If We Took the Constitution Seriously, Obama Would Be Impeached

[midcan5]

The republican party today does nothing (literally nothing) for America and its people. They support their benefactors, corporations and big money, if we were to assume some standard based on the constitution, the entire republican party and lots of democrats would be impeached (or democratically voted out) as neither stands for, nor supports constitutional principles, money manages America today not the constitution, when are people going to realize this. If you want to impeach anyone impeach the corporations, as they are people according to Mitt.

Watch these idiots as an example. Corporate tools. Bank Yankers - Jamie Dimon on Capitol Hill - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 06/14/12 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

 

[Stephanie]

okey dokey, lets watch some comedian for our Political information..

 

[P@triot]

The republican party today does nothing (literally nothing) for America and its people. They support their benefactors, corporations and big money, if we were to assume some standard based on the constitution, the entire republican party and lots of democrats would be impeached (or democratically voted out) as neither stands for, nor supports constitutional principles, money manages America today not the constitution, when are people going to realize this. If you want to impeach anyone impeach the corporations, as they are people according to Mitt.

Watch these idiots as an example. Corporate tools. Bank Yankers - Jamie Dimon on Capitol Hill - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 06/14/12 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

And if you would stop being such a GREEDY, selfish American, and actually read the US Constitution just once in your life, you would realize that the federal government is not there to "do anything for people" as you say.

Because you're too lazy to read the most important document ever created, you don't even know what is the function of our government. You think it exists to provide for you like mommy & daddy did so you don't have to provide for yourself. You liberals let others die for your freedom, then you piss all over their sacrifices trading your freedom for government handouts so you can avoid working. You people are so GREEDY, lazy, and an embarrassment to America.

 

[P@triot]

The republican party today does nothing (literally nothing) for America and its people. They support their benefactors, corporations and big money, if we were to assume some standard based on the constitution, the entire republican party and lots of democrats would be impeached (or democratically voted out) as neither stands for, nor supports constitutional principles, money manages America today not the constitution, when are people going to realize this. If you want to impeach anyone impeach the corporations, as they are people according to Mitt.

Watch these idiots as an example. Corporate tools. Bank Yankers - Jamie Dimon on Capitol Hill - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 06/14/12 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

You do realize Jon Stewart is an idiot comedian, don't you? Who else do you get your "information" from - Eddie Murphy? Bill Murray? Andrew Dice Clay?

 

[SniperFire]

OMG - you have NO IDEA what you are talking about. Why do you comment on something you have never read??? Here is just a tiny excerpt from Wikipedia:

"In July 1993, President Bill Clinton asked regulators to reform the CRA in order to make examinations more consistent, clarify performance standards, and reduce cost and compliance burden."

Mmm - do you see anything there about "discrimination" in "neighborhoods"? Because, I sure don't. I see nothing but language discussing the loan process. I would add a lot more, but I realize that reading is difficult for most liberals (hence why none of you have ever read the US Constitution).

Community Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

actually reading isn't difficult for me at all. but why are you directing me to wikipedia when i told you to actually read the statute?

there is nothing stated in your little wiki link that contradicts the fact that banks were not required to forego their own creditworthiness checks.

why are you lying?

never mind... rhetorical question.

learn to read. it might be helpful at some point in your life.

I was trying to simplify it for you (you have to dumb it down exponentially when dealing with liberals). So how about this FACT for you:

"Add President Clinton to the long list of people who deserve a share of the blame for the housing bubble and bust. A recently re-exposed document shows that his administration went to ridiculous lengths to increase the national homeownership rate. It promoted paper-thin downpayments and pushed for ways to get lenders to give mortgage loans to first-time buyers with shaky financing and incomes. It’s clear now that the erosion of lending standards pushed prices up by increasing demand, and later led to waves of defaults by people who never should have bought a home in the first place."

Wow - once again we see nothing about "discrimination" or "neighborhoods" and everything about lowering lending standards. Funny how we didn't have a "housing market collapse" in the 200+ years before Slick Willy and the idiot liberal policy of Marxism.

So now I've provided verifiable quotes with links while you've yet to provide one fact. You're rapidly losing credibility here. I would say your clearly the liar here, but I think this is more a case of major ignorance about a subject than lying.

Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far - BusinessWeek

Leftists are intentionally obtuse, Rott.



Some CRA criteria that mandated higher risk lending if a bank did not want to be slapped with a negative CRA kiss of death:

- Percentage of loans made in the assessment area

- Distribution of loans among geographic areas, people of different income levels, and businesses of different sizes

- Quality of service for credit needs of extremely economically disadvantaged areas, low-income individuals, and small businesses

- Use of creative lending practices to address credit needs of low- or moderate-income people or neighborhoods

- Level of qualified community development investments and grants, particularly those not routinely provided by private investors

- Use of innovative or complex qualified investments to support community development needs

- Accessibility of services to all geographic areas and people of different income levels

http://www.frbatlanta.org/cra_invok...460-4A73-864B93A6780C7634&method=display_body



It is there in black and white.

What part of a bank using 'Creative lending practices' to service low-income neighborhoods does she not get?




'A key weapon in the Cisneros arsenal was the Clinton administration’s changes to the Community Reinvestment Act. The CRA was passed in 1977 and updated in 1995 to pressure lenders into making more loans to moderate-income borrowers by allowing regulators to deny merger approvals for banks with low CRA ratings. Even complaints brought by activists, such as the leftist group ACORN, were now counted against a bank’s CRA rating. The result was that banks began issuing more loans to otherwise uncreditworthy borrowers while purchasing more CRA mortgage-backed securities. As housing finance expert Peter Wallison noted, “The most important fact associated with the CRA is the effort to reduce underwriting standards. … Once those standards were relaxed … they spread rapidly to the prime market and to subprime markets where loans were made by lenders other than insured banks.”'

The next financial meltdown- and why Andrew Cuomo should be in prison [Reader Post] | Flopping Aces financial-meltdown-and-why-andrew-cuomo-should-b e-in-prison-reader-post/

 

[P@triot]

The USA was not authorized by the UN to act on violations of UN resolutions.

To do so without UN approval was to wage offensive war illegally.

Ok, first of all, America does not answer to the UN. We are a sovereign nation and they have absolutely ZERO authority over us.

Second, we did not wage "war" on Iraq. We did not go in there to kill as many people as we could, plant the US flag on their territory, and place the nation permanently under US control.

What we did do, was conduct military operations to oust a dictator who had WMD's (thousands of chemical weapons have been uncovered in Iraq), who had invaded neighboring nations on multiple occassions, and who had brought massive instability to the world since his reign of terror began. Then, when that objective was completed, we immediately handed control of the nation over to the people of Iraq and provided support for their new democracy.

But of course, since liberals are the party of fascism, oppression, and control, you were much happier with a vicious dictator in power. I swear, only a liberal would complain that Saddam Hussein has been removed from power. I bet you people were pissed when we finally took out Adolf Hitler, uh?

 

[P@triot]

actually reading isn't difficult for me at all. but why are you directing me to wikipedia when i told you to actually read the statute?

there is nothing stated in your little wiki link that contradicts the fact that banks were not required to forego their own creditworthiness checks.

why are you lying?

never mind... rhetorical question.

learn to read. it might be helpful at some point in your life.

I was trying to simplify it for you (you have to dumb it down exponentially when dealing with liberals). So how about this FACT for you:

"Add President Clinton to the long list of people who deserve a share of the blame for the housing bubble and bust. A recently re-exposed document shows that his administration went to ridiculous lengths to increase the national homeownership rate. It promoted paper-thin downpayments and pushed for ways to get lenders to give mortgage loans to first-time buyers with shaky financing and incomes. It’s clear now that the erosion of lending standards pushed prices up by increasing demand, and later led to waves of defaults by people who never should have bought a home in the first place."

Wow - once again we see nothing about "discrimination" or "neighborhoods" and everything about lowering lending standards. Funny how we didn't have a "housing market collapse" in the 200+ years before Slick Willy and the idiot liberal policy of Marxism.

So now I've provided verifiable quotes with links while you've yet to provide one fact. You're rapidly losing credibility here. I would say your clearly the liar here, but I think this is more a case of major ignorance about a subject than lying.

Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far - BusinessWeek

Leftists are intentionally obtuse, Rott.



Some CRA criteria that mandated higher risk lending if a bank did not want to be slapped with a negative CRA kiss of death:

- Percentage of loans made in the assessment area

- Distribution of loans among geographic areas, people of different income levels, and businesses of different sizes

- Quality of service for credit needs of extremely economically disadvantaged areas, low-income individuals, and small businesses

- Use of creative lending practices to address credit needs of low- or moderate-income people or neighborhoods

- Level of qualified community development investments and grants, particularly those not routinely provided by private investors

- Use of innovative or complex qualified investments to support community development needs

- Accessibility of services to all geographic areas and people of different income levels

http://www.frbatlanta.org/cra_invok...460-4A73-864B93A6780C7634&method=display_body

It is there in black and white.

What part of a bank using 'Creative lending practices' to service low-income neighborhoods does she not get?

'A key weapon in the Cisneros arsenal was the Clinton administration’s changes to the Community Reinvestment Act. The CRA was passed in 1977 and updated in 1995 to pressure lenders into making more loans to moderate-income borrowers by allowing regulators to deny merger approvals for banks with low CRA ratings. Even complaints brought by activists, such as the leftist group ACORN, were now counted against a bank’s CRA rating. The result was that banks began issuing more loans to otherwise uncreditworthy borrowers while purchasing more CRA mortgage-backed securities. As housing finance expert Peter Wallison noted, “The most important fact associated with the CRA is the effort to reduce underwriting standards. … Once those standards were relaxed … they spread rapidly to the prime market and to subprime markets where loans were made by lenders other than insured banks.”'

The next financial meltdown- and why Andrew Cuomo should be in prison [Reader Post] | Flopping Aces financial-meltdown-and-why-andrew-cuomo-should-b e-in-prison-reader-post/

Oh, believe me, she and the other idiot liberals get it. They just need to ignore reality, lie, and spread their propaganda to further their fascist cause. If they accept reality, they lose.

Thanks for the additional great information though SniperFire, that was some good stuff.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The USA was not authorized by the UN to act on violations of UN resolutions. To do so without UN approval was to wage offensive war illegally.

Ok, first of all, America does not answer to the UN. We are a sovereign nation and they have absolutely ZERO authority over us. Second, we did not wage "war" on Iraq. We did not go in there to kill as many people as we could, plant the US flag on their territory, and place the nation permanently under US control. What we did do, was conduct military operations to oust a dictator who had WMD's (thousands of chemical weapons have been uncovered in Iraq), who had invaded neighboring nations on multiple occassions, and who had brought massive instability to the world since his reign of terror began. Then, when that objective was completed, we immediately handed control of the nation over to the people of Iraq and provided support for their new democracy. But of course, since liberals are the party of fascism, oppression, and control, you were much happier with a vicious dictator in power. I swear, only a liberal would complain that Saddam Hussein has been removed from power. I bet you people were pissed when we finally took out Adolf Hitler, uh?

You give the name"conservative" a foul odor. You are not a conservative, merely a far reactionary weirdo who twists law, national and international.

One, we cannot use the violation of UN resolutions as grounds to invade, because we are not authorized by the UN to do so.

Two, pre-emptive invasion is indeed offensive warfare, and is illegal by international standards.

Three, those who defend the Bush war are in the same league with those who defended the German invasion of Poland.

You and those who think like you, growing fewer in number every day, are a shame to our beautiful flag and our wonderful country.

 

[P@triot]

The USA was not authorized by the UN to act on violations of UN resolutions. To do so without UN approval was to wage offensive war illegally.

Ok, first of all, America does not answer to the UN. We are a sovereign nation and they have absolutely ZERO authority over us. Second, we did not wage "war" on Iraq. We did not go in there to kill as many people as we could, plant the US flag on their territory, and place the nation permanently under US control. What we did do, was conduct military operations to oust a dictator who had WMD's (thousands of chemical weapons have been uncovered in Iraq), who had invaded neighboring nations on multiple occassions, and who had brought massive instability to the world since his reign of terror began. Then, when that objective was completed, we immediately handed control of the nation over to the people of Iraq and provided support for their new democracy. But of course, since liberals are the party of fascism, oppression, and control, you were much happier with a vicious dictator in power. I swear, only a liberal would complain that Saddam Hussein has been removed from power. I bet you people were pissed when we finally took out Adolf Hitler, uh?

You give the name"conservative" a foul odor. You are not a conservative, merely a far reactionary weirdo who twists law, national and international.

One, we cannot use the violation of UN resolutions as grounds to invade, because we are not authorized by the UN to do so.

Two, pre-emptive invasion is indeed offensive warfare, and is illegal by international standards.

Three, those who defend the Bush war are in the same league with those who defended the German invasion of Poland.

You and those who think like you, growing fewer in number every day, are shame to our beautiful flag and our wonderful country.

Yeah, I know, you're pissed that another fascist dictator was taken out. With each passing day, you lose more of your kind. The oppressive fascist whose ideology aligns with the liberals. Well, at least you still have your posters of Hitler & Hussein on the walls of your bedroom in mommy & daddy's house.

Again I have to say, only a fascist liberal would complain that vicious dictator Saddam Hussein was removed from power and replaced by a democracy (liberals really hate freedom, don't they - they sure prefer their government control).

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ok, first of all, America does not answer to the UN. We are a sovereign nation and they have absolutely ZERO authority over us. Second, we did not wage "war" on Iraq. We did not go in there to kill as many people as we could, plant the US flag on their territory, and place the nation permanently under US control. What we did do, was conduct military operations to oust a dictator who had WMD's (thousands of chemical weapons have been uncovered in Iraq), who had invaded neighboring nations on multiple occassions, and who had brought massive instability to the world since his reign of terror began. Then, when that objective was completed, we immediately handed control of the nation over to the people of Iraq and provided support for their new democracy. But of course, since liberals are the party of fascism, oppression, and control, you were much happier with a vicious dictator in power. I swear, only a liberal would complain that Saddam Hussein has been removed from power. I bet you people were pissed when we finally took out Adolf Hitler, uh?

You give the name"conservative" a foul odor. You are not a conservative, merely a far reactionary weirdo who twists law, national and international.

One, we cannot use the violation of UN resolutions as grounds to invade, because we are not authorized by the UN to do so.

Two, pre-emptive invasion is indeed offensive warfare, and is illegal by international standards.

Three, those who defend the Bush war are in the same league with those who defended the German invasion of Poland.

You and those who think like you, growing fewer in number every day, are shame to our beautiful flag and our wonderful country.

Yeah, I know, you're pissed that another fascist dictator was taken out. With each passing day, you lose more of your kind. The oppressive fascist whose ideology aligns with the liberals. Well, at least you still have your posters of Hitler & Hussein on the walls of your bedroom in mommy & daddy's house.

Again I have to say, only a fascist liberal would complain that vicious dictator Saddam Hussein was removed from power and replaced by a democracy (liberals really hate freedom, don't they - they sure prefer their government control).

Rott has displayed a woeful ignorance of basic law, historical fact, and cultural narrative. He tries to pretend he is a conservative but fails.

SH would have been removed from power through the method that was being used, with the sanctions and the isolation of his country by military forces. Invasion was unnecessary and unlawful and horribly destructive to our military and national armed forces, as well as to the people of Iraq. Iraq now drifts closer to Iran because of neo-con failures.

Rott has been schooled by his-conservative betters but refuses to listen, merely underlining his willful ignorance.

 

[buckeye45_73]

You give the name"conservative" a foul odor. You are not a conservative, merely a far reactionary weirdo who twists law, national and international.

One, we cannot use the violation of UN resolutions as grounds to invade, because we are not authorized by the UN to do so.

Two, pre-emptive invasion is indeed offensive warfare, and is illegal by international standards.

Three, those who defend the Bush war are in the same league with those who defended the German invasion of Poland.

You and those who think like you, growing fewer in number every day, are shame to our beautiful flag and our wonderful country.

Yeah, I know, you're pissed that another fascist dictator was taken out. With each passing day, you lose more of your kind. The oppressive fascist whose ideology aligns with the liberals. Well, at least you still have your posters of Hitler & Hussein on the walls of your bedroom in mommy & daddy's house.

Again I have to say, only a fascist liberal would complain that vicious dictator Saddam Hussein was removed from power and replaced by a democracy (liberals really hate freedom, don't they - they sure prefer their government control).

Rott has displayed a woeful ignorance of basic law, historical fact, and cultural narrative. He tries to pretend he is a conservative but fails.

SH would have been removed from power through the method that was being used, with the sanctions and the isolation of his country by military forces. Invasion was unnecessary and unlawful and horribly destructive to our military and national armed forces, as well as to the people of Iraq. Iraq now drifts closer to Iran because of neo-con failures.

Rott has been schooled by his-conservative betters but refuses to listen, merely underlining his willful ignorance.

Jake sanctions are a joke, they werent working. Hussein gave a shit about his people, he reminds me of....Castro....who again is STILL there, sanctions are crap, dont work, never have, never will.
And how was invasion unlawful?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The sanctions were working, and you neo-cons' and your failures are jokes, other than so many people died because of your lack of understanding. Castro has nothing to do with SH, and we would have been acting just as illegally to invade Cuba.

You are pretending to be a conservative but are only a weirdo reactionary.

But Romney will take your vote and ignore you, rightfully so.

Jake sanctions are a joke, they werent working. Hussein gave a shit about his people, he reminds me of....Castro....who again is STILL there, sanctions are crap, dont work, never have, never will. And how was invasion unlawful?

 

[jillian]

"blix came out and said that the inspections were going ok"

Blix actually said he was stone-walled at every turn and then his entire inspection team was thrown out of Iraq. Saddam asked for 4 more days before he would let any inspection teams back in (which never happened).

Why do you keep lying? You live in the information age where debunking your lies (as I have done in several posts now) is very easy to do.

if i were you, perhaps i wouldn't choose to do the thing...

here, read... learn...

hans blix final report...

Transcript of Blix's remarks - CNN

the iraq resolution...

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

online dictionary in case the words are too big for you

Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online

don't be too hard on yourself though... you're not responsible for your limited intellect.

but you are responsible for not reading actual source material and relying on only other rightwingnut hacks like yourself.

enjoy!

and good night.

Jillian how many resolutions do you need? Let me guess if your man cheated on you 17 times, you'd be ok with that? IF so, can I be you man?

not the point. it was our congress that put certain restrictions on him. we aren't discussing UN resolutions.

 

[Polk]

The 70's bad economy began in 1973-4 with a recession and a stock market crash under President Ford, moron.

The Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977 ignoramous.


I love how righty always blames Democratic Presidents for whichever recession was nearest to their term in office - even if it began BEFORE they took office .

not to mention that CRA had very little to do with the crash...

well, except to racists who have trouble with the fact that it outlawed redlining...

Yeah - giving loans to people who were previously rejected because they couldn't afford the loans had "nothing" to do with the housing market collapse (just an AMAZING coincidence, right?). You people would prefer everyone die of poverty than admit your ideology creates failure. You guys are truly pathetic. Just like the Nazi's - will follow the failed ideology to the death.

Except that's not what the CRA did. It didn't even encourage the subprime practice.

 

[Polk]

Because Bush didn't violate the Constitution, so what could he be "imprisoned" for? Despite the extreme ignorance of liberals claiming other wise, it is a fact that Bush went before Congress and got authorization for military action against Iraq. But he didn't stop there. He then went before the UN as well. It was the most legal "war" in world history.

But come on liberals, fill us all with your stories of fictional fantasy on how "Bush took us into an 'illegal' war"

maybe he violated the constitution. maybe not.

but this president isn't violating the constitution either.

so you can rant and rave and stamp your widdle feet.

you sound ridiculous.

neither bush nor obama started wars illegally. obama was well within the war powers act.

bush did, however, violate the requirements of the resolution empowering him to act vis a vis iraq.

they also violated the geneva conventions.

so long as the warrant requirement has been done away with, imo, BOTH presidents are violating the 4th amendment

and the bush administration outed a CIA agent.

go figure.

1.) The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107-243, 116*Stat.*1498, enacted October*16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq. (so much on your misinformation on resolutions)

2.) The Geneva Conventions apply to soldiers only, not terrorists who do not wear uniforms or represent a country.

Perhaps you should start reading before commenting...

You're right, Bush did not violate the Geneva Conventions. He did violate the Convention on Torture though.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Does Rottweiler know the difference between US resolutions and UN resolutions?

Does he not understand that the USA has no international legal right to enforce UN resolutions?

 

[Polk]

The USA was not authorized by the UN to act on violations of UN resolutions.

To do so without UN approval was to wage offensive war illegally.

you have got to be kidding, right

He's absolutely right. It's also hard to claim Iraq should abide by the terms of the resolution when the United States had been in material breach the entire time.

 

[Polk]

actually reading isn't difficult for me at all. but why are you directing me to wikipedia when i told you to actually read the statute?

there is nothing stated in your little wiki link that contradicts the fact that banks were not required to forego their own creditworthiness checks.

why are you lying?

never mind... rhetorical question.

learn to read. it might be helpful at some point in your life.

I was trying to simplify it for you (you have to dumb it down exponentially when dealing with liberals). So how about this FACT for you:

"Add President Clinton to the long list of people who deserve a share of the blame for the housing bubble and bust. A recently re-exposed document shows that his administration went to ridiculous lengths to increase the national homeownership rate. It promoted paper-thin downpayments and pushed for ways to get lenders to give mortgage loans to first-time buyers with shaky financing and incomes. It’s clear now that the erosion of lending standards pushed prices up by increasing demand, and later led to waves of defaults by people who never should have bought a home in the first place."

Wow - once again we see nothing about "discrimination" or "neighborhoods" and everything about lowering lending standards. Funny how we didn't have a "housing market collapse" in the 200+ years before Slick Willy and the idiot liberal policy of Marxism.

So now I've provided verifiable quotes with links while you've yet to provide one fact. You're rapidly losing credibility here. I would say your clearly the liar here, but I think this is more a case of major ignorance about a subject than lying.

Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far - BusinessWeek

Leftists are intentionally obtuse, Rott.



Some CRA criteria that mandated higher risk lending if a bank did not want to be slapped with a negative CRA kiss of death:

- Percentage of loans made in the assessment area

- Distribution of loans among geographic areas, people of different income levels, and businesses of different sizes

- Quality of service for credit needs of extremely economically disadvantaged areas, low-income individuals, and small businesses

- Use of creative lending practices to address credit needs of low- or moderate-income people or neighborhoods

- Level of qualified community development investments and grants, particularly those not routinely provided by private investors

- Use of innovative or complex qualified investments to support community development needs

- Accessibility of services to all geographic areas and people of different income levels

http://www.frbatlanta.org/cra_invok...460-4A73-864B93A6780C7634&method=display_body



It is there in black and white.

What part of a bank using 'Creative lending practices' to service low-income neighborhoods does she not get?




'A key weapon in the Cisneros arsenal was the Clinton administration’s changes to the Community Reinvestment Act. The CRA was passed in 1977 and updated in 1995 to pressure lenders into making more loans to moderate-income borrowers by allowing regulators to deny merger approvals for banks with low CRA ratings. Even complaints brought by activists, such as the leftist group ACORN, were now counted against a bank’s CRA rating. The result was that banks began issuing more loans to otherwise uncreditworthy borrowers while purchasing more CRA mortgage-backed securities. As housing finance expert Peter Wallison noted, “The most important fact associated with the CRA is the effort to reduce underwriting standards. … Once those standards were relaxed … they spread rapidly to the prime market and to subprime markets where loans were made by lenders other than insured banks.”'

The next financial meltdown- and why Andrew Cuomo should be in prison [Reader Post] | Flopping Aces financial-meltdown-and-why-andrew-cuomo-should-b e-in-prison-reader-post/

If your claims were true, these practices would not have occurred at banks who were not subject to CRA requirements. Instead, they are actually more common at those banks.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The USA was not authorized by the UN to act on violations of UN resolutions.

To do so without UN approval was to wage offensive war illegally.

you have got to be kidding, right

He's absolutely right. It's also hard to claim Iraq should abide by the terms of the resolution when the United States had been in material breach the entire time.

stephanie does not get get that international law applies to the US as well.