Shame voter’s remorse doesn’t count.
You beat me to it, John. Damn you.
As to the OP…let’s chat after the 2006 midterm elections. One of us will not be a happy camper. It’ll be fun to see who it will be.
SWhe did not take responsibility for the fires, only for the decision to use the smoke bombs that caused the morons inside to START the fires.
BBC News, Thursday, August 26, 1999, Published at 17:43 GMT 18:43 UK
I think it’s pretty stupid to call them idiots.
Waco Tribune-Herald. June 27, 2000, Document ID: 105E59CC6DAC28B0
[/QUOTE]
Accelerants my ass. They had been running suicide drills for months in that place. They had drums of fuel set up just for that. Surviving witnesses from inside the compound testified that BD’s set the fires themselves. The imbeciles killed themselves and murdered their own children. They get not a drop of sympathy from me. Blaming Janet Reno is not only wrong but immoral.
Bush is in Iraq illegally and lied to get there. The feds were at the Waco compound LEGALLY and their allegations about the compound were CORRECT.
Huge difference.
Why would you? All she did was enforce a federal court order as her job required. What should she have done, defied the order?
I applauded her for being able to save a child from kidnappers without injuring either the kidnappers or the idots protesting outside.
I applaud her for taking such bold steps to save Dade County from the grips of Satanic child molestation cults.
I’m an “anyone but red” person myself, and even I was prepared to vote for Jeb over Janet in 2000.
She wasn’t saving Dade County from anything, she was enforcing a court order to return a child to his father.
I ask again, what SHOULD she have done, defied the order? Why?
Maybe she should have asked Congress to pass a special “Save Elian” law?
That’s a matter of debate, not a fact. Now, if Bush is arrested and found guilty for invading Iraq, was can all agree that his actions were illegal.
Baloney. It was illegal by the letter of the law. “Arrest” has nothing to do with it. There was no defensive purpose for the invasion. We know that for a fact. There is no other legal justification for an attack on sovereignty. We know that for a fact. There is simply no theory by which the invasion could be legal. The UN may not be able to do anything about it, but there is no question that we acted in defiance of the UN Charter.
We’ve been over this a million times. There are different ways to interpret the law, but the simple fact remains: The president was duly aurhorized by Congress to act, and he did. The default position for that action must be that it is legal until determined otherwise in a court of law.
Excellent point, John! It flauts international custom, civic responsibility, and virtually every tenet of common decency. But, no, technically not illegal.
I, for one, am proud to know that our Fearless Leader is not currently indictable. My esteem for him rises precisely to that extent.
US law is irrelevant. You might as well cite Iraq “authority” to legitimize the invasion of Kuwait (or in manufacturing banned weapons for that matter). The US Congress does not have the authority to override the UN Charter.
It’s only illegal if you get caught? Interesting moral standard there.
FTR, we have indeed been over the Congressional resolution many times. It would be helpful for you to consider if what Bush did is really what it authorized, though.
**DtC **did not make the accusation that it “flauts international custom, civic responsibility …”. He made the accusation that it was illegal. So I responded to that accusation. Yeah, pretty crazy, huh? Of course, I should have responded to the accusations that weren’t made so I forthwith respond, in the affirmative, to all the accustations that weren’t made.
It was illegal. It violated international law as defined by the UN Charter. It is illegal to violate the Charter. Congress can not wave a magic wand and make it legal because Congress does not have any jurisdiction to do so.
Furthermore, Congress did not directly authorize the invasion, they only (stupidly) gave Bush the authoruty to use military force if necessary. We all know that Bush promptly abused that authority and used it unnecessarily to attack the sovereignty of another country non-defensively and without just cause.
This is rather . . . naive. Wasn’t Lyndon Johnson a democrat?
Didn’t he order the invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965 in an attempt to restore the presidency of that nation to Juan Bosch after he’d been overthrown?
Didn’t Johnson order the bombing of North Vietnam in response to the Gulf of Tonkin incident - the evidence for which is pretty scanty? Granted, that was done after the Senate had passed the “Gulf of Tonkin” resolution, but was not the Senate controlled by Deomocrats? And the resolution certainly didn’t authorize Johnson’s massive buildup, nor was it a declaration of war.
Now, I don’t wish to argue with you over Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq - or his self-serving justifications for it, but a statement such as you have made is patently false. The United States has a long, long history of invasions of probably illegal (by United Nations standards) military actions ranging over the entire globe. These have been perpetrated by elected officials from both the Republican and Democratic parties.
Fuck the UN charter and so-called international law. We don’t need another tyrant above the level of Bush.
Don’t want to hijack this thread – but the reason he ordered the invasion was actually the exact opposite of your claim. US troops helped crush the popular uprising that was attempting to re-store Bosch.
Johnson was convinced that Bosch was a lefty of communist persuation and that the uprising was backed/financed by Castro. He was wrong on both counts.