 | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) How about right in the preamble, "provide for the common defense", or how about "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity". Bush has his justifications, even if you don't trust in them. You want to talk about (...) (22 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) The preamble has no force in law, it is used only as support for interpretting the intent of the legislators. This is similar to how the titles of particular statutes are handled. And if you think the word "defense" means invading a non-nuke (...) (22 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) cleaning up the messes the previous administration left. North Korea's nuclear program, thanks to Bill Clinton’s foreign policy; Bin Laden never seriously pursued after the first attack on the world trade center, the attack on the USS Cole, (...) (22 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
