Lets talk about the soldiers.

[goandykid]

Yes,

I did make mean statements. But those statements were out of my reaction to reading about what was happening to everyone in Iraq, because of lies, greed, and the quest for power the civilians in DoD like Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Dough Feith, Armitage, and many others.

It's isn't the military's fault. The military leaders like Gen. Shinseki, Spider Marks, Adm. Vern Clark did the right thing: they told the truth.

They were pushed asided.

I stand to be corrected.

The military are the good men and women.

it's the civilain politicians and bureaucrats that are bad.

I still, must live with my emotional statements, because I did post them.

But it was not, and is not, how I truly feel.

Thank you.

 

[viet_jon]

Yes,

I did make mean statements. But those statements were out of my reaction to reading about what was happening to everyone in Iraq, because of lies, greed, and the quest for power the civilians in DoD like Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Dough Feith, Armitage, and many others.

It's isn't the military's fault. The military leaders like Gen. Shinseki, Spider Marks, Adm. Vern Clark did the right thing: they told the truth.

They were pushed asided.

I stand to be corrected.

The military are the good men and women.

it's the civilain politicians and bureaucrats that are bad.

I still, must live with my emotional statements, because I did post them.

But it was not, and is not, how I truly feel.

Very Respectful!!!





IMO, you own'd this thread.

 

[viet_jon]

And no shit eh, I just found out Decker's a lawyer.

 

[Big Smoothy]

No one in Iraq is fighting for your benefit? Thats what I love about America. Any loud-mouth can get on a platform and promote any ill-informed agenda that they please.

Yup, George W. Bush.

 

[clemson357]

Yup, George W. Bush.

That is so intelligent I just shit my pants. God Damn how did you get so smart.

 

[Decker]

Hardy-har-har.

Cut the sass, I am wounded by your meanness.

I'm not. It is quite simple. The UN asked us to go to war. That's "asked", not commanded. The US agreed to. Once we did that, the war, and all decisions pertaining to it, were ours to make, not the UNs. Otherwise, where are the UN sanctions against the US? Huh?

· Under fundamental international law, military force is permissible only in self-defense or when authorized by the U.N. Security Council.

· Here is the resolution???look at the reasons for authorization???(a) #1 and #2:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Further: AS U.S. ambassador John Negroponte said at the time, 1441 contained "no hidden triggers and no automaticity with the use of force. The procedure to be followed was laid out in the resolution."
http://www.robincmiller.com/iraq6-fr.htm
In short, Iraq was no threat to the US???no WMDs and the initiation of the attack by Bush was in violation of Res. 1441 which did not have triggers for an automatic attack. So you can see clearly that by invading Iraq before WMDs were found, Bush broke the law.

Here???s a short 2 page explanation why the invasion is illegal: http://www.fpif.org/pdf/gac/0212lawyers.pdf

It's funny how you can say this, seeing that they never had full access, and even complained that Saddam was giving them the run-around.

Read just the first paragraph of this Congressional Report on the investigations. In summary, we attacked Iraq to remove WMDs, except the inspectors turned up no legitimate WMDs. Yes, Blix said that historically the inspections were a tug of war w/ Hussein, but Bush???s saber rattling instilled a new sense of compliance w/ the Iraqi leader resulting in substantive and procedural access. http://opencrs.cdt.org/rpts/RL31671_20030328.pdf

And, pray tell, when was that testimony given? (You so deserve this emoticon).

You have your facts wrong again. Blix testified in 2003 about 2002 investigations. His 2002 Journal (march 7) comments on how good the Iraqi cooperation was with the inspections. Any way you slice it, Hussein did comply with the inspectors.

I most certainly disagree with it. It was broken when we got there.

No. We bombed the country to shit and Bush handed out all those gravy reconstruction contracts to supporters that were financed by the Oil revenues of Iraq. Oh, wait a moment that is incorrect, the US taxpayer picked up the bill.

 

[Decker]

No one in Iraq is fighting for your benefit? Thats what I love about America. Any loud-mouth can get on a platform and promote any ill-informed agenda that they please.

I wouldn't expect you to support the war. Democrats, as a per se rule, only support military intervention if it in no way could promote national security or the economy. We can scream all fucking day about the genocide in Darfur. DARFUR DARFUR, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE GENOCIDE IN DARFUR!!!! But if a conservative overthrows a dictator who killed 50,000 kurds (thats called genocide, in case you didn't know) there will be hell to pay, especially if by doing so we also set up a government that might one day be the starting point for stability in a perpetually instable region. Shit, I have an idea, why don't we send some troops to Somalia in a "humanitarian" effort that everyone knows could not possibly provide us any benefit. Then, when we actually get into a hostile conflict, we will retreat a leave our dead soldiers to be dragged naked through the streets by the very people who were oh-so-deserving of our generousity. Or maybe, when we get caught up in a sex and perjury scandal, we can tactically bomb an asprin factory. Thats a great fucking idea, now everyone in the middle east won't get relief from their headaches! Thanks Clinton!

Rant all you like. I've shown that the invasion is illegal. Would you care to show me otherwise. Or are you engaging in the designed hysteria emblematic of some war supporters? Your argument goes something like this: "Iraq is meteor of death and destruction and it's headed right at the US. We must attack to save ourselves. Proof and legality be damned"

But then I am ignorant of so much. Please explain to me how the invasion of Iraq was a pressing national security issue for the US back in 2002.

You mentioned (benefitting) the economy as a reason for invasion. Whatever happened to Free Markets and Iraq's rights to its own national resources? Or is the idea of free markets just one of convenience when it means slashing wages and busting unions?

 

[viet_jon]

Cut the sass, I am wounded by your meanness.
· Under fundamental international law, military force is permissible only in self-defense or when authorized by the U.N. Security Council.

· Here is the resolution???look at the reasons for authorization???(a) #1 and #2:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Further: AS U.S. ambassador John Negroponte said at the time, 1441 contained "no hidden triggers and no automaticity with the use of force. The procedure to be followed was laid out in the resolution."
http://www.robincmiller.com/iraq6-fr.htm
In short, Iraq was no threat to the US???no WMDs and the initiation of the attack by Bush was in violation of Res. 1441 which did not have triggers for an automatic attack. So you can see clearly that by invading Iraq before WMDs were found, Bush broke the law.

Here???s a short 2 page explanation why the invasion is illegal: http://www.fpif.org/pdf/gac/0212lawyers.pdf
Read just the first paragraph of this Congressional Report on the investigations. In summary, we attacked Iraq to remove WMDs, except the inspectors turned up no legitimate WMDs. Yes, Blix said that historically the inspections were a tug of war w/ Hussein, but Bush???s saber rattling instilled a new sense of compliance w/ the Iraqi leader resulting in substantive and procedural access. http://opencrs.cdt.org/rpts/RL31671_20030328.pdf
You have your facts wrong again. Blix testified in 2003 about 2002 investigations. His 2002 Journal (march 7) comments on how good the Iraqi cooperation was with the inspections. Any way you slice it, Hussein did comply with the inspectors.
No. We bombed the country to shit and Bush handed out all those gravy reconstruction contracts to supporters that were financed by the Oil revenues of Iraq. Oh, wait a moment that is incorrect, the US taxpayer picked up the bill.

DECKER'ownzzzddd
X A Million

 

[ZECH]

Remember,
Freedom is NEVER free!

 

[ZECH]

Decker, what law do you keep referring to that is broken??
Where is this law written? Who inforces this law?
The UN is a piece of shit which we should never be a part of. I hope someone will sponsor a bill to remove us from the UN.
The UN would never ever authorize any such thing and Bush knew it.
Hell just give them them 10 more years of talk and sanctions. That will certainly do it.
It has worked in North Korea hasn't it??

 

[DOMS]

<bullshit about 1441>

What a crock. 1441 was drafted in 2002. The US went to war with Iraq in 1990. You'll notice a time difference of, oh, about a decade. Who cares if the UN felt like draftING shit over 10 years later. It doesn't change the fact that the UN can't do shit on its own and called for the US to fight a war for them back 1990.

The very moment we engaged in that war, the fate of it was the US' to decide. Take, for instance, the cessation of hostilities in 1991. Who decided to do that? What is the Kuwaitis? No. Was it the UN? No. It was the US. We so thoroughly ravage the Iraqi forces that we felt we should give them a chance to end it without further bloodshed.

They failed to adhere to our demands, so the resumption of that war was, again, the US' to make, not the UN's.

What you're doing is a bit of slight of hand. "Oh, look over here! Look at 1441! Forget that the US is the one in control of that war!"

You have your facts wrong again. Blix testified in 2003 about 2002 investigations. His 2002 Journal (march 7) comments on how good the Iraqi cooperation was with the inspections. Any way you slice it, Hussein did comply with the inspectors.

Wait, didn't you say in an earlier post that Blix only said that Iraq complied to stop the impending US attack? Hmm? So which is it? Did Blix really have absolute proof that Iraq didn't have any WMDs? In which case, you lied in an earlier post. Or did he just say that to try to stop the war? In which case, you're lying now.

No. We bombed the country to shit and Bush handed out all those gravy reconstruction contracts to supporters that were financed by the Oil revenues of Iraq. Oh, wait a moment that is incorrect, the US taxpayer picked up the bill.

The country was shit when we got there and we are (the US and hence the taxpayers) building it up. Which is a waste of money.

 

[DOMS]

DECKER'ownzzzddd
X A Million

= 0

 

[Decker]

Remember,
Freedom is NEVER free!

I agree wholeheartedly. That's why the founders memorialized the basic recipe for maintaining freedom in our US Constitution.

I always wonder if GW Bush ever read the constitution.

[SIZE=+1]"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"[/SIZE] http://www.rense.com/general69/paper.htm

My money is on the point that he hasn't read it.

 

[DOMS]

Decker, what law do you keep referring to that is broken??
Where is this law written? Who inforces this law?
The UN is a piece of shit which we should never be a part of. I hope someone will sponsor a bill to remove us from the UN.
The UN would never ever authorize any such thing and Bush knew it.
Hell just give them them 10 more years of talk and sanctions. That will certainly do it.
It has worked in North Korea hasn't it??

No shit. If we really, I mean really, broke the a law, where's the formal, written, accusation? Where's the punishment? Where are the sanctions?

 

[DOMS]

I agree wholeheartedly. That's why the founders memorialized the basic recipe for maintaining freedom in our US Constitution.

I always wonder if GW Bush ever read the constitution.

[SIZE=+1]"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"[/SIZE] http://www.rense.com/general69/paper.htm

My money is on the point that he hasn't read it.

Not that I put it past Bush to say something like that, but I find it interesting that the page you linked to was nothing more than a repeating of another page on another site, both of which fail to substantiate the supposed quotes.

 

[Decker]

What a crock. 1441 was drafted in 2002. The US went to war with Iraq in 1990. You'll notice a time difference of, oh, about a decade. Who cares if the UN felt like drafted shit over 10 years later. It doesn't change the fact that the UN can't do shit on its own and called for the US to fight a war for them back 1990.

The UN is collection of sovereignties and not a sovereign entity unto itself. The US is a willing member of the UN and not an antagonist....supposedly.

The very moment we engaged in that war, the fate of it was the US' to decide. Take, for instance, the cessation of hostilities in 1991. Who decided to do that? What is the Kuwaitis? No. Was it the UN? No. It was the US. We so thoroughly ravage the Iraqi forces that we felt we should give them a chance to end it without further bloodshed.

Strategy and tactics are not incumbent on the UN's grant of authority. There's no doubt the US was a major player in both Gulf Wars and it set the strategy and tactics---that includes making the determination that the war is over.

They failed to adhere to our demands, so the resumption of that war was, again, the US' to make, not the UN's.

Maybe you should inform the US Government and the United Nations that they are doing it wrong.

What is the history of the Iraq war?:

''A U.N. ultimatum, Security Council Resolution 678, followed on November 29, 1990. It stipulated that if Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein did not remove his troops from Kuwait by January 15, 1991 a U.S.-led coalition was authorized to drive them out."
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB39/

What you're doing is a bit of slight of hand. "Oh, look over here! Look at 1441! Forget that the US is the one in control of that war!"

What you're doing is not understanding the fundamental structure of both US foreign relations and rules of order for legal military engagement.

Wait, didn't you say in an earlier post that Blix only said that Iraq complied to stop the impending US attack? Hmm? So which is it? Did Blix really have absolute proof that Iraq didn't have any WMDs? In which case, you lied in an earlier post. Or did he just say that to try to stop the war? In which case, you're lying now.

You are not making sense. Blix and co. had proof that Iraq did not have the WMDs the US was predicating it's invasion rationale on--Not "absolute" proof b/c Bush's illegal invasion drove the inspectors out of Iraq before they could complete their inspections. I've been pretty consistent in pointing that fact out.

Blix didn't say that Iraq complied to stop the impending US attack--I did.

The country was shit when we got there and we are (the US and hence the taxpayers) building it up. Which is a waste of money.

So the Iraqis bombed their own water/sewage systems, started a civil war, sold off Iraqi infrastructure to opportunistic foreigners, and generally shit-canned their own country while the US was a virginal benefactor? Nope.

 

[Decker]

Not that I put it past Bush to say something like that, but I find it interesting that the page you linked to was nothing more than a repeating of another page on another site, both of which fail to substantiate the supposed quotes.

That was merely emblematic of my question, "I wonder if Bush ever read the constitution?" I'm not asserting it as gospel, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were true. That's why I posed the question--it was rhetorical--illegal invasion, illegal spying, illegal torture. Come on, that's too easy.

 

[Decker]

Decker, what law do you keep referring to that is broken??
Where is this law written? Who inforces this law?
The UN is a piece of shit which we should never be a part of. I hope someone will sponsor a bill to remove us from the UN.
The UN would never ever authorize any such thing and Bush knew it.
Hell just give them them 10 more years of talk and sanctions. That will certainly do it.
It has worked in North Korea hasn't it??

Just think about it for one moment. If international law, the kind embodied in the Geneva Convention and UN Charter, dictates that use of force is justified only in self defense or in conjunction with UN resolutions and Bush attacks a country with no justification under either requirement, then we have an illegal use of force. Bush abused the authority granted to him by Congress and the UN when he attacked Iraq before the inspections were completed.

You might hate the UN, but you're letting your prejudice cloud your judgment. Like it or not, the US is a member.

 

[viet_jon]

Just think about it for one moment. If international law, the kind embodied in the Geneva Convention and UN Charter, dictates that use of force is justified only in self defense or in conjunction with UN resolutions and Bush attacks a country with no justification under either requirement, then we have an illegal use of force. Bush abused the authority granted to him by Congress and the UN when he attacked Iraq before the inspections were completed.

You might hate the UN, but you're letting your prejudice cloud your judgment. Like it or not, the US is a member.

one question.

so is there a punishment in place if a country in the UN uses unjustified force? in this case the US?

 

[DOMS]

The UN is collection of sovereignties and not a sovereign entity unto itself. The US is a willing member of the UN and not an antagonist....supposedly.

Strategy and tactics are not incumbent on the UN's grant of authority. There's no doubt the US was a major player in both Gulf Wars and it set the strategy and tactics---that includes making the determination that the war is over.

The US in a member, but not a lackey, of the UN. The can't command the US into battle. They also cannot command the US once it has engage is a war.

Like I've said before, once the US was asked by the UN to fight the Iraqis, the decision of how it would end was the US', not the UN's. This is exactly what the US government said back in 2002.

For some odd reason, you seem to think that the UN is in charge of the US.

Maybe you should inform the US Government and the United Nations that they are doing it wrong.

You're incorrect, the US is doing it the right way. They take the UN's requests under advisement and not as commands.

What you're doing is not understanding the fundamental structure of both US foreign relations and rules of order for legal military engagement.

What's not to understand? The UN, the toothless organization that it is, cried out for the help of the US. They asked us to put lives and large sums of money on the line to fight a battle for them. We did, but of our own accord and not as a tool of the UN. They can ask the US to fight for them, but once lives are on the line, they can't dictate what happens after.

You are not making sense. Blix and co. had proof that Iraq did not have the WMDs the US was predicating it's invasion rationale on--Not "absolute" proof b/c Bush's illegal invasion drove the inspectors out of Iraq before they could complete their inspections. I've been pretty consistent in pointing that fact out.

Why were there inspectors in Iraq if they already knew that he didn't have WMDs? If they already knew they he didn't have WMDs, then why keep inspecting for them? And why did they ask for more time if they already knew the answer?

 

[DOMS]

That was merely emblematic of my question, "I wonder if Bush ever read the constitution?" I'm not asserting it as gospel, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were true. That's why I posed the question--it was rhetorical--illegal invasion, illegal spying, illegal torture. Come on, that's too easy.

Yet you posted to a site that made serious allegations and bolstered your side of the argument.

Oh look, a web page where someone said that lawyers eat babies! Decker, how could you?!

 

[DOMS]

Just think about it for one moment. If international law, the kind embodied in the Geneva Convention and UN Charter, dictates that use of force is justified only in self defense or in conjunction with UN resolutions and Bush attacks a country with no justification under either requirement, then we have an illegal use of force. Bush abused the authority granted to him by Congress and the UN when he attacked Iraq before the inspections were completed.

You might hate the UN, but you're letting your prejudice cloud your judgment. Like it or not, the US is a member.

Okay, for the sake of this argument, I'll give it to you: The US broke international law regarding the use of war. The US wiling went against some international law and thousands died for it.

Okay? Good? Spot on? Ikaga desu?

Now, where's the written decree of this clear cut criminal activity? Where's the trial? Where's the sentencing? Where's the jail time?

 

[clemson357]

Bush abused the authority granted to him by Congress and the UN when he attacked Iraq before the inspections were completed.

So now the president's authority is "granted to him" by the UN? What a fucking joke.

 

[clemson357]

I agree wholeheartedly. That's why the founders memorialized the basic recipe for maintaining freedom in our US Constitution.

I always wonder if GW Bush ever read the constitution.

[SIZE=+1]"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"[/SIZE] http://www.rense.com/general69/paper.htm

My money is on the point that he hasn't read it.

Your posts are starting to resemble Zulu's, that guy who would post all the pictures of the KKK and call everyone on the forum a limp-dicked, flat-assed white boy.

And using third-classed internet sites as a source tells everyone all they need to know about the merits of your argument.

 

[Decker]

The US in a member, but not a lackey, of the UN. The can't command the US into battle. They also cannot command the US once it has engage is a war.

No one's making these assertions that you are addressing.

Like I've said before, once the US was asked by the UN to fight the Iraqis, the decision of how it would end was the US', not the UN's. This is exactly what the US government said back in 2002.

No. The conclusion of battle is what the US can decide. The keeping of the peace after Iraq's surrender was managed by the UN pursuant to UN directives....i.e., the US can't do whatever the hell it wants to do. The US had to follow UN management.

For some odd reason, you seem to think that the UN is in charge of the US.

For some strange reason, you refuse to acknowledge that the US is a member of the UN.

You're incorrect, the US is doing it the right way. They take the UN's requests under advisement and not as commands.

Absolutely wrong. The US dances to the UN's tune b/c there was no legal "self-defense from attack" reason for attacking Iraq. Iraq didn't attack us. So we sought a different avenue and relied on tortured reasoning that the grant of UN authority from the first Iraq war was still valid for the US to do as it pleases. Wrong.

What's not to understand? The UN, the toothless organization that it is, cried out for the help of the US. They asked us to put lives and large sums of money on the line to fight a battle for them. We did, but of our own accord and not as a tool of the UN. They can ask the US to fight for them, but once lives are on the line, they can't dictate what happens after.

Yes it can. And let's admit a fact, Bush wanted that war more than anyone. He created a special office in the Pentagon to shape and select "facts" that painted a picture at odds with reality.

Why were there inspectors in Iraq if they already knew that he didn't have WMDs? If they already knew they he didn't have WMDs, then why keep inspecting for them? And why did they ask for more time if they already knew the answer?

You are playing with language. They knew that there were no WMDs in the places they inspected. They did not finish their inspections b/c of the invasion. They asked for more time, but since Bush saw his last legal justification for invasion crumbling before his eyes, he attacked, driving the inspectors out of Iraq.

 

[DOMS]

Before I respond to your last past, please respond to my (twice asked) question regarding lack of formal charges against the US for war crimes.

 

[Decker]

Before I respond to your last past, please respond to my (twice asked) question regarding lack of formal charges against the US for war crimes.

You would have to ask the UN or whatever international body has jurisdiction in the matter. I know the EU has imposed economic sanctions on the US for unrelated matters, so it can be done.

I happen to stand with the vast majority of legal experts in this country and abroad that have concluded what I have concluded--that the invasion is illegal.

http://www.lawyersagainstthewar.org/


http://www.robincmiller.com/art-iraq/b58.htm

Same goes for wiretapping, torture, and the new law that defines enemy combatants as anyone Bush views as an enemy. Why have none of those unconstitutional actions been addressed in the courts?

 

[DOMS]

You would have to ask the UN or whatever international body has jurisdiction in the matter. I know the EU has imposed economic sanctions on the US for unrelated matters, so it can be done.

I happen to stand with the vast majority of legal experts in this country and abroad that have concluded what I have concluded--that the invasion is illegal.

http://www.lawyersagainstthewar.org/


http://www.robincmiller.com/art-iraq/b58.htm

Same goes for wiretapping, torture, and the new law that defines enemy combatants as anyone Bush views as an enemy. Why have none of those unconstitutional actions been addressed in the courts?

Okay, so let me make sure that I fully understand this: By international law, the US is guilty of war crimes in a clear cut fashion. In such a way that someone could say, again, in a very clear cut way, that the US has performed an action that is in violation of a very particular piece of international law. Yet there has been no formal charges leveled against the US?

If it's such a cut and dried case, where's the easy conviction? Or, at least, the formal accusation?

They haven't because the US hasn't violated any law.

 

[Decker]

Okay, so let me make sure that I fully understand this: By international law, the US is guilty of war crimes in a clear cut fashion. In such a way that someone could say, again, in a very clear cut way, that the US has performed an action that is in violation of a very particular piece of international law. Yet there has been no formal charges leveled against the US?

If it's such a cut and dried case, where's the easy conviction? Or, at least, the formal accusation?

They haven't because the US hasn't violated any law.

So the conclusion of the legal community means nothing to you. That's fine. I mean what do lawyers know about the law?

But as I said in my last post, look at all the other constitutional transgressions perpetrated by Bush that went unnoticed.

And if it makes you feel any better sir, Clinton's bombing of Kosovo was likely a war crime too. Did you see any prosecution of Clinton for that?

 

[DOMS]

So the conclusion of the legal community means nothing to you. That's fine. I mean what do lawyers know about the law?

There are also lawyers who say that Bush hasn't done anthing illegal. But they have an agenda.

But as I said in my last post, look at all the other constitutional transgressions perpetrated by Bush that went unnoticed.

But, again, where is the easy conviction? But I was also talking about international law.

And if it makes you feel any better sir, Clinton's bombing of Kosovo was likely a war crime too. Did you see any prosecution of Clinton for that?

I didn't care. Nor did much of anyone else in the US.