Sunday, March 08, 2009


Hope springs eternal for the DUmmies. And in this case they continue to hope that George W. Bush is sent to The Hague as you can see in this THREAD, "EX-UN PROSECUTOR: BUSH MAY BE NEXT UP AT THE HAGUE." DUmmies have been praying for this ever since Bush was first elected and they just can't let go. So let us now travel down fantasy lane and watch the DUmmies pray for Bush to be sent to The Hague in Bolshevik Red while the commentary of your humble correspondent, wondering when international law took precedence over U.S. law, is in the [brackets]:

An ex-UN prosecutor has said that following the issuance of an arrest warrant for the president of Sudan, former US President George W. Bush could -- and should -- be next on the International Criminal Court's list.

The former prosecutor's assessment was echoed in some respect by United Nations General Assembly chief Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, of Nicaragua, who said America's military occupation of Iraq has caused over a million deaths and should be probed by the United Nations.

[The U.S. caused over a million deaths in Iraq? I guess accuracy isn't exactly the strong point of that UN Sandinista.]

I dunno...pigs could fly, and monkeys might fly out my ass...a girl can hope, though.

[Ben Burch is already salivating at the thought of those monkeys.]

will ANY American president be in front of a gaggle of foreign nationals for anything other than to hand out US AID dollars.


It is pretty embarrassing that we can not police our own and need the international community to do it for us.

[Why don't we just turn over our entire legal system to the UN?]

Why do you think he got that land in Paraguay? Paraguay does not extradite

[Does North Korea extradite?]

Let's freeze and then seize Halliburton's assets and channel them into universal health care.

[Declared the DUmmie Fidelista.]

In the meantime, potable water is expected to be the oil of the 21st century, per population growth versus climate change. Some areas will be increasingly deluged, but others will be overrun by desert. Paraguay is sitting on one of the world's largest -- if not the largest -- pure water aquifers in the world. And his 10,000 acres are sitting right smack on top of the aquifer. Bought, most likely, to keep his little princesses at the top of the heap. Jenna actually closed the deal for him -- found the land, handled the details.

[This sounds like the plot of "Quantum of Solace. The DUmmie has been watching too many James Bond movies.]

It would not be unrealistic to expect Paraguay to join the rest of the World in not tolerating War Criminals and mass murderers. For Certain, this is a HUGE setback for the Bush family who have bought a huge tract of Paraguay for a family compound if things got too hot for them in the civilized World.

[A DUmmie proves himself worthy of an electro-shock therapy session.]

Well, if this should happen, will you film the monkeys coming out of your ass?

[Ben Burch wants closeup shots.]

Bush will stay safely on his gated home in Dallas till the end of his days.

[Sadly declared the depressed DUmmie.]

I didn't think I'd see Capitalism dissolve in front of my eyes so getting W drunk and on an airplane headed to The Hague is not out of the question.

[The One is doing his best to dissolve capitalism with his "stimulus" package.]

How far would Obama go to cover Bush's criminal ass?

[Ben Burch would like to know.]


Anonymous Anonymous said...

If there are war crimes trials, let us make sure Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Madeline Albright are in the dock for their illegal and criminal war against Yugoslavia. Heck, they didn't even pretend to ask UN permission before starting the war...

10:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sweet!! I was beginning to miss these "To the Hague" posts. This is what gives the moonbats that extra nutty flavor.

I think impeachment should still be on the table too. In fact impeachment should occur first before the un tries to supercede our law. At least if Shrub is impeached and convicted, he would have been found in violation of our laws, before the un tries to tell us what they are. So we need 0 to get his Congress to begin impeachment proceedins ASAP; so Bush can go "to the Hague" and stand trial before the SUper Friends at the "Halls of Justice". This should be 0's main focus; never mind that plunging DOW behind the curtain.

10:45 AM  
Blogger Tazzerman said...

Absolutely... In those famous words of GWB, BRING IT ON!!!

Meanwhile, the feckless UN continues to rape and pillage in Africa without any remorse, we have Myramars wonderful regieme doing their best, countless OTHER true crimials and total sociopaths in the world of the relgion of peace chopping peoples heads off, mutulating women, shooting innocent people in the streets left and right, we have Mexican drug cartels killing everyone in sight but PLEASE... lets focus on good ol GWB.

Shoot, we should have just left poor ol Saddam in power, left his rape rooms and body shredders where they were. Hey, the Iraqis were busy flying kites anyway...


1:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Liberals are silly, but this is boring silly.

5:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since "Chimpeachment" is no long on the table so the DUmmies will settle for "Chimprisonment" after a show trial at the Hague. Their ongoing, sick, obsession with GWB makes a fascinating study. It's something you usually see in an adolescent or a psychotic---both describing your average DUmmie.

5:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ouch! that sentence should read:
Since "Chimpeachment" is no longer on the table the DUmmies will settle for "Chimprisonment"...


5:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Heck, they didn't even pretend to ask UN permission before starting the war... - some unnamed fucking moron

What an asshole! Not only do we get INTO wars without votes or declarations by Congress, now you want our sovereign self-interest to be subject to a vote of douchebags at the UN?

The Balkans thing was a prime example of the immorality of altruism: spilling our blood and wasting our treasure for no reason of national self-interest. Darfur will be the next proof.

Afghanistan and Iraq are also stupid wars. Retribution the excuse for one and preemption the excuse for the other. Better to have just sent SOF to take out specific individuals and let the rest of the people there sort out the results for themselves.

War is just an absolute waste.

7:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"DUmmies have been praying for this ever since Bush was first elected" PJ

Sorry. Not true. Iraq, you dumbshit, happened after 9-11. There was no war on when W was elected. So the premise that W was accused of war crimes "when he was first elected" is patently absurd. It simply didn't happen that way.

I, troglaman, am constantly amazed at the amount of shit you all seem eager to cook up and eat.

You all want a gig on the food network or travel channel or something.

1:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

<< War is just an absolute waste. >>

Incorrect. At times, "war" is a moral imperative.

1:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Heck, they didn't even pretend to ask UN permission before starting the war... - some unnamed fucking moron

What an asshole! Not only do we get INTO wars without votes or declarations by Congress, now you want our sovereign self-interest to be subject to a vote of douchebags at the UN?

No, no, no - I still believe in the sovereignty of the United States. The point is that if the Bush Administration is guilty of "war crimes" based on "international law", the Clinton Administration is more guilty under "international law" by prosecuting a war without asking permission of our betters at the UN. If the Bush people go into the dock, we should be insisting that the Clinton people go into the dock as well.

9:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Not only do we get INTO wars without votes or declarations by Congress"

CL, Congress VOTED for the Iraq War, remember? The President doesn't need a declaration of War to send combat troops into another country and fight battles, all the President needs is Congressional approval for combat actions. You see, Congress is authorised by the Constitution to "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations." Congress determined that the governments of both Iraq and Afghanistan had comitted "Offenses against the Law of Nations". Congress then directed the President to punish those countries by invading those countries and remove those governments. This is Constitutional, so what's the problem?

11:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You need to re-read the War Powers Act, Ray.

12:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What offense against the "law of nations" did Iraq commit, Ray? The fact is it was a preemptive action Bush sought Congressional approval for. He got an "Authorization for Use of Military Force" not a declaration of war.

I will grant that Congress also passed a resolution which Clinton signed committing the US to "regime change" in Iraq, but that doesn't make that war our best national self-interest any more than did Bush I's 1991 war to boot Saddam from Kuwait.

We've become the world's bully boy -- every pissant little country on the planet looks to us to solve its problems by force or bribes. Let them live in the sewers and slavery of their own making.

12:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Have we determined that T-Man isn't at a keyboard in a state mental institution or a juvenile detention center?

Only psychotics or adolescents are as tenacious or as goofy.

Still, I like it that the guys here allow a space for handicapped parking in the comments. It makes you reflect on all the blessing you have, "there, but for the grace of God, go I..."

2:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Classic Liberal said...
You need to re-read the War Powers Act, Ray.

Maybe you're not a sophomore poly sci student after all. Most of them would know there ISN'T a War Powers Act, there is however a War Powers Resolution which, as a Congressional resolution, does not actually have the status of law. It actually does not prevent a President from committing forces in any contingency he sees necessary, it does however purport to impose a reporting requirement about the deployment on him, due 180 days into it if memory serves. Of course the reporting requirement has no more teeth than the rest of the (mere) resolution, but since it was passed in 1973 the successive Presidential administrations have chosen not to take it on head-to-head, but to employ force as he sees fit and then comply with the resolution 'As a courtesy.'

7:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Only psychotics or adolescents are as tenacious or as goofy." elrond

I'm not an adolescent, Mr. Poopy-Pants Stupo-Head.

Loved this part:

"they just can't let go." PJ Inc

It just may be that war crimes were committed. We've gone over the water-boarding thing before, it's illegal under international law. If Bush authorized water-boarding, he broke international law. If prisoners were subject to torture, of any kind, then those ordering it broke international law. It's a pretty simple concept to anyone not pretending to be Jack Bauer which leaves most you jackasses out of the equation.

But for those not pretending to be Jack Bauer it becomes a tricky question since everyone knows we did it. And it's against international law. It's defined as a war crime.

And that's exactly what you dumbasses need to let go of - the premise that we didn't do it. Or that it doesn't matter. It does matter. PJ Inc wouldn't have brought it up if it didn't.

12:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

tanker, you're correct about the formal title of the resolution commonly referred to as the "War Powers Act" but you seem a little fuzzy on its intent and its content.

You'll find links to its text, debates about it etc. as well as links to the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 and the AUMFs that got us into Iraq and Afghanistan on this page:

11:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We've gone over the water-boarding thing before, it's illegal under international law. -trog

Please cite book, chapter, and verse to back that statement.

Also please explain your reasoning in calling it a "war crime" if it were to take place when there is no state of war; say if we waterboarded GRU or KGB spies in the late 50s.

Frankly waterboarding is an ancient method: nothing new. Our SOF and other high-risk-of-capture military and intelligence agents are subjected to it as training exercises: should their trainers be hauled to the Hague for those "war crimes?"

The method has probably never resulted in damage, impairment, or death to a healthy subject which would seem to be required to fit a rational definition of torture.

BTW, "24" likely shows exactly how hypocritical attitudes such as yours and grandstanding politicians are regarding torture when confronted with Reality and real acts of war and terrorism.

12:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When such military "punishment" Ray refers to in his postings on another thread are called for, my opinion is it is best done as the Marines did with the Barbary pirates as memorialized in the Marine Corps Anthem: send in a small group and utilize locals to carry out the fighting. There were what, 8 Marines who went ashore and brought down the Barbary pirates?

We started that way in Afghanistan -- a few guys with radios and binoculars calling in air strikes and missiles. Then altruism and "Just War Theory" kicked in and it became an exercise in "nation building" resulting in the cluster-fuck we're mired in now.

Iraq? Well there's no good explanation for that one.

12:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Frankly waterboarding is an ancient method: nothing new." classless

Listen to this sanctimonious jackass.

"The method has probably never resulted in damage, impairment, or death to a healthy subject which would seem to be required to fit a rational definition of torture."

Thumbscrews (another tried and true ancient method), are fine as long as they don't result in damage, impairment or death. So is suffocation. Electrocution could probably be squeezed in there somewhere. What the hell, let's throw in a few anal probes and snarling dogs.

Were all those pictures taken at Abu Ghraib with people strung up in hoods with electrodes attached, blood on the floor, more snarling dogs and all that shit damaged or impaired?

I say yes. You say no. I say stop. You say go go go.

3:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm rather familiar with it, CL. I think we all know who is confused here.

8:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Notice trogladouche again avoids the direct question and erects strawmen to knock down.

9:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think we all know who is confused here.

You're right tanker, I'm confused as to whether you think an Imperial President has the power to involve the US in a war at his whim and wish, or if Congress has the Constitutional power and obligation to make that decision.

The "mere" Resolution calls for the President to notify Congress within 48 hours and get either an Authorization for Use of Military Force, or a Declaration of War from Congress within 60 days of any such actions. This is not a "courtesy" but the law.

Speaking of Imperial Presidents, have any of you bothered to read the Garrett essay "Rise of Empire" in his book "The People's Pottage" I gave a link to a few days ago?

Of course those who avoid thought and reason at any cost will shun suggestions to read such thought-provoking work. But hey, I can only recommend, not force action.

Force is a violation of others' rights which I refrain from in order that others will refrain from violating my rights in a voluntary cooperation that is required " establish Justice; insure Domestic Tranquility; ... and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." as some brilliant men put it 122 years ago.

9:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oops -- should be 222 years ago -- fingers got ahead of brain there. :\

9:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also, change that to:

"... as some brilliant Liberals put it 222 years ago."

9:53 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home