spread by the media working hand in glove with them.
In a macro view, it would seem that the reasons for reverting to the War Powers method had less to do with any regard or concern for following the Constitutional process as was intended and more about properly selling the story to the citizens and preventing blowback or dissent. They likely cared more about justification in relationship to the scale of the conflict, preventing bicameral repudiation of ever-increasing executive power based on the politics of that particular time and which party controlled the two houses of Congress and so on, which made it necessary to greenlight the conflict in the intended way instead of the quick and dirty one.
Following the law just happened to be the best and most politically expedient method in that instance - but they never gave a shit about sticking to the process. It just functioned as a way for the Conservatives to play pretend that they honor and uphold our founding document and respect our citizenry and basic rights - we all know they don't and won't, when push comes to shove.
You're correct and I should have qualified those two exceptions. As you noted however, every instance whether enacted through executive command or the lawful process of Congressional War Powers, was based on propagation of a false narrative in conjunction with false flag events. All instances were known to be false and untrue from their genesis yet still pushed forward by the administration in power and happily repeated and spread by the media working hand in glove with them.
In a macro view, it would seem that the reasons for reverting to the War Powers method had less to do with any regard or concern for following the Constitutional process as was intended and more about properly selling the story to the citizens and preventing blowback or dissent. They likely cared more about justification in relationship to the scale of the conflict, preventing bicameral repudiation of ever-increasing executive power based on the politics of that particular time and which party controlled the two houses of Congress and so on, which made it necessary to greenlight the conflict in the intended way instead of the quick and dirty one.
Following the law just happened to be the best and most politically expedient method in that instance - but they never gave a shit about sticking to the process. It just functioned as a way for the Conservatives to play pretend that they honor and uphold our founding document and respect our citizenry and basic rights - we all know they don't and won't, when push comes to shove.
Godspeed and thanks for your reply!