Originally Posted by Zack

1. No war of aggression occurred, the Iraq War started when Iraq invaded Kuwait and refused to depart without use of military force, then the US and allies used military force to remove Iraq from Kuwait. A mutual agreement between the US, UN and Iraq of a cease fire in the hostilities caused hostilities to suspend. The cease fire conditions were few and could have been accomplished within 180 days if all parties were willing, the US and UN were willing but Iraq was not. The war with Iraq was RESUMED, for cause when after more than a decade it was quite apparent that Iraq had no intention to ever live up to their ceasefire conditions.

2. The US does not torture.

3. In accordance with the Laws of War and the Geneva Convention combatants may be held by the warring parties until the conflict is over.

4. There have been no war crimes on behalf of the US government. Individuals have violated "rules" and the individuals have been prosecuted.

5. The US has always conducted warrantless wiretaps of foreign sources, the Democratic congress now desires the administration to acquire warrants where they were never required in the past.

6. Signing statements are not unconstitutional and there is a precedence for the president to use them (they have been used in the past).

7. Election fraud is a federal offense and any citizen can originate a case if evidence exists. Since no case has been opened I guess there is no election fraud, if you disagree then open a case and present it to a federal judge.

8. Her husband outed her along with a liberal member not associated with the administration at the time it occurred.

9. Unitary executive is similar to signing statements but is within the power of the constitutional position of the president in a war time roll as "commander in chief". During WWII all mail from Asia and Europe was opened, read by the government and censored if necessary.

10. The federal government was not welcomed into the state by the state government. The governor of LA must allow the federal government in. The governor, a Democrat was responsible for all delay of the response within the abilities of the federal government to respond.

In the case of New Orleans I would suggest that all persons in the care of the US government should be treated as prisoners in the future. For example, if you live in government housing, receive government food support and an emergency is forecasted for your area then you would be "demanded" to leave the area to a safe area in the manner the federal government so deemed necessary or forego the future federal government support. In CA if an earthquake was predicted or in WA state a volcano was predicted then the federal government should evacuate all of its wards. The same should apply to the states that have known wards in their support from jails, adoption centers, welfare recipients and so on... order your wards to safety at first federal knowledge of danger for the ward.