Re: O.T. - Saddam's yellowcake

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:11:48 -0400, Observer wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 12:38:48 -0700 (PDT), hot-ham-and-cheese@xxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:

On Jul 26, 4:29 pm, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon_...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 07:50:50 -0700, Robert Sturgeon wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:13:31 -0300, Curly Surmudgeon
<CurlySurmudgeon_...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:50:19 -0700, Robert Sturgeon wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:55:26 -0300, Curly Surmudgeon
<CurlySurmudgeon_...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 09:25:25 -0700, Robert Sturgeon wrote:

Yes, Bush II is a damned fool.  But he was right about Saddam's
quest for WMDs.

Are you implying that his illegal invasion of Iraq was justified?

First, the claim that it was illegal is too much of a stretch.

What part of the requirement of a Congressional Declaration of War do
you not understand?  There has been none, only a whimpy Clowngress
who refuses to honor their oath of office and an insane Executive
Branch.

There have been many instances in which the U.S. president ordered
troops into conflict without a declaration -- going back to the wars
against France and the Barbary States around the turn of the 19th
century.  None of them have been declared "illegal" by any court.
 Why would the latest be the first?  Now, if you'd like to argue
that ALL the undeclared wars were illegal, and therefore all the
presidents should have been prosecuted, well then, OK.

You hit the nail on the head.  _ALL_ undeclared wars are illegal but
distinguish between the need for Presidential power to engage troops
for National Defense.  However when Clowngress fails to Declare War
then, I believe, there is a time limit within which the President must
disengage.

Both the Executive and Legislative branch have violated the oath to
obey the Constitution.

I can't agree, but at least you'd have some consistency.  But in
general, those wishing to prosecute Bush II had no such desire to
prosecute previous presidents -- especially not the Democrat
presidents.

What makes you think I didn't call for similar action against other
presidents?

Because you are a liberal socialist, that's why. At another time you
claimed to be an anarchist.

I think you don't know what you are except for one thing... a Bush hater.

Curly probably didn't like Klinton, as well. Correct me if I'm wrong
Curly. AND it is possible to hate what a particular person does, WITHOUT
hating the man behind the actions.

Correct, I detested Clinton for entirely different reasons than Bush. And
it's getting pretty old when the wacko right harps on Clinton every time a
new Bush crime comes to light. In the words of Dr. McCoy, "He's dead, Jim."

Bush is the president, like it or not, even if he robbed the election
through election fraud, he's the man in the hot seat. That's what he
wanted, that's what he's responsible for. Bush if a fuckup of titanic
proportions, everything he's touched has turned to *** and he destroyed
my country and society.

Not just Bush but everyone who voted for him and every Democrat who voted
for those traitors in Congress who rubber-stamped his stampede to a
fascist dicatatorship.

_Especially_ those who continue to defend our Fuckup-In-Chief. Especially
those traitors. The very thought of the Bush Administration standing in
cuffs in front of Hague War Crimes Tribunal keeps me sane.

I wouldn't bother with "justified."  I'd use "necessary."  Not
necessary = not a Good Idea.  It was not necessary.  The 1991
war wasn't necessary either.  The wars in Vietnam, Korea, WWII,
WWI, Spain -- none of them were necessary.

None of those were "Wars".

If the difference between a "war" and some other designation is a
declaration, then the wars against Spain, WWI, and WWII were all
"wars." You ARE aware that those wars were preceded by proper
declarations, aren't you?  Surely you can't be that ignorant...

That's the point, obey the Constitution.  You finally stumbled upon
the legal requirement for a "war."

-- Regards, Curly

Mr. Dual Citizen, which constitution do you obey?

Er, last *I* checked, the US Constitution was to rein in the powers of
the government, not the citizen.

You might better ask what constitution Bush obeys.

None, he obeys the voice of god in his head.

__

Peak oil? I dunno.

Obama vs McCain? PEAK BULL***!

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://judicial.homeunix.net/~curly/bushire.jpeg
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.