Author Topic: Vermont candidate to prosecute Bush if she wins  (Read 19221 times)

Intune

  • New Member
  • Posts: 78
    • The Shakes
Re: Vermont candidate to prosecute Bush if she wins
« Reply #50 on: September 23, 2008, 03:56:01 AM »
Carebear-
Quote
Once Saddam broke just one, it was on with no further discussion required.

The fact is that we kept giving Saddam second chances when GW II could have lawfully been kicked off by any signatory a dozen times prior for simple violations of the no-fly zones.
Yep.

Interesting read.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/Feb2004/0204war.asp
The two no-fly zones were, from December 1998 onward, the scenes of a long series of duels between US and British air forces and the Iraqi land-based air defenses, with occasional probes and challenges by Iraqi aircraft, said Cordesman. He continued: The Iraqis lost all of these duels and suffered a steady attrition of their land-based defense capabilities. It must have also become apparent that the Iraqi Air Force could not successfully challenge US and British forces in air combat.

It must not have been apparent to Saddam Hussein, however. According to a January 1999 Iraqi news report, the dictator had offered a $14,000 bounty to any unit that succeeded in shooting down an allied airplane and an additional $2,800 reward to anyone who managed to capture a coalition pilot.

Saddam had ousted UN weapons inspectors in late 1998, and, in response, in mid-December 1998, President Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox, four days of air strikes that targeted suspected weapons of mass destruction sites, Republican Guard facilities, and air defense systems. After those strikes, the Iraqis became even more aggressive in their attacks on coalition aircraft.

Before Desert Fox, the coalition tended to confine its response to an Iraqi attack to the attacks immediate source. On Jan. 27, 1999, the Clinton Administration revised the rules of engagement (ROE), permitting US aircraft to target a wider range of Iraqi air defense systems and related installations. Pilots could not only defend themselves but also act to reduce the overall Iraqi air defense threat to coalition aircraft.

From 1999 onward, Iraq mounted more than 1,000 AAA attacks, launched 600 rockets, and fired some 60 SAMs. On Feb. 16, 2001, 24 US and British aircraft struck five Iraqi air defense command and control installations. The goal was to disrupt a fiber optic cable network that China was installing for the Iraqi military. On July 24, 2001, Iraqi forces fired a SAM at a U-2 spyplane, narrowly missing.

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the US, there was a brief lull in Iraqs provocations. It lasted just two months. Iraq subsequently resumed full-throttle attacks.

In 2001, Iraq showed a considerably more aggressive stance in trying to bring down a coalition aircraft, said Rear Adm. Craig R. Quigley, a Pentagon spokesman. The motivation, said Quigley, was the reward that Saddam offered on several occasions. He is trying his darnedest to bring down a coalition aircraft, said Quigley.

Quigley added that the volume of fire was up throughout Northern and Southern Watch, as compared to the same period in the preceding year.

In the first nine months of 2002, Iraq fired upon OSW aircraft 206 times and ONW aircraft 200 times. The coalition responses to those 406 attacks numbered about 60. As the Iraqi attacks continuedaccording to CENTCOM, they totaled nearly 500 for all of 2002the number of coalition responses rose to about 90 for the year.

Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reminded reporters at a Sept. 30, 2002, briefing that the Iraqi attacks were not limited to AAA and SAMs. Iraqi military aircraft, he said, were also violating the no-fly zone airspace. Iraqi fighter aircraft flew into no-fly zone airspace about seven times between Jan. 1 and Sept. 20, said Myers. On Sept. 24, three Iraqi MiG-25s violated Operation Southern Watch airspace, flying deep into the no-fly zone area.

Pentagon officials maintained that coalition actions, though focused on a new target set, were the direct result of Iraqi attacks on coalition aircraft. To the extent they keep shooting at our airplanes, ... we keep engaging in response options, said Rumsfeld at a mid-September 2002 briefing. He added that, if those response options are harmful to their air defense, which they are, then thats good.

Commenting about Southern Focus after the war, Moseley said, If the Iraqi forces had stopped threatening or actually shooting at the aircraft, ... we would not have had to use force against any of the military targets.

According to the Air Force, coalition aircrews dropped 606 bombs on 391 targets during Southern Focus, which lasted from June 2002 to the March 20, 2003, start of Gulf War II. At the peak of Iraqi attacks, Saddams forces were firing more than a dozen missiles and rockets per day at coalition forces. On one day, Iraq fired 15 SAMs.


anygunanywhere

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 142
Re: Vermont candidate to prosecute Bush if she wins
« Reply #51 on: September 23, 2008, 04:34:13 AM »

Saddam had ousted UN weapons inspectors in late 1998, and, in response, in mid-December 1998, President Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox, four days of air strikes that targeted suspected weapons of mass destruction sites

How can this be? I thought Bush perpetrated the WMD story.

Anygunanywhere

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 34,595
Re: Vermont candidate to prosecute Bush if she wins
« Reply #52 on: September 23, 2008, 06:17:32 PM »
Quote
as it was voted on in Congress

This is different from Congress declaring war, technically.
But that technicality hasn't been important since Jefferson. 
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: Vermont candidate to prosecute Bush if she wins
« Reply #53 on: September 24, 2008, 01:45:37 AM »
Quote
as it was voted on in Congress

This is different from Congress declaring war, technically.
But that technicality hasn't been important since Jefferson. 

The last time Congress declared war was far more recent.

Of course, most of the Constitution is a 'technicality' to some people.
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: Vermont candidate to prosecute Bush if she wins
« Reply #54 on: September 24, 2008, 05:37:28 AM »
Quote
as it was voted on in Congress

This is different from Congress declaring war, technically.
But that technicality hasn't been important since Jefferson. 

The last time Congress declared war was far more recent.

Of course, most of the Constitution is a 'technicality' to some people.

MB:

His point was that Congress during the Jefferson admin used language similar to that used by Congress to authorize GWII when the Jefferson Congress authorized Jefferson to go after the Barbary Pirates.

So, was TJ and his contemporary Congress treating the COTUS as a "technicality," in your opinion?
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

ilbob

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,546
    • Bob's blog
Re: Vermont candidate to prosecute Bush if she wins
« Reply #55 on: September 24, 2008, 09:09:50 AM »
I would argue there is no format specified in the constitution over just what constitutes a declaration of war. Congress explicitly authorized the use of force, and than has appropriated funds to pay for it. I don't see how a certificate that says "declaration of war" on it makes it any more or less legal, or moral for that matter.
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 34,595
Re: Vermont candidate to prosecute Bush if she wins
« Reply #56 on: September 24, 2008, 01:17:44 PM »
Thanks jfuser.  That is exactly it.  When a "technicality" is 200+ years old, it is a precedent, not a technicality.  As ilbob mentioned, the "technicality" is the ridiculous notion that the lack of a few words on the letterhead somehow makes Congress' authorization invalid. 

Historically, US Presidents have been sending troops on various activities outside our borders since the country was founded.  The Barbary Pirates are a good example of why that is necessary.  Presidents sending Marines all over South America in the early 1900's represent some examples of how it can be bad. 
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,859
Re: Vermont candidate to prosecute Bush if she wins
« Reply #57 on: September 24, 2008, 09:53:44 PM »
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement

As far as a question of international law, paragraphs 4, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are most problematic for the Bush theory.

If you don't believe international law exists or matters, what would be the cause for war against Saddam's Iraq, exactly? The only crime he was proven to have committed was non-compliance with...international laws.  Yet another catch-22 in explaining this situation.

I really do believe that the largest part of argument in support of the legality of the war is simply a facade for "America does what it will because it has the power to do it." 

Not a good direction to take in international affairs, imho, but that's a separate debate.

The question of what gives a war power in America is especially interesting.  It's true that the "declared war" thing has been a technicality from the beginning; but then again that was also true of free speech, so it doesn't necessarily mean that the vesting of the power to declare war in Congress should be meaningless by design.

Personally, after all the "adventures" we've been taken through for little apparent public reason in the past decades, I think an amendment is in order:  The President may start a war as he chooses, but must ratify the war by referendum within one year after the initiation of hostilities....if the war is voted down, the President loses his seat and the VP steps in to arrange a new presidential election.

That way, you leave the power to defend America immediately in the hands of the executive, but it's still accountable to the population.  If there's a good reason for a war, it ought to be apparent to the voters.  And if isn't apparent, I don't want decisions being made that require the sacrifice of the whole country without the whole country having a say.

"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: Vermont candidate to prosecute Bush if she wins
« Reply #58 on: September 25, 2008, 05:11:07 AM »
If you don't believe international law exists or matters, what would be the cause for war against Saddam's Iraq, exactly? The only crime he was proven to have committed was non-compliance with...international laws.  Yet another catch-22 in explaining this situation.

Let me quote what I wrote earlier in this thread:
Quote from: jfruser
Third, Iraq after GWI was defeated and signed a cease-fire agreement.  Iraq then violated the cease-fire agreement every day and twice on Sundays.  We needed no one's permission to go back and finish the job.

We had a bilateral agreement (ceasefire) with Iraq.  They violated it numerous times.  That is but one of several reasons.

No Catch-22 to be seen.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

Intune

  • New Member
  • Posts: 78
    • The Shakes
Re: Vermont candidate to prosecute Bush if she wins
« Reply #59 on: September 25, 2008, 05:47:09 AM »
Quote
If you don't believe international law exists or matters, what would be the cause for war against Saddam's Iraq, exactly? The only crime he was proven to have committed was non-compliance with...international laws.  Yet another catch-22 in explaining this situation.

The United States does not recognize the jurisdiction of any international court over its citizens or military, holding that the United States Supreme Court is its final authority. One example of this policy is that the United States did not ratify the International Criminal Court (ICC) treaty, and on 6 May 2002 it informed the UN that it has no intention to do so.

As of 24 February 2005 neither Iraq nor the United States have ratified the ICC treaty, and therefore neither the US attack on Iraq nor subsequent actions in Iraq fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC.

Article 2 of the United Nations Charter forbids UN members from employing "the threat or use of force" against other states in a manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Two exceptions exist to the rule: self-defense (Article 51) or an authorization by the Security Council to protect international peace and security (Chapter VII).  I would venture that 1,600+ attacks on U.S. citizens meets Article 51 about 1,599 times...  police

In 1973, amid increasing domestic controversy about the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to limit the ability of the president to undertake prolonged military action without Congressional authority. No president since has recognized the constitutionality of this act, and most legal scholars believe it would not survive a challenge in court.

To avoid initiating a crisis under the War Powers Resolution, the Bush administration sought explicit approval from the Congress to exercise force in Iraq.

It appears to me that Ms. Charlotte Dennett, should she win, will have to go after every member who put forward a yea vote.  Anything less would show her true colors.   angel

Quote
If there's a good reason for a war, it ought to be apparent to the voters.  And if isn't apparent, I don't want decisions being made that require the sacrifice of the whole country without the whole country having a say.


 You live in the wrong country.  rolleyes In the U.S. we have a Republic.  We vote for representatives to represent us, hence the name. 

There may be a small tribe deep in the Congo that functions with the type of government you desire but I doubt it.  Talk about gridlock!  Should your upcoming expedition prove fruitless, I believe that you should begin scouring the market for a sizable amount of rocket fuel and a used, serviceable, interplanetary vehicle.  grin 

Could you do us a favor?  Should you find utopia, please send us a little message with the coordinates.  Just us though.  We'll keep it a secret.  All of the other people in the world are delighted with their governments.  No, really.  Delighted!

SS, please dont take any of the above as you should move, youre not an American personal attack tripe.  Im just yankin yer chain a bit.  grin

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,859
Re: Vermont candidate to prosecute Bush if she wins
« Reply #60 on: September 25, 2008, 06:39:59 AM »
Quote
We had a bilateral agreement (ceasefire) with Iraq.  They violated it numerous times.  That is but one of several reasons.

Going to war on the basis of violating a bilateral agreement is against the laws of the United States and against the International law rules no the subject.

The problem for your position is that the US government does officially recognize the international laws of war-it's our law too.

Intune,

Quote
The United States does not recognize the jurisdiction of any international court over its citizens or military, holding that the United States Supreme Court is its final authority. One example of this policy is that the United States did not ratify the International Criminal Court (ICC) treaty, and on 6 May 2002 it informed the UN that it has no intention to do so.

Yes, but from a legal standpoint, the US obviously does not believe that refusal to recognize an international regime legally bars any action by that regime.  Otherwise what's the case for getting Saddam?  He didn't recognize the jurisdiction of any foreign government or laws in his country either...but the US obviously used his violations of those laws to justify its invasion of Iraq and arrest of Saddam.

The Article 51 argument, of course, cannot be taken seriously at this point-Saddam was not going to send over an army of canoes to attack the U.S.  There is no such thing as "self defense" against a country that has no operations or realistic designs outside its own borders under Article 51.

Quote
You live in the wrong country.   In the U.S. we have a Republic.  We vote for representatives to represent us, hence the name. 

And our representatives can change the rules to accommodate our wants.  There is absolutely no reason why a vote would be infeasible in this scenario, and if the Government is going to use public resources and expend the lives of its citizens prosecuting a war, it should be directly accountable.

What's the benefit, in your mind, of the government not having to face a popular vote on its wars?
"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

Matthew Carberry

  • Formerly carebear
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,281
  • Fiat justitia, pereat mundus
Re: Vermont candidate to prosecute Bush if she wins
« Reply #61 on: September 25, 2008, 09:31:13 AM »
We do put a public face on our wars.

We elect Presidents and Representatives in Congress to be our public faces.

Representative Constitutional government, no direct democracy needed (or wanted, for anyone with a grasp of history).
"Not all unwise laws are unconstitutional laws, even where constitutional rights are potentially involved." - Eugene Volokh

"As for affecting your movement, your Rascal should be able to achieve the the same speeds no matter what holster rig you are wearing."

Wildalaska

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 193
Re: Vermont candidate to prosecute Bush if she wins
« Reply #62 on: September 25, 2008, 09:56:38 AM »
Bush Derangement Syndrome is soooooooooo amusing

WildwhatsillinessAlaska "
I'm just a condescending, supercilious,  pompous ass .But then again, my opinion is as irrelevant as yours, and keep in mind kids, it's only the internet! If I bug ya that much, ignore me. Anyway, need something? Call me at 800/992-4570.
?If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers?

http://www.hyperarts.com/pynchon/gravity/index.html

http://www.therealwildalaska.com/blog/

Balog

  • Unrepentant race traitor
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,774
  • What if we tried more?
Re: Vermont candidate to prosecute Bush if she wins
« Reply #63 on: September 25, 2008, 10:48:18 AM »
Wild! I haven't seen you around in years.
Quote from: French G.
I was always pleasant, friendly and within arm's reach of a gun.

Quote from: Standing Wolf
If government is the answer, it must have been a really, really, really stupid question.

Intune

  • New Member
  • Posts: 78
    • The Shakes
Re: Vermont candidate to prosecute Bush if she wins
« Reply #64 on: September 25, 2008, 12:35:17 PM »
Quote
He didn't recognize the jurisdiction of any foreign government or laws in his country either...
Really?  So he didnt agree to a ceasefire or UN weapons inspectors or no-fly zones?  I could have sworn& 


Quote
&but the US obviously used his violations of those laws to justify its invasion of Iraq and arrest of Saddam.
 

Nope, didnt have to.  From 1999 onward, Iraq mounted more than 1,000 AAA attacks, launched 600 rockets, and fired some 60 SAMs.  UN Article 51 had em covered.

Quote
The Article 51 argument, of course, cannot be taken seriously at this point-Saddam was not going to send over an army of canoes to attack the U.S.  There is no such thing as "self defense" against a country that has no operations or realistic designs outside its own borders under Article 51.

What?  What?    Have you ever read UN Article 51?  I would posit that shooting at our pilots constitutes an armed attack on us and when an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.  We are allowed to neutralize the aggressor.   Please point to the outside its own borders part. 

 Here it is-
Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain inter-national peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Look, SS, this is just going to keep going in circles.  Saddam had years & years to get all of his WMDs outta the country & he did so.  He didnt let us inspect for them, we felt threatened and we kicked his ass.  Lets say were guilty of breaking every international law you can think of.  So what?

Do you envision Blue Helmets on the White House lawn and at the U.S. Capital building escorting everyone off to the Gulag?  Is that what you WANT?  Not me, Ill squeeze my beer belly into those olive drabs (thats right.  No camo back then) and defend my President and Congress from foreign enemies.  I served my country once and Ill do it again without hesitation. 

That lady makes me want to puke.  Lets see what her tune is when a dirty bomb goes off in Burlington VT and Iran says, Yeah, we did it.  Death to the Great Satan!  Death to ALL Infidels! 

No, on second thought, I dont want to see all that death & destruction cause that bitch and others would get on the news & tell us that we brought it all on ourselves with the support of Israel or some other B.S.  Sad.  sad  angry

280plus

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19,131
  • Ever get that sinking feeling?
Re: Vermont candidate to prosecute Bush if she wins
« Reply #65 on: September 25, 2008, 03:30:32 PM »
I seriously doubt she has a chance. The liberal yuppies may be moving into the state in droves but they haven't taken over, yet.
Avoid cliches like the plague!

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,859
Re: Vermont candidate to prosecute Bush if she wins
« Reply #66 on: September 25, 2008, 04:32:14 PM »
Quote
Look, SS, this is just going to keep going in circles.  Saddam had years & years to get all of his WMDs outta the country & he did so.  He didnt let us inspect for them, we felt threatened and we kicked his ass.  Lets say were guilty of breaking every international law you can think of.  So what?

This would be an example of what I'm saying underlies the "legal" arguments in support of the war-they don't really matter for most supporters, thus, the fact that most of the arguments advanced were painfully bad isn't an issue.

I don't think one looney in Vermont should be able to prosecute the president-obviously that is insane.  And I highly doubt that any of the arguments you get from this person would be any more insightful than what the White House has advanced in support of many of the elements of the war on terror.

But saying in principle that the leader of a state should be above any international law, when we're talking about the war in Iraq, is like something you'd see on Saturday Night Live-how do you deny any such liability when it comes to our president when we're talking about a war where the whole claim was that Saddam violated a bunch of international laws, and was therefore subject to the judgment and punishment of "the coalition of the willing"?
"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

Matthew Carberry

  • Formerly carebear
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,281
  • Fiat justitia, pereat mundus
Re: Vermont candidate to prosecute Bush if she wins
« Reply #67 on: September 26, 2008, 12:50:09 AM »
Quote
Look, SS, this is just going to keep going in circles.  Saddam had years & years to get all of his WMDs outta the country & he did so.  He didnt let us inspect for them, we felt threatened and we kicked his ass.  Lets say were guilty of breaking every international law you can think of.  So what?

This would be an example of what I'm saying underlies the "legal" arguments in support of the war-they don't really matter for most supporters, thus, the fact that most of the arguments advanced were painfully bad isn't an issue.

I don't think one looney in Vermont should be able to prosecute the president-obviously that is insane.  And I highly doubt that any of the arguments you get from this person would be any more insightful than what the White House has advanced in support of many of the elements of the war on terror.

But saying in principle that the leader of a state should be above any international law, when we're talking about the war in Iraq, is like something you'd see on Saturday Night Live-how do you deny any such liability when it comes to our president when we're talking about a war where the whole claim was that Saddam violated a bunch of international laws, and was therefore subject to the judgment and punishment of "the coalition of the willing"?

Saddam did in fact violate multiple UN sanctions multiple times and thus was subject to Article 51, if not any other rational interpretation of standing international law.

I'm not sure how you are wishing this all away when that fact is not in doubt.

By that fact he was incontestably vulnerable to UN sanctioned attack, which we did in perfect accord with existing particular standing UN sanctions.

The fact that the Bush admin emphasized WMD's above, but not in exclusion of, the multiple other perfectly legitimate justifications for military action cannot logically, legally or rationally invalidate those other recognized justifications.
"Not all unwise laws are unconstitutional laws, even where constitutional rights are potentially involved." - Eugene Volokh

"As for affecting your movement, your Rascal should be able to achieve the the same speeds no matter what holster rig you are wearing."

280plus

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19,131
  • Ever get that sinking feeling?
Re: Vermont candidate to prosecute Bush if she wins
« Reply #68 on: September 26, 2008, 01:59:38 AM »
Thank you! THE VERY FIRST TIME, let me repeat that, THE VERY FIRST TIME Saddam violated his agreement we should have gone in there and taken his ass out, end of frickin' story. With or without the "UN". Bill Clinton's watch I believe. Instead we waited and waited and waited and he got away with more and more and more and was able to conslidate himself much better every day we stalled. FINALLY after the deaths of some 3000+ people on American soil, we take action (forget things like the Cole, also Bill Clinton's watch I believe) and the Democrats, still pissed off because they lost the election, spent the rest of the time, up to and including the present, undermining the position of the President's administration, second guessing and challenging their decisions on a daily basis and basically just making nuisances of themselves at a time in the history of this country when it is the most dangerous to do so. All for nothing more than their political gain. THEN they want to call ME into question for calling them traitors. And you know what? Our enemies knew they would. Hell yea, they'd LOVE to see the Democrats back in office. All the rest of us can do is hope GWB wiped enough of them out in the little time he had so that if the Dems DO get back in office it'll be years before they can mount another major attack. Then we can go through the cycle all over again. The bright side? Osama wanted to hijack 10 planes. He could only muster enough people up for 4, that means they were weak. Today they are weaker, no thanks to the Democrats,,, at all.
Avoid cliches like the plague!