Ritter has become impressed with sound of his own voice and addicted to the applause of leftists.
Now Ritter's an expert on British public opinion and politics.
The man has gone nuts.
Yep, I bet ol' Scottie was really feeling some uncertainty and trepidation..... mostly wondering if the next check was in the mail.
If it's an international law on fox hunting... maybe.
More likely, the streets of London will be full of terrorist sympathizers and agents of Saddam Hussein.
The mystery is whether a) Scott Ritter is a friggin' liar and isn't embarrassed to make such a bold-faced false claim or b) Scott Ritter is insane and actually believes the Iraqis.
I can't argue against this statement.
So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.
Section. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
My only protester credentials came protesting Clinton's war in Kosovo. Clinton assumed imperial power and Congress backed him (barely) once the war was underway. It was less motivating to protest after that but I did anyway because I felt that it was a conservative thing to do (even in crowds that were mostly far left).
Bush's proposed war has more justification than that war and it is going through our constitutional processes. Once that has been decided, I will support it, stop arguing against it, and I certainly won't protest it.
Who is now paid by the other side.
I thought the code of the Marine Corps was that there were NO former marines, i.e., once a marine, always a marine . . .
A very telling statement from Mr. Ritter
Where there is a rule (treaty) there must be a remedy (penalty for breach). The U.N. and accordant treaties are of no force or effect if one of the signatories exercises its sovereignty in violation thereunder; for there is no means that exists for a remedy: voluntary submission, or disregard without penalty are the real options.
Ritter's citation of the treaties to which the U.S. is party, and the assertion that we are acting unconstitutionally, places the U.N.'s supporters in congress in the strange position of enforcing a foreign entity's will upon a sovereign, elected president; who, it is to be noted from Madison's essay (Fed Papers), has the authority, under a mixed government plan--- such as ours is--- to act as a 'king' in circumstances exigent.
These treaties are a species of the "foreign entanglement" genera of which Washington spoke in his farewell address--as much as any pledge of mutual armed assistance to another nation. They may be disregarded with impunity by the executive at his pleasure, and should be disregarded when the interests of the United States are compromised.
The office of the President is narrow in its scope of authority, but sovereign within than that grant...by design.
It's the duty of Congress to act, upon deliberation, to circumscribe his actions if deemed harmful; so let 'em start deliberating.....and VOTE on it. Otherwise, SHUT UP!
And Ritter: as there ain't no such thing as a 'former Marine', I consider you 'on-duty'....in time of war. Therefor you should be courts-marshalled. Methink you hangworthy.