|
Here is my bottom line. If Bush acted incorrectly or illegally, those who have that belief need to address the issue. Bush made his case for war, he got approval. Bush ran for re-election on "staying the course" and won. Bush repeatedly asked for funding for the war and the funding was given. Bush appointed Sec. of Defense on the basis of his war strategy, Congress approved. Bush appointed a general on the basis of a surge strategy, Congress approved. If Congress felt Bush lacked support for the war, how do you explain their actions? If you want more support than what has already been provided, I can't give it to you, because there is nothing new I can add.
On the issue of a personal response to a threat, I accept being held accountable. I never said I had a "right to attack" you or anyone. Even when the threat is real there are legal standards which would be used to determine if the threat was in fact real and if the response to the threat was reasonable. Your example ignored these key factors and implied that I would just capriciously say someone was a threat and use that to justify an attack. I would not do that.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."
|