Re: Paul O'Neil
Ralph,<br /> I'm providing law, The Constitution and original intent.<br />Your holding that if its been done it has to be legal. Regardless what is written in The Constitution, original intent and common law.<br />Examples of a Judicial that fails to act on bad law, doesn't trump the Constitution. <br /><br />
Defense is not simply fending off an attack but checking a long term threat like communism or a madman with WMDs
This is opinion Ralph. This is political doctrine, not law.<br />There isn't a single backwoods Sheriff that could legally get away with what lack of proof has led to this war.<br /><br />
Remember WWI? The Germans did not invade us. They were not an imminent threat but you left it off your list. Let's not forget Bosnia either or the 98 attack on Iraq by Clinton.
I'm glad you've been paying attention. <br />Bosnia is a given to my argument. It didn't involve our being attacked and it didn't involve National Security. <br />Yet your OK with this type of action because it's "it's legal because it's been done before and with a law (War Powers Resolution) that is refused to be ruled on it's Constitutionality" regarding non aggressive Countries and not involving National Security?<br />Lets not go around in circles. Again,Constitutionally Bosnia is a non issue to a Federalist and isn't the purpose of our military.<br /><br />Regarding WW1, this is where the business interests were so great that it became National Security. It's through this period of our history that saw the greatest corruption in US government. This was the era of Constitutional amendments (16th, income taxes, 17th, State Senators elected instead of appointed ,negatively effecting accountability to constituents ).<br /><br />Where you've held to your indoctrination that your President should have great powers. And that it's fine to give the government your preference to assume great power.<br />There are some Americans hold dear a Constitution that specifically limits power.<br />Again regarding WW1 where a majority of people (We the people, right?) supported neutrality. The government under heavy private business (Banks in this case), pressured the government to act. So much money was loaned to Europe that if we didn't control the outcome our Banks would loose money.<br />Again, since this was done and politically no one took responsibility. This by your argument is all fine and good with you.<br />The below all sounds cushy with the Constitution with ya Ralph?<br /><br /> "However, what is less clear is whether the majority of the American public could be rallied to support the war. Although the congressional declaration of war was overwhelming (only six senators and fifty representatives voted against it), Kennedy argues this vote substantially underrepresented public opposition to the war (1980, 23). Many senators and representatives were reluctant to vote against the war resolution for fear of alienating powerful political interests. Numerous sources of domestic opposition to the war were still evident in April 1917. President Wilson faced the real danger of attempting to lead a divided nation to war. Consequently, the United States moved quickly and aggressively to establish a propaganda agency of its own which, in the words of its chairman, could turn the American people into one white-hot mass
with fraternity, devotion, courage, and deathless determination (Creel 1920a, 5)."<br /><br />
http://www.isanet.org/noarchive/robertwells.html <br /><br />
Is attempting to assassinate a US President an act of war? Sure it and that is just what Saddam did.
I'd think so Ralph. But wouldn't these claims have to be truthful and credible?<br />History has established government is mostly untruthful and not credible. Believing government at face value leaves you a prime target to its own propaganda.<br />Maybe you can help here Ralph, because all info I'm able to get shows investigations that conclude this charge is without facts and proof and is likely propaganda.<br />I'd love a credible link to some real facts here.<br /><br />
"That is just the facts. If you don't think so, contact moveon.org, if you can convince them of the merit of your arguments I am sure they, and George Soros, will fund your lawsuit."
Not sure where your going here Ralph. Facts are rarely at face value and what is on the surface. I understand that the status quo is a comfortable place to be for most Americans. <br />I'm not looking for a lawsuit, moveon.org or the status quo. I'm looking for the truth.<br /><br />Have good night Ralph.
<br /><br />
Not much of a chance both of us would be invited to a party, eh Ralph?
