| USA Today | 0 | |
| CNN | 0 | |
| AP | 0 | |
| Jen Rubin | 0 | |
| Fox News | Source: Powerful Sedative Propofol Found at Michael Jackson’s Mansion |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
Flyswatter in Chief:
"He had this fly that was persistently buzzing around him during the interview...he swatted his hand and he said ‘I got the sucker’...it was a, you know, Dirty Harry ‘make my day’ moment."- The NYT's John Harwood, describing Obama's killing of a fly - 6/16/09
Kerry responds – does not apologize. Makes Charlie Rangel look sane in comparison (VIDEO ADDED)
Rangel’s got some competition today on the “lost it” front. Check out Kerry’s response to the outrage over his remarks about our troops (emphasis added for full effect):
Washington – Senator John Kerry issued the following statement in response to White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, assorted right wing nut-jobs, and right wing talk show hosts desperately distorting Kerry’s comments about President Bush to divert attention from their disastrous record:
“If anyone thinks a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they’re crazy. This is the classic G.O.P. playbook. I’m sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did.
I’m not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. Fox’s Parkinson’s disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq. It disgusts me that these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country lie and distort so blatantly and carelessly about those who have.
The people who owe our troops an apology are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who misled America into war and have given us a Katrina foreign policy that has betrayed our ideals, killed and maimed our soldiers, and widened the terrorist threat instead of defeating it. These Republicans are afraid to debate veterans who live and breathe the concerns of our troops, not the empty slogans of an Administration that sent our brave troops to war without body armor.
Bottom line, these Republicans want to debate straw men because they’re afraid to debate real men. And this time it won’t work because we’re going to stay in their face with the truth and deny them even a sliver of light for their distortions. No Democrat will be bullied by an administration that has a cut and run policy in Afghanistan and a stand still and lose strategy in Iraq.”
Translation: I said nothing wrong, refuse to apologize, and if you’re a chickenhawk, how DARE you criticize someone who served! How DARE you even question me!
This is the typical elitist “I won’t be held accountable for what I say” bullsh!t we’ve come to expect from an arrogant, out of touch Massachusetts Senator who thought eating at Wendy’s would be enough to persuade middle class America back in 2004 that he was/is a “man of the people.”
Newflash, pal: You got away with disparaging US troops once before, but you aren’t going to get away with it this time around.
That’s why he’s become unhinged over this. The truth hurts, doesn’t it Senator?
Update I: Allah’s following the backlash from Kerry’s remarks and will soon have video of Senator McCain’s second call for Kerry to apologize.
Update II: Rep. John Murtha’s opponent Diana Irey wants to know if Murtha will condemn Kerry’s remarks:
MONONGAHELA, October 31) — Washington County Commissioner and Pennsylvania 12th district Republican Congressional nominee Diana Irey — responding to remarks by U.S. Senator John Kerry (the most recent presidential nominee of the political party to which Jack Murtha owes his allegiance), who yesterday declared before a gathering of students that, “You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq” — today released this statement:
“Will Jack Murtha stand with the men and women of the American military and TODAY demand an apology on their behalf from his good friend Senator John Kerry? Or will Jack Murtha continue his cut-and-run campaign and refuse to take a stand on this matter of honor and respect?
“Senator Kerry’s comments suggesting that only the less-educated and less-smart ‘end up in Iraq’ are insulting in the extreme to every man and woman who has worn our nation’s colors in Iraq — and, frankly, they are insulting in the extreme to every man and woman who has EVER worn our nation’s colors, period.
“Insulting, yes. Surprising, no. Given the records of men like John Kerry and Jack Murtha — both of whom claim that their prior records of military service give them license to say whatever they wish about the men and women now serving in our armed forces — it’s not surprising at all that John Kerry would insult our armed forces.
“Jack Murtha, after all, declared in May that U.S. Marines in Haditha had ‘killed innocent civilians in cold blood’ before the first Marine was charged, before the first court-martial was convened, before the first Marine was convicted.
“And Jack Murtha said last year that ‘the military is broken,’ and said he would not join today’s military.
“Today’s question for voters in Pennsylvania’s 12th Congressional District is simple — what will we learn today about Jack Murtha? Will he stand up for the men and women of our armed forces by demanding that his good friend John Kerry withdraw his offensive statement and apologize? Or will Jack Murtha continue to turn his back on his constituents, and continue to curry favor with the ultraliberals who now run the national Democratic Party?
“The choice is up to Jack, and that choice comes today. VOTERS here in southwestern Pennsylvania, on the other hand, will get to make THEIR choice one week from today.”
What say ye, Rep. Murtha?
Update III: The MSM is finally picking up on this story. Also, I just went to lunch and flipped on the radio to Rush and he said essentially the same thing I did in my last post on this, and that is that he bets the media is going to try to find a way to say that Kerry was right. In the meantime, Malkin notes the AP angle to this story. Surprise surprise.
Upate IV: LOLOL 
Update V: Here’s Senator Bill Frist’s response to Kerry’s insult to the troops. Also, here are video lowlights from Kerry’s press conference on the controversy. I can’t watch it at the moment, but Ian at Hot Air says that Kerry still would not apologize.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
65 Responses to “Kerry responds – does not apologize. Makes Charlie Rangel look sane in comparison (VIDEO ADDED)”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Thanks Bak, thought I was going to have a vein pop reading this drivel that ken was putting out as “true”.
Baklava states correctly: In every one of your “Is it true” questions and statements is falsehood, inaccurate accusations and irresponsible charges. Not one has truth. I understand people can have disagreements but you need to back up your assertions. For instance, how is the economy “impoverished”?
Thank you again Bak, cause I was breaking out sources to refute the drivel he was putting forth.
Ken, just what liberal site did you copy and paste that from by the way?
People asked Kerry to apologize for denigrating people in the military. I scored so high myself on the ASVAB test that each branch of the service gave me the book of jobs and said, “choose any job you want”. I chose to be a DS in the Navy (Data Systems Technician) for 6 years. That was in 1988. My boss has a son who did extremely well in school but chose to be a MARINE. She has cried to me and hugged me as a mom would but she is extremely proud of her son and he could’ve done anything he wanted to do.
My brother was in Vietnam, was captured by the Viet Cong (he escaped when a bunch of Korean buddies ignored standing orders, stole a helicopter and fought their way in to rescue him). He spent more time fighting behind enemy lines than he can remember. My sister was in Naval Intelligence. My father fought in WW2 in the jungles of the south Pacific. He carried his bundy for two days behind enemy lines just to get him back. My mother was in British Intelligence during WW2. My aunts and uncles all fought in WW2 – I’ve got one aunt who at 16 was manning an ack ack gun in the London blitz.
Spare me the Edited, language–ST crap that you guys have some sort of some sort of mortgage on patriotism.
And do you your own Edited, language –ST homework. I’m tired of doing the legwork for people who are too lazy to stay out of dishonest wars brought about by lies, or who uncritically accept a bunch of jingoistic slogans wrapped in flags and bunting.
The plans for invading Iraq were on the Bush drawing boards from the day they came to office. You just can’t get heads around the scale of lying that you’ve been subjected to. As I said, hang about.
We could go on for about 8 pages of typing refuting. But I realized that instead of evidence and facts he was stating baseless (without facts) opinions. Opinions that were not rooted in facts and no evidence was present.
It enabled him to create a laundry list of irresponsible claims. As if the laundry list due to it’s length was damning enough. It was only evidence of his hatred for the president or Republicans.
Opinions are great. Everyone’s got them. But after shredding the first couple assertions and phrases of his nobody needed to go on. People could see they couldn’t trust any future statements of his to have good perspective.
ken, 1) watch your language. 2) Don’t think because you had family serving in the military and intelligence that that gives you some absolute moral authority that trumps all the other comments posted here. BTW, you haven’t done one ounce of “homework” at this blog to support your accusations against the US government. Perhaps because you know you’ll get laughed at over the number of far lefty conspiracy websites you’ll reference?
Ken wrote, “that you guys have some sort of some sort of mortgage on patriotism.”
Wasn’t my point. Reading comprehension is key. Patriotism wasn’t even a word I used. My point was that I had options and so did the other man who became a Marine that I was referencing. We weren’t stuck with the military and the comment Kerry said and many Democrats were choosing to defend were not “less than adulation” they were hurtful and necessary to apologize for in our opinion. He could simply apologize or say he meant the words. Or he could do what he did and go on the attack (which is not apologizing).
I’ll wait for your evidence and facts. I read so much every day from leftists and conservatives and moderates. I’ve read 1,000’s of pages since 1991 when I was a liberal.
It’s ok. You can reference me as lazy all you wish. I can’t control you and I can only control my own words and actions. I will continue to do due diligence, try to elevate my level of debate, and continue to reference facts and provide them to others…
Since I am interested in reading comprehension and how people get the perspective they get, would you Ken be willing to share with me what sentence in my post made you feel that your patriotism was challenged or that I thought I had a “mortgage” on patriotism?
Seriously, If reading back through my post can you see I was directly contradicting the view of military folks having had no option because of their grades which is what Kerry was talking about. We (me and the man I talked about) had OPTIONS. Sure, there might be some who didn’t have many options. THey could’ve worked at McDonalds instead of Walmart or as a Landscaper maybe. But they chose to better themselves, they chose to JOIN the service and there is no draft and there is a future in joining the service and serving your country. I made no statement about you and whether you served or not. I didn’t know if you did. I was directly attacking Kerry’s “joke” that many “feel” weren’t a joke and many Democrats DEFENDED. See Michelle Malkin’s post about the San Francisco Chronicle’s website for unhinged liberals defending Kerry’s “joke” as TRUE
Sanity. Two “Thank You”’s in one post from you? How am I so privileged?
Just call me Sanitized!!!
I did what I did to help everyone out there keep their veins from popping.
Do your own homework. I can back up every one of my statements with facts. But I won’t do the legwork for lazy people. Listen to Bushie and find out the hard way. When I meet people who are more concerned about an imagined slur on the US military more than the immoral, illegal and hideously expensive war that gave rise to John Kerry’s remarks I’ll take you guys seriously. Not before.
In other words, you can’t. Either put up, or shut up, ken. It’s very simple.
Sister Toldja, you say BTW, you haven’t done one ounce of “homework” at this blog to support your accusations against the US government. Perhaps because you know you’ll get laughed at over the number of far lefty conspiracy websites you’ll reference?
Something at a left wing site is automatically untrue, is that it?
Here’s what I quoted over at your other Kerry comment site:
—————————
* The economy’s screwed. Read what Paul Craig Roberts has to say about the jobs you and your families will never see again thanks to this government.
* Former World Bank Vice President, Chief Economist and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz has predicted a global economic crash within 24 months – unless the current downturn is successfully managed. Asked if the situation was being properly handled Stiglitz emphatically responded “no”….Discussing the warning signs of plummeting real estate prices in the U.S., Stiglitz stated that a global economic depression could only be avoided if a correction was made but at the moment all the indicators are that the situation is not being well managed. That’s your Bush boy.
————————-
Aside from the cheap shots, none of your “informed” commentators chose to address in any way the substantive claims made by Stiglitz (he’s just a Nobel Laureate in economics, so what the hell would he know)or Paul Craig Roberts.
Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. So, again, what the hell would he know, right?
He’s one of YOUR guys, a right winger. He was on YOUR team. And he describes how the jobs are going away and never coming back in the US.
Aside from the cheap dismissal of ideas because they are posted at left wing sites, your commentators were either unable or unwilling to address any of the ideas put forward about the economy.
I have no reason whatsoever to believe that commenters here who are lambasting Kerry are in any way interested in meaningful dialogue about the war in Iraq other than as cheap political point scoring.
I am quite happy for the list of issues I raised earlier about the war in Iraq to perhaps inspire some of the people who read this blog to go away and test some of those claims in their own time.
I’m not wading over a pile of cheap put downs as a substitute for a real exchange of ideas.
The fact is, if people here are yet to understand that the Iraq war was brought about by a deliberate program of lies told to the American people then you guys aren’t at first base. At that level, I just wish you well and leave you to your own devices.
Ken ridiculuosly states: Do your own homework. I can back up every one of my statements with facts. But I won’t do the legwork for lazy people.
It is common practice that when you give facts you give sources to back up the claims you are making so people do not think that you are pulling them out of your nether regions.
Your statement is a contradictory one, stating that you can back up every fact, but you won’t, meaning either your too lazy to do so, or you have no proof to back up your claims and so lay the blame at others that read your statements.
Essentially saying, What i say is true, but if your too lazy to look up what I tell you is true, then your lazy.
Sorry bub, don’t work that way. It is up to you to provide the backup of what you say, otherwise those that read what you say will just chalk you up to someone pulling so-called “facts” out of your butt. Adding proof of information for others to follow your line of thinking, and what your saying is not only common courtesy, but a way to back up your credibility.
When I meet people who are more concerned about an imagined slur on the US military…
There was nothing imagining about it.
Otherwise, why have other Democrat candidates asked Kerry not to come speak, and Hillary Clinton also get on him about this, and other democrats. It isn’t just Republicans, and the military are not imagining anything, they know a smear on the military men and women when they hear one.
Again, it is common practice to say it was just a joke when you get slammed with assinine comments, and you have nothing to fall back on, so you make it…a joke. Military from retired to active have stated they are offended by his
remarks“joke”, military families have come out and said the same. Military in Iraq prepared a special message for Kerry because of hisremarks“joke”.I will not speak for other military, just on what I hear from others, but for myself, being former US Army, I was offended by his
remarkslittle “joke” and so were alot of others.AMERICAN LEGION: APOLOGIZE NOW…
Vet Group expresses ‘disbelief, disappointment’…
Dem congressman tells ABCNEWS: ‘I guess Kerry wasn’t content blowing 2004, now he wants to blow 2006, too’…
Iowa candidate asks Kerry to cancel visit…
TN Harold Ford asks Kerry to apologize…
McCaskill in Mo. Asks, Too…
Now tell me, where was the joke? Where was it about the president and not the troops?
So tell me…where is that statement saying the PRESIDENT or GEORGE BUSH, or THIS ADMINISTRATION in this so called “joke”?
I don’t see it, do you?
I very straight forwardly see degrading comments about our men and women in the military. Perhaps this was a Fruedian slip, not intended ot come out that way, BUT it did, and perhaps it shows a bit more of what Kerry is really like, especially coupled with previous comments he made attacking and lying about our military men and women.
ABC News Poll on his
remark“joke”:The only joke in all this is Kerry and it he isn’t even a very funny one at that.
I don’t like to leave a charge of intellectual cowardice on the table. You charge me to “put up or shut up” Sister Toldjah. OK, just to prove I can do it, here’s one claim I made:
Is it true that the Bush leadership should be impeached, brought up on war crimes charges at the Hague and spend the rest of their miserably dishonest lives in jail? Yes.
The legal opinion of Kofi Annan, Hans Blix and a Commission of International Law Jurists all say the same thing:
The war in Iraq is unlawful under international law and the political leaders who carried out the war are straightforwardly guilty of war crimes.
————————————————–
link:
The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal. Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN’s founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: “Yes, if you wish.” He then added unequivocally: “I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal.”
————————————————–
link:
The former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has declared that the war in Iraq was illegal, dealing another devastating blow to Tony Blair. Mr Blix, speaking to The Independent, said the Attorney General’s legal advice to the Government on the eve of war, giving cover for military action by the US and Britain, had no lawful justification. He said it would have required a second United Nations resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force for the invasion of Iraq last March to have been legal.
————————————————–
link:
Among the world’s foremost experts in the field of international law, the overwhelming jurisprudential consensus is that the Anglo-American invasion, conquest, and occupation of Iraq constitute three phases of one illegal war of aggression. Readers who need to “trust but verify” (i.e., to corroborate) for themselves that the experts’ overwhelming opinion is exactly as stated above should read a document entitled “15 January 2003.” (Find it by scrolling down approximately one-fourth of the way, after you’ve clicked onto this ES website: http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/bbiraqwar.htm “The Legality Of The Iraq War” .) Why?
That document was drafted and signed by the world’s foremost international law experts — the prestigious International Commission of International Law Jurists — to provide ultimate proof of their authoritative opinion concerning the legal status of war against Iraq. Furthermore, this large body of eminent international law experts explicitly stated that they’d drafted their legal document in order to advise Messrs. Bush and Blair prior to the invasion: (1) that it would be blatantly illegal under international law for the Anglo-American belligerents to invade Iraq; and (2) that their joint decision as Commanders-in-Chief to commence hostilities would constitute prosecutable war crimes.
————————————————–
If people here are still operating under the fiction that the US led war in Iraq is legal then they are dead wrong.
There are things to agree with what Paul Craig Roberts said and things I disagree with. You can see in his first few paragraphs (I read the whole thing) that he uses the timeline January 2001 to present as if Bush policies and tax cuts were in effect January 2001. They weren’t. There were recessionary signs starting April 2000 continuing into November 2000 (when Bush was elected) and even through the first few months of 2001 when the economy had a double whammy with September 11th. Even Democrat Senators and Representatives saw the need for economic stimulation then and were ALSO responsible for tax cuts to try to help stop the deep recession and job loss. The tax cuts voted in by a Democrat controlled Senate and some Democrats joined in in the House were phased in and weren’t fully effective until 2003. The remarkable job creation since 2003 is stunning.
At least Paul Craig Roberts DOES admit (unlike most Democrats) that there HAS been a net GAIN with jobs since January 2001 to present. A net gain in jobs is something that many won’t admit on the left and is in itself a contradictory statement to your assertion that this country’s economy is impoverished.
Yes. This country could do better always. There is always room for improvement and I’d like to see good jobs for my 2 daughters doing things they’d enjoy doing and something that makes them feel productive. There is room for disagreement on how badly this country’s future job outlook is though wouldn’t you agree Ken? I would say that this country’s future job outlook is not as bad as Paul Craig Roberts stated UNLESS liberals take hold and implement their solutions of tax increases. Is that what you are for Ken? What is the effect of tax increases on an economy? Can you tell us? What happens to an economy when the government takes a higher percentage of income from corporations or individuals. It either dampens the rate of growth or reverses growth depending on the rate increase.
The article you linked for Joseph Stiglitz was written by Paul Joseph Watson and Alex Jones. Nothing wrong with that. Just saying that Joseph Stiglitz was a minor piece in the story predicting a global economic downturn. I suppose the global economic downturn will be Bush’s fault????? Or the Republicans fault??? What are you trying to say Ken? The President has very little power over the American economy. Clinton had very little power and Bush has very little power. They have some effect with proposing tax increases or decreases and approving (signing) spending bills that get passed out of Congress (government spending increases economic activity) but the most powerful people over the American economy is American individuals and corporations themselves. That is why the business cycle. Nobody can change the fact that there is a business cycle. People can wish for utopia and want a constantly growing economy but it WON’T happen.
I took economics classes in college and I’ve read 1,000’s of pages on the subject since 1991. It’s quite interesting to see someone think that a one paragraph quote from an economist about a global economic downturn is evidence of Bush or the Republicans “impoverishing the American economy”. Is that what you wrote? I just double checked. Yes it is. It’s also quite interesting for you to stick to the lazy accusation. I’m only asking for you to provide evidence for your false accusations. Facts. Two people can discuss these things rationally without name calling.
Opinions are just that. Some experts say the Iraq was is legal. Imagine that. Dueling opinions from experts….
I vote for America being able to act with coalition of partners over the U.N. having a veto on our ability to act. Who is with me??? Sanity???
Oh well. I’m going to bed. It’s 10:30 PM my time. The Iraq war decision was over 3+ years ago. I can understand people being upset that the decision wasn’t the way they wanted it but come on. It’s 3 years later. What do you do going forward? Make a humanitarian crisis by “redeploying”? If you don’t think there would be one just say so, but to harp on your disagreement over a 3+ year old decision is just mind numbing. We already debated it during the 14 month long “rush” to war. The debate is over. Now we invaded and removed the Iraq government and they are forming a new one. Germany and Japan took 10 and 7 years to reconstruct and insert a new form of government.
John Yoo is a Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall) and a Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He served as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel in the U.S. Justice Department from 2001-03, where he was involved in many of the legal issues concerning the war on terrorism. He is the author of The Powers of War and Peace: The Constitution and Foreign Affairs After 9/11 (University of Chicago Press, 2005)
Baklava, you say: Opinions are just that. Some experts say the Iraq was is legal. Imagine that. Dueling opinions from experts….I vote for America being able to act with coalition of partners over the U.N. having a veto on our ability to act.
The article you refer to is by Brett D. Schaefer whose credentials aren’t clear to anybody other than the fact that he writes in support of an attack upon Iraq. The three quotes I provided to you make use of the legal advice of (a) the UN (b) the UK’s own attorney general (c) an international body of jurists, specialists in International Law, advising before the invasion.
Fancy that! We’re supposed to take the words of Brett D. Schaefer over the considered legal advice of the UK’s own attorney general seeking to advise the British government against invading Iraq along with the US. “Don’t go there”, he says, “It’s illegal.” Well, we’ll all just fall about in a heap then and accept Schaefer’s views.
But let’s take Schaefer’s views in detail then:
1. International law confirms the right to self-defense.That right to self-defense also incorporates the centuries-old principle of “anticipatory self-defense” in the face of an imminent threat to national security. The key word here is “imminent”. Hmmm…Sadam was planning an imminent attck upon the US?…No, I’m not buying that one.
2. America does not need U.N. permission to use its armed forces. Under the U.S. Constitution, the authority to determine when it is appropriate for the United States to invoke and exercise its right to use military force in its own defense is vested in the President, as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, and Congress, which has authority to raise and support armies and to declare war. Notice “Congress” gets a mention there. Congress never “declared war” on Iraq. That’s a legal requirement under international law. Didn’t happen.
No treaty, including the U.N. Charter, can redistribute this authority or give an international organization a veto over U.S. actions otherwise lawful and fully in accordance with the Constitution. Completely untrue.
Let’s quote from the US Constitution (Article VI, Annotations):
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
So the Geneva Convention and the provisions of the UN Charter, which the US government is a signatory to, cannot be overturned on the whim of any President. Period.
3. America has permission to act through existing U.N. Security Council resolutions…Iraq’s refusal to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to fulfill their mandate is a violation of its 1991 cease-fire agreement. Wrong on two counts: (i)the 1991 cease-fire agreement had not been breached, and (ii) the Iraq government allowed the inspectors to do their work. It was the Bush administration that unilaterally withdrew the inspectors.
4. America would be acting in the interests of international peace and security, as all U.N. members pledge to do. Various trivial arguments presented here. All of them wrong.
Schaefer then goes on to quote Tom DeLay: “Until Saddam Hussein’s regime topples, our national security will suffer an unwise and unacceptable risk.” Well that’s a great quote from a convicted criminal!
Yes, Baklava, you prove the point that you can always get some ‘expert’ somewhere to give you the opinion you want. Whether it has any basis in international law (to which the US has agreed to be bound) is another matter altogether.
Bush has got Jenna out scouting for a safe haven in Paraguay. He’s no fool. He knows what happened to Pinochet and why Kissinger can’t go anywhere. You don’t get to invade countries just because you think it’s a good idea. Producing a pack of lies before Congress so you can murder people in a foreign country and steal their assets is a crime in anybody’s language.
Forget about Kerry’s phrases. Wake up to the fact the decent men and women in America – of the Left and the Right – are being forced to defend the indefensible.
What happened to my last post Sister Toldjah? Was it refused or deleted?
It got stuck in the moderation que, as sometimes happens. Please don’t submit posts more than once. –ST
Ken wrote, “The three quotes I provided to you make use of the legal advice of (a) the UN (b) the UK’s own attorney general (c) an international body of jurists,”
I gave you two Americans. You gave me foreigners.
Ken laughingly wrote, “So the Geneva Convention and the provisions of the UN Charter, which the US government is a signatory to, cannot be overturned on the whim of any President. Period.”
They were not overturned. We understand that it is your opinion and the opinion of some foreigners and even a bunch of liberals and even some journalists. That’s how whack liberals are today. They turn simple disagreements into “war criminal”. Blah blah blah. In every disagreement is a set of FALSE accusations in or der to MAKE your CASE. It doesn’t work.
As usual you end your post casting aspersions. It does nothing to persuade but shows your utter hatred for Bush. But you seem to forget in your sentence, “You don’t get to invade countries just because you think it’s a good idea“, that there were votes on this matter in Congress and other nations who joined us (no matter how you might belittle them). So your aspersions about Jenna doing something because you “FEEL” that something was illegal or others do is laughable. It shows your state of mind more than makes a convincing argument.
And we aren’t being forced to defend the indefensible. We are easily refuting your FALSE accusations. I’m sorry you “feel” so strongly based on your stated misinformation. It’s not just about Kerry’s phrases.
BTW, We are extremely OFF TOPIC. ST has been very gracious in allowing this thread to go off topic. I see what your TRUMP cards are in any debate (due to your extreme hate) but it doesn’t matter if you feel they are trump cards. Most liberals have the same pattern. They will lay down their trump cards (set of false accusations) in attempt to divert conversation and prove that whatever topic is being discussed is irrelevant because so much injustice is going on. Sorry. But the Iraq decision was 3+ years ago. People have moved on. Becoming more unhinged won’t help your side. You aren’t persuasive by continuing to say things like “Congress didn’t declare war”. What? You think we haven’t heard these things before? Oh. Ken finally informed us. Now we know and we are persuaded. We were too lazy to see that point elsewhere…..
just teasin’ ya.
But, I’d like to continue discussions with you but it’d be nice to stay on topic to the thread instead of veering to what you think are trump cards or addressing your laundry lists. Those typical tactics aren’t polite to ST’s blog.
People can read your arguments and mine and draw their own conclusions as to the legality of otherwise of the Iraq invasion.
You say:We understand that it is your opinion and the opinion of some foreigners and even a bunch of liberals and even some journalists. That’s how whack liberals are today. They turn simple disagreements into “war criminal”. Blah blah blah. In every disagreement is a set of FALSE accusations in or der to MAKE your CASE. It doesn’t work.
Sharia law refuses to accept the testimony of any woman against the word of any man. In the brave new world of Bush synchopants no “foreigner”, “liberal” or “journalist” has any credibility, is that right?
Do you understand that your comments would be laughed out of any law school in this country? Is this what passes for logic in your world?
Just to be clear about this, international law is not like voting on American Idol. It’s real. And the American Constitution makes it explicitly clear that the US has chosen to bind itself to a number of international conventions. Moreover, those laws then become part of US law, as real as any other US law.
It seems to be a part of the never-ending delusion of some Bush supporters that they can create a private reality where even US laws can be discarded willy nilly if they don’t suit their prejudices. This from the so-called “law and order” party.
I gave you two Americans. You gave me foreigners.
Presumably you’d deny gravity on the basis that Isaac Newton wasn’t an American. Pathetic.
Bush is a war criminal under US law. You can’t face that. So keep repeating the mantra “gravity doesn’t exist”. It’s been working well for you so far.
Where were we?…Oh, yes…the Victorian melodrama of “What John Kerry said?” What is the body count on the number of staid Republican maids who have suffered a bad case of the “vapours” because of that nasty Mr Kerry’s remarks?