October 10, 2007

"When you're attacked continually in American politics, you either give up or get disoriented or you either lose or leave..."

"... or you persevere and show your resilience."

Hillary Clinton makes an observation, and she's talking about herself. Of course, the same thing applies to President Bush. "Resilient" — it's a good word, a good substitute for relentless, remorseless, impervious, incurious...

(By the way, she's touring Iowa right now, and the tour is called the "Middle Class Express." Catchy, no?)

78 comments:

jane said...

"When you're attacked continually in American politics, you either give up or get disoriented or you either lose or leave..."

Strange how she said American politics, instead of keeping it a universal observation. Is this her subconscious bow to the "superiority" of European discourse, or is she tacitly admitting she and Bill get more love and acclamation overseas than they do in their own country?

MadisonMan said...

How about (c): None of the above.

Maybe she doesn't know what happens in Malawi politics, or Chilean, or Finnish politics to make a universal statement.

hdhouse said...

ahhh Jane, Bill Clinton is one of the most popular persons in the entire country. Hillary has more a 50:50. Overseas they are wildly popular so your statement is correct but your insinuation isn't.

More to the point, she has been attacked continually and how she gets it together enough to face yet another day speeks well of her resolve (better than resiliancy which means more of a bounce-back to get clobbered once again).

I don't think the same speaks to George Bush who leads an isolated life with handlers, rarely encountering any 1:1 with someone or some group who isn't kissing him. That is very dangerous. I admire Hillary's resolve. I deplore Bush's willful isolation.

Balfegor said...

relentless, remorseless, impervious, incurious...

Inexorable! Bush the Inexorable! The Inexorable Clinton! It sounds good no matter how I put it.

Strange how she said American politics, instead of keeping it a universal observation.

I'm not sure whether she meant anything by that -- she might have been limiting the observation to the political system with which she is most intimately familiar. But not all political systems are the same in their degree of viciousness. Some are worse than us -- no one's campaign slogan here is "He killed my ma, he killed my pa, but I will vote for him." But some are not. Certain other countries have more of an elite consensus, such that major political parties reserve their real vituperation for the populists they want to exclude from power, like Jean Marie Le Pen. That consensus, at least in Europe, seems to be cracking somewhat, but I think it is real. You know, everyone was at school together (Oxbridge, the Ecole Nationale d'Administration, etc.), emphatically part of the same ruling class, and so on.

SteveR said...

Now that she's coasting to the nomination without having to have given up the middle to appease the fringe, she moves on to victum mode. "In spite of these horrible and unwarranted attacks for all these years, I have perservered. Feel my pain."

That seems very middle class to me, creating a problem when there really isn't one.

Meade said...

"'Middle Class Express.' Catchy, no?"

express: To squeeze or press out, as milk from a breast.

jane said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jane said...

Where, besides Girl Scout councils, are politicians and candidates not attacked and hit below the belt? America's not necessarily meaner, the Clintons were just less forthright and more corrupt.

Hillary knows better but is acting the ninny. A ninny nanny-state wannabe.

ricpic said...

Paw wiwwel Hiwwawy, paw wiwwel putupon sweety.

Tim said...

The Hillary! thinks she's Jesus, who, to provide us salvation, will sacrifice herself to be elected for our sins.

It's no one's fault but our own.

Trooper York said...

Lyndon Johnson: Padiolas! Isn't there anybody who can deal with a housewife?
(The Right Stuff 1983)

Paddy O. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paddy O. said...

Resilience.

One of Nixon's best qualities.

Not sure why sticking around is a selling point.

[George walks into Monks wearing the Russian hat.]

George: Hey.

Jerry: Hey, why didn't you get the big one?

George: This hat just bottles in the heat, I don't even need a coat! It's unbelievable!

Jerry: I don't believe it.

George: And I got a date with the sales woman. She's got a little Marisa Tomei thing going on.

Jerry: Ah, too bad you got a little George Costanza thing going on.

George: I'm going out with her tomorrow, she said she had some errands to run.

Jerry: That's a date?

George: What's the difference? You know they way I work, I'm like a commercial jingle. First it's a little irritating, then you hear it a few times, you hum it in the shower, by the third date it's "By Mennen!".

Jerry: How do you make sure your gonna get to the third date?

George: If there's any doubt, I do a leave-behind keys, glove, scarf, I go back to her place to pick it up...date number three.

Jerry: That's so old. Why don't you show up at her door in a wood horse?

[Jerry is at his apartment door]

Jerry: "By Mennen"

[George and Heather are at a bench in the park. George is holding a bag.]

George: So how do you want to do this?

Heather: Alright George I'll be honest, the first time we went out, I found you very irritating, but after seeing you for a couple of times, you sorta got stuck in my head, Costanza! [Costanza like "By Mennen"]

Trooper York said...

Co-pilot #1: It doesn't seem right to fire an air-to-ground missile at a woman.
Pilot #1: Don't think of her as a woman. Think of her as a target. That's what I do.
(Attack of the 50 Ft. Woman 1993)

Paul Zrimsek said...

The criticism and the response are two sides of a single coin. The unnamed Democratic critics want disagreement to go away (on their own terms of course), and therefore regard "uniting the country" as a reasonable thing to expect of a President. Hillary wants disagreement to go away (on her own terms of course), and therefore regards attacks on Hillary as acts of bad faith.

Zeb Quinn said...

Who has "attacked" Hillary? The press certainly has in no way. If Hillary has been attacked it's only been by her political opponents. It goes with the game of politics. Only Hillary can turn this commonplace occurance into a monumental event of personal victimhood.

Balfegor said...

Re: Tim:

The Hillary! thinks she's Jesus, who, to provide us salvation, will sacrifice herself to be elected for our sins.

You must be thinking of Obama . . .

Roger said...

Zeb: you forgot the vast right wing conspiracy since the early 1990s (although I think the liberal economist Brad deLong did a heck of a job on her management skills during the healthcare thing in 1993).

Parker Smith said...

Well, entire books HAVE been written attacking her.

And apparently there is enough source material for more than one book...

Wurly said...

Victory through resilience, or triumph of the will.

Trumpit said...

"Resilience.

One of Nixon's best qualities"


Nixon's best quality was a seething hatred and paranoia toward his perceived enemies. That's Clarence Thomas' best quality as well.

Trooper York said...

Waldo Lydecker: My dear, either you were born on a extremely rustic community, where good manners are unknown, or you suffer from a common feminine delusion that the mere fact of being a woman exempts you from the rules of civilized conduct.
(Laura 1944)

Zeb Quinn said...

Roger and Parker:

Everybody who aspires to the presidency gets attacked. Fred Thompson and his trophy wife, and even Althouse piles on the meme about him being to old and too lethargic. Rudy, attacks on his 9/11 legacy, his marriages, his wife. Bush of course. Reagan of course. And don't forget Nixon. Nobody has ever been attacked like Nixon. He sniveled about it to, kinda like Hillary does. But everybody gets attacked. The question isn't whether, but by whom. One big fat glaring difference is that the media led the way in all those attacks I mentioned. But when it comes to giving that treatment to Hillary the press suddenly goes mute. That's why there's a supposed "vast right-wing conspiracy" that takes her on. That's why books are written about her, that's why there's even a market for those books about her. Because the press has fallen down on the job when it comes to the Clintons.

Roger said...

Zeb: agree--getting attacked goes with the territory and it will wear on even longer because the campaign is interminable. I suspect HRC is bringing this up for two reasons: her "resiliance" and (2) a bit of the victim image.

MadisonMan said...

Because the press has fallen down on the job when it comes to the Clintons.

Whitewater. Constant press harping. And for what?

Richard Dolan said...

I saw this article after reading Caitlin Flanagan's review (Atlantic Monthly) of a series of Hillary books. Flanagan offers a fascinating and perceptive take on Hillary and how (despite all the 'mommy' talk) she came to be the often shrill, take-no-prisoners politician she is today. (For those who are interested, you can find it at http://www.powells.com/lat/review/2007_10_10.html.)

Flanagan begins with the curious story of Socks the Cat, which the Clintons used to great effect while in the White House and then unceremoniously dumped when the left the White House. That vignette, minor in itself, leads Flanagan to identify Hillary's "characteristic flaw" as turning Hillary's cutesy book on Socks "into a lecture on pet care, and the person whose shining example we should all follow was none other than Hillary herself." Along the way, Hillary "hectored [us] never to give away a pet, always to regard one as an 'adoption not an acquisition,'", etc., until, of course, Hillary decided to get rid of Socks.

Flanagan has some very kind things to say about Hillary, particularly her devotion early in her career to the plight of impoverished kids. She describes Hillary in her early career as a "combination of strengths and weaknesses [that] makes for someone I would consider highly admirable and human; someone, in fact, who once ... dazzled me...." All of which makes the fall from grace so much the worse. She concludes:

"What remains of the old Hillary, the one I would have followed anywhere, are the worst of the traits that often mark idealists (humorlessness, sanctimoniousness) combined with the worst expediency and hypocrisy of her husband. In short, to get excited about Hillary is not to get excited about how a woman can change the world, but rather to endorse the way a certain kind of man -- over time, and holding her hostage not only by her ambition but by the love she has for a child whose home she desperately didn't want to destroy -- can diminish the very best of a woman."

To say that Hillary gets attacked is merely a truism. To be in politics is to get attacked. But the attacks that hurt, that cut deeply, are those by former admirers like Flanagan. She notes that "the Clinton's political partnership has demanded that [Hillary] defend actions she knows to be indefensible", causing Hillary to "sull[y] her deepest -- and most womanly -- ideals and convictions," all of which Hillary did by "too often laps[ing] into he customary hauteur and self-righteousness."

I don't know whether this is what Hillary had in mind when she went on about being "attacked continually," but it struck me as devastating.

B said...

Ann,

It is becoming apparent over the last several weeks of your postings on Giuliani and Hillary that my previous comments regarding Hillary's fitness for the office have given you permission to seriously consider her for President. Let me be clear:

Hillary has the "capacity" for leadership and administration. Her time as an active (some would say activist)First Lady and the consensus-building she has demonstrated in the Senate are not just fluffy resume fillers. She is a unique person in our culture and no doubt could, with the aid of her
husband's advice, learn the job a little faster than most, the exceptions being governors. The remaining sheriff's line -up that's running for the Democratic nomination has no one more qualified - except Richardson* (* = no chance).

That said, the problem is not "learnability". It's her lack of knowing how she really views American might and military. She has been all over the board, and is there anyone - anywhere - who truly believes that a President Hillary would have the respect of our nation's warriors and respond in a crisis as quickly and rightly as a President Giuliani.

Think about it, long and hard, because there is nothing - NOTHING - in Hillary's resume that shows a rock hard belief in the overall worth and dignity of the United States military. To make a case for Hillary on this point, a person has to dissemble and obfuscate to a ridiculous point.

I actually thought I could make peace in my mind with a Hillary Administration, wiping away the dichotomy that is her National Defense rhetoric. But when she questioned the veracity of General Petraeus in the hearings - she showed herself to be without an inner core of understanding what it is to respect the military men and women of this country. She doesn't "get it" militarily. And all of the parsing in the world won't give her that understanding.


Ann, the bottom line is that she doesn't have what it takes to protect this nation. And if Bill has a heart attack and becomes unavailable, what Democrat can she look to in a military crisis?

You now have permission to give up this ridiculous idea of Hillary as Commander-in-Chief.

Luckyoldson said...

The Clintons have a hell of a lot more experience being trashed, ridiculed and attacked than George W. Bush.

And they've had the guts and fortitude to stand up to it, time after time.

If anybody thinks Bush has been attacked, just wait until he leaves office and people REALLY get to tell Americans what he's done to our country's reputation.

Luckyoldson said...

b says: "Ann, the bottom line is that she doesn't have what it takes to protect this nation."

Really?

And you base this on what?

In comparison to the fantastic job Bush and company have done over the past 7 years? (Compare how many Americans have died during Bush's tenure to that of Bill Clinton.)

Talk about right wing drivel...

Pogo said...

Re: "just wait until he leaves office and people REALLY get to tell Americans what he's done..."

I suggest starting a cable channel, BDS TV, for 24-hour spleen-ventin' jaw-grindin' Bush-hatin' fun.

Jeremy said...

LOS - so you're saying that your obession with all things Bush will continue even after he leaves office? Heaven help us. Perhaps we could start a non-profit called MoveYourselfOnAlso?

Freeman Hunt said...

Why would I want my President to cultivate any sort of victim image for herself?

Zeb Quinn said...

Whitewater. Constant press harping. And for what?

Sorry, but I just don't remember the press ever giving the Clintons an in-depth and detailed up-close-and-personal proctology exam over Whitewater. Not like what they'd do to a repub president in a similar situation. If anything the mainstream media covered for the Clintons. To the extent that there was harping about it going on, it was the rightwingers like Rush Limbaugh who were doing that, not the press. The press largely ignored it and pretended like there was nothing there. And by that means that's how it turned out.

Trooper York said...

Wade: We never had nicknames where I came from. Certainly not "White Water." White trash, maybe.
(The Rive Wild 1994)

Meade said...

Luckysun says, "Compare how many Americans have died during Bush's tenure to that of Bill Clinton."

Or Lincoln's tenure. Or FDR's.

See the pattern?
Course you do.

Logically, the next Clinton tenure will give us a net gain of fat happy milk-fed Americans cleaving to - never attacking and being mean to - the ninny nanny wannabe Commandress-in-Chief.

(ninny nanny wannabe h/t Jane)

garage mahal said...

The press didn't harp on Whitewater? It was a story made up the press. Good God.

"The committee's hearings ran for 300 hours over 60 sessions across 13 months, taking over 10,000 pages of testimony and 35,000 pages of depositions from almost 250 people".

Nope, nothing up close and personal about that!

MadisonMan said...

but I just don't remember the press ever giving the Clintons an in-depth and detailed up-close-and-personal proctology exam over Whitewater.

The Wall Street Journal wrote six volumes of Editorials and articles re: Whitewater, including more than 100 editorials and op-eds. The NYTimes was similarly focussed on this. Ask yourself why you forget such things.

While the press focussed on this non-story, what was happening in Al Qaeda?

Balfegor said...

Re: MadisonMan:

Whitewater. Constant press harping. And for what?

Uh, concealment of evidence? Spoilation of evidence? There was also testimony that Clinton II herself had directed shredding of Vince Foster's files, from couriers involved in the shredding process. The activities involved there were -- let's face it -- really egregious. This is the kind of thing Arthur Andersen went down for.

All that said, as you can see from the NY Times links above, the press did cover the situation quite thoroughly.

Tim said...

"You must be thinking of Obama . . ."

No. While Obama certainly drew attention to himself that way, he doesn't begin to suggest he's too good for our sinful politics, or that his election will provide salvation from that - rather that his election will promote the Kingdom of God on Earth. Both are transparently blasphemous - but only the Hillary! means for us to appreciate the depths of her personal sacrifice for us.

Balfegor said...

Sorry, should be "spoliation" above. I always get that wrong.

Doyle said...

Of course, it depends on the nature of the attacks.

In Bush's case, the attacks are legitimate and damning, whereas the attacks on Hillary tend to involve her tone of voice or Vince Foster.

Meade said...

from the linked WaPo story: Clinton spoke at some length about her rivals' criticism that she carries too much political baggage from the conflicts of her husband's administration to be an effective and unifying president.

No "disorienting" political attack on Hillary Clinton even comes close to the disorientation, of feminists like HRC, caused by her own husband's actions while POTUS:

He said, "Why do they have to take you away from me? I trust you." And then he told me -- he looked at me and he said, "I promise you if I win in November I'll bring you back like that."

He also indicated that she could have any job she wanted after the election. In addition, the President said he would find out why Ms. Lewinsky was transferred and report back to her.

When asked if he had promised to get Ms. Lewinsky another White House job, the President told the grand jury:

What I told Ms. Lewinsky was that . . . I would do what I could to see, if she had a good record at the Pentagon, and she assured me she was doing a good job and working hard, that I would do my best to see that the fact that she had been sent away from the Legislative Affairs section did not keep her from getting a job in the White House, and that is, in fact, what I tried to do. . . . But I did not tell her I would order someone to hire her, and I never did, and I wouldn't do that. It wouldn't be right.

former law student said...

I fear Hillary Clinton may be the Carly Fiorina of politics -- an empty suit held up by bullshit.

Trooper York said...

Last man: Say, what's a nice joint like you doing in a girl like this?
(Deep Throat 1972)

Doyle said...

Yes, FLS, Carly Fiorina's failure as CEO of HP is compelling evidence that Hillary Clinton should not be president.

You are the Jonah Goldberg of blog commenters, able to put a little knowledge to terrible use.

Trooper York said...

Hey Doyle, whatta ya say and whatta ya know. How about we just trade managers. That might work out great for both teams.

jeff said...

In Hillary's case, the attacks are legitimate and damning, whereas the attacks on Bush tend to involve his manner of speech or Dick Cheney.


Fixed that for you.

Meade said...

"But I did not tell her I would order someone to hire her, and I never did, and I wouldn't do that. It wouldn't be right."

It wouldn't be right.

Imagine how uniting and reorienting it would be for America - sweet land of liberty and equal opportunity - were Mr. and Mrs. Clinton to go on, say, 60 Minutes and calmly and thoroughly explain to the American people just exactly why it is that that "wouldn't be right."

jeff said...

"Yes, FLS, Carly Fiorina's failure as CEO of HP is compelling evidence that Hillary Clinton should not be president.

You are the Jonah Goldberg of blog commenters, able to put a little knowledge to terrible use."

Who would you be then? Who deliberately misses the point of a comment so as to destroy a strawman of his own making?

hdhouse said...

Whitewater? Whitewater? Some asshole dredges up Whitewater as an example....of what?

Republican persistence, impervious to the facts, incurious as to why they still still still still keep at this, relentlessly pursuing her, remorselessly dredging (drudging) up the same crap...

and the answer to this will be, of course...Well democrats attack bush....just you watch.

titus22 said...

Good afternoon fellow compassionate conservatives.

I have some exciting news. Today I have become an ex-gay. I have disowned by hedonistic homosexual past and now am free of my sins.

I called by homsexual friends to let them know that I thought they were all sinners but that I still love them.

Thank you and may the lord be with you.

Rich B said...

About Mrs. Clinton, remember that she is a reflexive liar. In his final report, Robert Ray indicated that - "Given the eight separate conversations in which Mrs. Clinton discussed the Travel Office
with senior White House staff and advisors, the evidence demonstrates that Mrs. Clinton
provided "input" to the staff regarding the Travel Office firings and played a "role" in their
decision making process. It is, in the Independent Counsel's judgment, beyond peradventure that
as a matter of historical fact, Mrs. Clinton's input into the process was a significant -- if not the
significant -- factor influencing the pace of events in the Travel Office firings and the ultimate
decision to fire the employees. Accordingly, the Independent Counsel concludes that Mrs.
Clinton's sworn testimony that she had no input into Watkins's decision or role in the Travel
Office firings is factually inaccurate.
Intent -- Despite the foregoing conclusion, the Independent Counsel has determined that
there is insufficient evidence to obtain and sustain a conviction of Mrs. Clinton for knowingly
making material false statements under oath to this Office and Congress regarding her role in the
Travel Office firings. To establish that Mrs. Clinton knowingly gave false testimony under oath
to this Office, the United States would need to establish not only that the testimony was false, but
that Mrs. Clinton knew the testimony to be false and knowingly gave that false testimony despite
her awareness of its falsity. The admissible evidence will not support such a conclusion beyond
a reasonable doubt."

And remember that the Clintons could fire the travel office employees - there was no need to lie.

Both of them are sleazy, slippery people.

SteveR said...

Well Titus, everyone's a sinner, the main thing is to be forgiven.

hdhouse said...

hi Rich b....did the report conclude as you did or did you just toss that in because you are a hapless twit?

Michael said...

Stand By Your Man Lyrics
Artist(Band):Tammy Wynette

Sometimes it's hard to be a woman
Giving all your love to just one man
You'll have bad times
And he'll have good times
Doin things that you don't understand
But if you love him
You'll forgive him
Even though he's hard to understand
And if you love him
Oh, be proud of him
Cause after all he's just a man

Stand by your man
Give him two arms to cling to
And something warm to come to
when nights are cold and lonely

Stand by your man
And show the world you love him
Keep giving all the love you can
Stand by your man

Stand by your man
And show the world you love him
Keep giving all the love you can
Stand by your man

Luckyoldson said...

Jeremy,
You're proud of George W. Bush and the job he's done?

As an American.

Luckyoldson said...

And the insane, delusional Bush "SUCKFEST" continues.

The worst President...ever.

And 90% of the local sycophants continue to think he's doing a damn good job.

And you wonder why I think most of you are fucking morons???

Quit wondering...

Luckyoldson said...

Michael whispers to the faithful...

"Stand by your man
And show the world you love him
Keep giving all the love you can
Stand by your man"

I hereby award you the "Nightly Suck Award"

Luckyoldson said...

tc,
Please repeat.

I lost the last 300 words and want to make sure I understand.

Michael said...

Luckyoldson: I hereby award you the "Nightly Suck Award"

Coming from you, that's quite an honor.

former law student said...

The worst President...ever
Yes, and also the only one within my memory who had the nomination sewn up the year before the election. All the more amazing because nothing in his history indicated he was fit for the job.

What in Hillary's history indicates she's fit for the job? Why do people think her nomination is inevitable?

So far, of the Senator candidates I like Obama.

Luckyoldson said...

former law student,
You also like G.W. Bush so why would I give a flying fuck?

Keep that head wedged up Bush's ass.

former law student said...

You also like G.W. Bush so why would I give a flying fuck?
Why would you think I like W.?

Luckyoldson said...

former law student asks: "Why would you think I like W.?"

You sound dumb enough.

Luckyoldson said...

Hillary sarĂ  il presidente seguente.

hdhouse said...

former law student said...
"Yes, and also the only one within my memory who had the nomination sewn up the year before the election. All the more amazing because nothing in his history indicated he was fit for the job."

...and, we might add, there is nothing in his performance that indicates he was fit for the job either. or do you think that he has done well for this country? that the majority of people judge him incorrectly? just curious.

Meade said...

"... or you persevere and show your resilience."

Hillary might try looking to Nancy Pelosi as a model of that.

hdhouse: Which president, indicated by his perfomance, was fit for the job? Besides the other George W., I mean.

Rich B said...

A hapless twit? You have made my day! I do wish I had taken the time to clean up the formatting - mea culpa.

The Ray report was just the dessert course; the Clintons' antics constitute a full course meal.

hdhouse said...

i think we are talking hillary here and you, as the make my day hapless twit, expand it to include bill as if they are one in the same which they aren't.

its like calling laura bush on the carpet for being married to yet another hapless twit and suffering his foolishness.

objectivity and factual honesty are acquired tastes. go get some.

former law student said...

do you think that he has done well for this country?
Well, let's see: His neverending Middle East war (to avenge Daddy's honor) has killed more Americans than al-Qaeda, he's tossed out the Geneva Conventions, his half-trillion dollar war's helped him run up a bigger deficit than Ronald Reagan, and now he's looking to precipitate a nuclear war in the Middle East -- I could go on.

My current fear is that butch Hillary will feel obligated to demonstrate her cojones by invading her own Middle East country, a la Olmert's bombing Lebanese orphanages in order to retrieve two captured soldiers.

Luckyoldson said...

former whatever says: "My current fear is that butch Hillary..."

"Butch?"

Dolt.

former law student said...

"Butch?"

You don't think Hillary is in touch with her butch side?

Rich B said...

I think Camille Paglia called her a "Protestant nun".

Revenant said...

he's tossed out the Geneva Conventions

He has?

Would you mind citing the section of the Conventions that apply to armed forces representing no nation, fighting out of uniform, among and against civilian populations, in a manner that violates almost every international law governing the conduct of warfare? Because it seems to be missing from the publicly available copies.

The Conventions protect civilians and members of formal military forces who fight as such. They do not protect combatants who fight in violation of the laws of war. Furthermore, violations of the Convention by one party in a conflict free the other party to violate them as well. So even if we normally *would* be bound by them, the fact that Al Qaeda ignores them frees us to do so as well.

former law student said...

The Conventions protect civilians and members of formal military forces who fight as such.

Under the Geneva Conventions, if you're not a soldier, you're a civilian. Bush made up the doctrine of the "enemy combatant" exception out of thin air.

Furthermore, violations of the Convention by one party in a conflict free the other party to violate them as well.

I do not find the "two wrongs make a right" doctrine in any of the Geneva Conventions.

Revenant said...

Under the Geneva Conventions, if you're not a soldier, you're a civilian.

Fortunately, the real Geneva Conventions aren't nearly as moronic as you believe them to be.

The Conventions define the various groups that qualify as protected combatants. Al Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgency don't make the cut -- they don't openly carry arms, don't identify themselves, and don't obey the laws of war. So, according to your amusing little view of the law, that makes them "civilians". Which means that we're not allowed to deliberately kill them at all -- even on the battlefield. Despite the fact that they're shooting at us.

You're really a "former law student"? What law school was that -- the Hair Club for Men?


I do not find the "two wrongs make a right" doctrine in any of the Geneva Conventions.

You have to read them first. As Article 2 states, when one of the parties to a conflict is a nonsignatory (e.g., Al Qaeda or the Iraqi insurgency), the party which HAS signed the treaty (e.g., the United States) is "bound by the Convention in relation to the [non-signatory], if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof." In plain English, the Geneva Conventions would only apply to a conflict between a signatory and a non-signatory if the latter abided by the provisions of the Convention, which the people we are fighting absolutely do not.

By the way, I told you to cite the parts of the Conventions that protect the people we're fighting. You didn't do it, for the obvious reason that no such part exists. But next time, either make an effort or stop wasting my time.

former law student said...

Rev, a little thought should have showed you why a terrorist band could not have signed the Geneva Conventions.

You're really a "former law student"? What law school was that -- the Hair Club for Men?

I don't have time to school you any more. Read this: http://www.utexas.edu/law/news/colloquium/papers/Jinks.pdf

The author went to Yale Law School -- perhaps you've heard of it?

AlphaLiberal said...

The same thing happens to Bush?!? Are you kidding us?

For about 2-3 years after 9/11 one could not criticize Bush. Hillary never had such a break.

All of the bogus attacks on Clinton were investigated and found false.

Bush, OTOH, has not had real investigations as he had a lapdog Congress for his first 6 years that abdicated oversight.

What really ticks me off is that now you got me defending Hillary! d'ow!