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.

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.

It got stuck in the moderation que, as sometimes happens. Please don’t submit posts more than once. –ST

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.

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???

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.

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.

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 his remarks “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 remarks little “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’…

“I believe Sen. Kerry owes an apology to many thousands of Americans serving in Iraq, who answered their country’s call,” said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., campaigning in Indiana.

Iowa candidate asks Kerry to cancel visit…

TN Harold Ford asks Kerry to apologize…

McCaskill in Mo. Asks, Too…

“Whatever the intent, Senator Kerry was wrong to say what he said,” said Democratic Rep. Harold Ford Jr., running for Senate in Tennessee.

….

“Sen. Kerry’s remarks were poorly worded and just plain stupid,” said Montana Senate President Jon Tester, a Democrat trying to unseat GOP Sen. Conrad Burns. “He owes our troops and their families an apology.”

Now tell me, where was the joke? Where was it about the president and not the troops?

Kerry responded in a harsh, hastily arranged news conference in Seattle: “I apologize to no one for my criticism of the president and of his broken policy.”

But he also said the comment was “a botched joke about the president and the president’s people, not about the troops … and they know that’s what I was talking about.”

What Kerry said Monday at a campaign rally was this: “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. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

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.

“If it was a botched joke, someone show me the punch line. I don’t see how it was funny,” Perino said. “I don’t know how … anybody could have taken them any other way.”

ABC News Poll on his remark “joke”:

Sen. John Kerry claims that the White House has distorted his comment that kids who don’t do well in school “get stuck in Iraq.” The White House has accused him of “troop bashing,” and is demanding an apology.

Was Kerry’s statement offensive to troops?

Yes. The comment was unnecessary and negative. Kerry should apologize.
19,201

No. This isn’t even an issue. It’s just Republicans trying to hurt Democrats close to elections.
7,926

Possibly. But I don’t think that was his intention. The press is making too big a deal out of this.
2,253

Total Vote: 29,380

The only joke in all this is Kerry and it he isn’t even a very funny one at that.

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.