Reposted by Bret Baier
The statement engages in public discourse by discussing the legality of military actions by U.S. presidents, comparing actions taken by different administrations. It uses historical examples to argue against criticisms of a specific president, suggesting a perceived inconsistency in public reactions. The tone is defensive and dismissive, particularly towards those critical of the mentioned president.
- The statement does not strive to do no harm, as it dismisses concerns about legality and constitutional adherence. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- It lacks respect for differing opinions, using dismissive language like 'spare me the TDS.' [-1]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The statement does not engage in constructive dialogue, instead using ad hominem language to dismiss critics. [-1]Principle 4:I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.