Unclear on the concept!
Mar. 16th, 2005 08:58 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gridloreThanks to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
eleri for pointing this out.
Bush: Hezbollah could enter Lebanon's political mainstream
President Bush on Tuesday expressed the hope that Hezbollah -- which the U.S. State Department has long regarded as a terrorist group -- could enter the political mainstream in Lebanon.
"We view Hezbollah as a terrorist organization," Bush said at a news conference with Jordan's King Abdullah II after the two met in the Oval Office.
"I would hope that Hezbollah would prove that they're not, by laying down arms and not threatening peace."
So far, so good, but later in the article we find this:
"First things first," the senior Bush administration official said. "Syria must get out, and Lebanon must have unfettered elections, then Hezbollah must disarm. ... There is no place for an armed militia in a democratic society."
Um, maybe this official should wander over to the National Archives and read the Bill of Rights?
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Before George Washington got the job as Commander in Chief of the Continental Army, the Revolution was fought by militias. Does this official think they should have disarmed as well?
More proof that the neocons have no clue about history.
eleri for pointing this out.Bush: Hezbollah could enter Lebanon's political mainstream
President Bush on Tuesday expressed the hope that Hezbollah -- which the U.S. State Department has long regarded as a terrorist group -- could enter the political mainstream in Lebanon.
"We view Hezbollah as a terrorist organization," Bush said at a news conference with Jordan's King Abdullah II after the two met in the Oval Office.
"I would hope that Hezbollah would prove that they're not, by laying down arms and not threatening peace."
So far, so good, but later in the article we find this:
"First things first," the senior Bush administration official said. "Syria must get out, and Lebanon must have unfettered elections, then Hezbollah must disarm. ... There is no place for an armed militia in a democratic society."
Um, maybe this official should wander over to the National Archives and read the Bill of Rights?
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Before George Washington got the job as Commander in Chief of the Continental Army, the Revolution was fought by militias. Does this official think they should have disarmed as well?
More proof that the neocons have no clue about history.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 16 Mar 2005 17:40 (UTC)no subject
Date: 16 Mar 2005 17:57 (UTC)no subject
Date: 16 Mar 2005 18:02 (UTC)no subject
Date: 16 Mar 2005 18:03 (UTC)no subject
Date: 16 Mar 2005 18:15 (UTC)