Friday, July 13, 2007

Tell me again why this war is illegal

This whole Cindy Sheehan coming to town has sparked some angry feelings ... on both sides ... in the local newspaper.

One thing that keeps coming up again and again by the looneys on the left is "this illegal war."

Somebody with some sense explain that one to me.

Didn't the President get authorization from Congress for this? Didn't Congress look at the same intelligence ... that was gathered under Bill Clinton's CIA Director, George Tenet?

So tell me what makes this illegal? Michael Moore said so? Cindy Sheehan said so? Hugo Chavez said so? Osama Bin Laden said so?

If the Congress thinks the authorization for war was a mistake, then revoke it. Congress has the power to revoke any resolution it passes, doesn't it? And all it takes is a majority, right?

No, the Congress won't revoke the authorization. Because all that rhetoric is just that ... people putting talk above the best interests of the nation.

So, again I ask, somebody with some sense explain to me why this war is illegal.

But that's the catch, isn't it? Somebody with some sense.
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Big Dog's Weblog, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Nuke's news and views, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Blog @, 123beta, DeMediacratic Nation, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, Webloggin, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Pet Haven, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Faultline USA, Allie Is Wired, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Planck's Constant, CORSARI D'ITALIA, High Desert Wanderer, The Yankee Sailor, Gone Hollywood, and Public Eye, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.


  1. Simple. We are part of the UN (Weather you think that is a good idea or not) and the UN requires that we go through the Security Counsil and not just unilaterally invade another country. Aslo while Bush was telling us that the weapons inspectors were not being allowed to inspect they were inspecting and had to be removed due to a bombing campaign by the US.

  2. The argument, which I don't really buy, is not that it's against US law but that it's against international law. The UN charger states clearly that nations have a right to make war to protect their territory, infrastructure and the lives of their citizens. It specifically condemns wars of conquest, which this war, regardless of the stated justifications for, has all the trappings of.

    Then there's also the haggard issue of whether Bush was, in fact, legally elected in the first place but we've been around that block a few too many times already.

  3. Rob: Define "unilateral." And then explain how the various countries in our coalition falls within that definition.

    And are you saying we must wait by until Saddam admits he was supporting the terrorists before we can act against his regime?

    Thomas: A "war of conquest?" Come on, now. What, we're planning on making Iraq the 51st state? We removed a dictator, allowed the country to hold free elections and establish their own government. And our troops remain their at the request of the duly elected government. That's a war of conquest?

    And, yes, we've had that "legally elected" argument way too many times. However, since you brought it up, the Constitution sets the manner for the election of the President. And the Constitution set the Supreme Court as the interpreters of the Constitution in matters relating to it.

    The election was held, the various states selected the Electors, and the Electors, like in every presidential election since 1788, voted for a President. Since one had a majority of votes cast, he was elected, as prescribed by the Constitution. Sounds legal to me.

  4. Thomas/Rob,

    Lest we forget about resolution 1441:

    Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international
    monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

    Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

    Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

    Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

    Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

    Noting that the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary-General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq's continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,

    Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter...

    He had his chance... and now he's dead.

  5. Oh dear Lord, the next idiot that says Bush wasn't legally elected needs to be shot on the spot! Call it stamping out stupidity!

  6. [...] Basil’s Blog » Blog Archive » Tell me again why this war is illegal [...]

  7. Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 07/13/2007
    A short recon of what's out there that might draw your attention updated throughout the check back often.

  8. Beat me too it, Butch. And you are so right. Funny how liberals ignore all the UN resolutions, especially 1441. Sanctions without consequences is like telling your kids to clean their rooms or else, then, when they don't, telling them again and again and again, without ever punishing them.

    They also ignore the Iraq Liberation Act, signed with fanfare by Clinton, which called for regime change by any means.

    I usually just ignore the nutbags who go on about with the illegal war crap. They are clearly unhinged, indoctrinated, and stupid.

  9. What Everybody's Talking About...

    Taking a look at what's going on from my blogroll .......

  10. I'm far from unhinged, indoctrinated or stupid. As for my original point of this war being an illegal venture, we had weapons inspectors in there and they were told to leave so we could start the bombing raid. We did not let them finish thier job that is a fact.

    And by the way Linda,

    Do you know what caging is? look it up then tell me there was no stealing of the election. It was plain and simple election fraud. People were fired over it.

  11. Rob: Your original comment spouted the tired, old (and, yes, indoctrinated) phrase that we acted "unilaterally." Since you declined to look it up, I've done that for you: "done or undertaken by one person or party"

    Our coalition does not fit the definition.

    So, hoping you've now abandoned that part of your anti-Bush indoctrination, you still remain in the camp of only doing what the U.N. tells you.

    Well, when? When they passed all those resolutions that Butch was so kind to enumerate? Of when they failed to act to back up all those resolutions?

    Saddam kicked out the inspectors, was threatened, and let them back in. Multiple times.

    And once too often.

    And now he's dead. Sorry for your loss.

    Regarding the election, one is foolish to think that voter suppression, and illegal voting, is not done by members of all sides of the political spectrum.

    Just because I would not seek to deprive any proper voter from exercising his right does not mean that other conservatives would not stoop to such. Likewise, just because you might not seek to expand voting to include improper voters, does not mean that others on the left would not do the same.

    It's a fact, although an unpleasant and quite undesirable fact. And just plain wrong.

    The facts do remain that the process for electing a President has been in place for hundreds of years. And the 2000 election followed the same Constitutional process.

  12. "And the 2000 election followed the same Constitutional process."

    Have you read teh Supreme Court ruling on the election?

    Aslo a year after when the votes were counted Gore won Florida.

  13. Oh and isn't so nice to see that the Iraqi parliment will be taking a much needed vacation through August while more of our troops die. But it's hot over there you know so they deserve the vacation. I say we bring every US soldier home for the month.

  14. Like I wrote earlier, the Constitution sets forth the process for electing a President. It's by the variousl states selecting Electors.

    Since it's a Constitutional question regarding the process, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction. And they ruled the selective recount invalid and the election certified. Which is what happened.

    Oh, and "when the votes were counted Gore won Florida"???

    What alternate reality are you living in? The one where Edith Keeler lived? When a full recount was finally done by several newspapers in Florida, Bush still won.

    It appears that your indoctrination into the looney left was complete after all.

  15. " When a full recount was finally done by several newspapers in Florida, Bush still won."


    Do a simple search on Google and you have thousands of articles written on the fraud of 2000. There is plenty of proof that Jeb had a hand removing thousands of voters who were LEGAL and most were DOMOCRAT. Read a few books on the matter if you must but don't try to tell me it was not a fraudulent election. You insult not only my intelligence but your own as well.

  16. Gore couldn't even win his home state! Rob has had too much kool-aid! Bush won, get over it!


    (*Editors Note | Quietly this decision to settle with the NAACP signals an admission by the State of Florida, and those counties named as codefendants that wide spread disenfranchisement of Black voters was prevalent during the 2000 election. The same charges that were leveled by both African American residents of Florida and by the Gore campaign. Based on the narrow margin of victory state officials claim George W. Bush enjoyed, this settlement casts further doubt on the validity of those results. The original complaint filed by NAACP addressed conditions effecting hundreds of thousands of Black Florida voters state wide a group that voted in favor of Al Gore by a 93% margin. There is no clear indication that any meaningful steps have been taken to protect the rights of African American voters in the state of Florida. George W. Bush remains in control of the White House today. -- ma)

    Go To Original

    Florida Faces 2000 Election Fraud, Will Settle With NAACP
    By Catherine Wilson
    Associated Press | Boston Globe

    Tuesday, 27 August, 2002

    MIAMI (AP) The NAACP's lawsuit over Florida's disputed 2000 presidential election appears headed for a close as the state and two counties the only remaining defendants have agreed to a settlement, attorneys said Tuesday.

    Joe Klock, an attorney for the state, told U.S. District Judge Alan Gold that all parties promised to file final papers by Friday for approval. Attorneys would not discuss terms of the settlement.

    The class-action lawsuit filed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and other civil rights groups argued voters were disenfranchised during the on Nov. 7, 2000 election; it included allegations that blacks were kept from voting in some counties.

    The state and Orange and Hillsborough counties were the only holdouts in the lawsuit. Miami-Dade, Broward, Leon, Volusia and Duval counties settled earlier rather than face trial.

    Provisions of those settlements included sweeping modifications to voter registration, voter-roll maintenance and polling practices. They also required counties to improve election day communications between precincts and election headquarters and in some cases guaranteed foreign language-speaking workers would be at the polls to assist voters.

    After a legal battle that reached the U.S. Supreme Court, President Bush's 537-vote margin over Al Gore in Florida swung the outcome for the presidency.

    The state had argued the Legislature adequately addressed problems by standardizing recount rules, eliminating punch card voting systems and allowing provisional balloting. But plaintiffs argued Florida had still not done enough to avoid wrongfully turn away voters.

    A settlement would eliminate the likelihood of unflattering headlines from a trial projected to last through parts of Gov. Jeb Bush's re-election campaign.

    With new laws and new voting equipment in place, the Sept. 10 primary will be the first big test of Florida's updated election machinery

  18. By the way can anyone here tell me who a good "investigative" reporter is? I ask this question on other conservative sites and they always give me some talking head name. I am truely interested in a conservative reporter I can see some work from.

  19. Rob:

    I gave you a link to a PBS site (along with an excerpt) and you give me something from a left-wing propaganda site? Run by the same Marc Ash that claims Wellstone was murdered?

    Hell, I can post just about anything, give it some silly-ass name like "truthout" and then, what, I'm a valid source?

    Bottom line: USA Today and Miami Herald did the count anyway. Bush still won.

  20. So you are saying that the NAACP and Florida never had this case, or that tens of thousands of voters were not stricken from the rolls? If it's not reported in the mainstream media it never happened is that it? How about Diebold admitting the machines malfuntioned and gave Bush 16000 votes in a county with only 600 people? The machines and teh voter rolls were both screwed up an dyou can sit there and say it was a fair election and the true winner prevailed? How about the fact that thousands of voters were pulled due to thier criminal convictions that never happened?

  21. Simple truth is you cant count votes that were never cast and the fact that they were not cast because of fraud tells teh whole truth as to who should have won the 2000 election.

  22. check out this article from NPR

  23. The fact is I gave you a link to a reputable source, one that even the left would accept. You gave me info from a site that is way over the edge.

    Election 2000 happened in, well, 2000. And Bush won. Subject closed.


Please choose a Profile in "Comment as" or sign your name to Anonymous comments. Comment policy