Exactly. Thus, it is subject to greater scrutiny and held to a higher standard. One Clinton surpassed, but Bush has not.
Not exactly. Firing missiles without a) the precedent of 2001/09/11 because b) you got a blowjob from an intern with the excuse that c) Iraq failed to meet deadlines is wanton at best. Not only is it reckless, it is ineffectual. Nothing came of it, thus provoking future inspections and the situation that the UN spectacularly failed to corral.
Why would a permanent member of the UN Security Council vow to veto a drafted resolution it hasn't even laid eyes upon?
That's like The A's not even making a long term offer to Tejada...Er...
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
Exactly. Thus, it is subject to greater scrutiny and held to a higher standard. One Clinton surpassed, but Bush has not.
Not exactly. Firing missiles without a) the precedent of 2001/09/11 because b) you got a blowjob from an intern with the excuse that c) Iraq failed to meet deadlines is wanton at best. Not only is it reckless, it is ineffectual. Nothing came of it, thus provoking future inspections and the situation that the UN spectacularly failed to corral.
Why would a permanent member of the UN Security Council vow to veto a drafted resolution it hasn't even laid eyes upon?
That's like The A's not even making a long term offer to Tejada...Er...