video here: Valerie Plame On 60 Minutes: “The President Is Not A Man Of His Word” Katie Couric in part of the interview was a real tool for the Republican Party, reciting their baseless talking points. I guess she did that to be balance (or suck up to CBS management?).
i'd have to see them together, uhm, you know, side by side as it were, to make an accurate determination. i do wish they'd both just go the **** away tho- the world would be a better place.
I think that was more to give her a chance to refute those claims, and that she's simply not good at what she does.
basso, putting aside all partisan feelings, you have to admit Plame is hotter. D&D. Impeach Bush's Dog and the Pastry Chef.
I think that would have to be the case, since Plame is the only one of the two that is even remotely hot.
You're comparing a self-centered political hack that's only interested in lining up her pocket through controversy with an Agency operative for over twenty years, who got zero recognition for her efforts to protect and serve her nation -- all while putting her own life at risk every single day of her life, doing the most thankless job in America: working as a CIA operative)? Did you not see the wall in her office? Did you see the lack of recognition for her efforts as opposed to, say, her husband, the decorated State Dept veteran?
I think you're exaggerating. Having an unfavorable opinion of the war does not equate to believing it illegal. Further, it's a classic logical fallacy to appeal to the mob to confirm the validity of your claim. Nonetheless, I think illegality is a factual claim that can't be proven.
No? Not sure I would agree with that, but I'll let it pass. Is there an international law against how we are treating the prisoners under our control? D&D. Impeach Bush for Promoting Torture.
You and the other 24% of dead enders. Sorry Hayes. The world has passed judgement on this war and the libpigs were right from the beginning.
Not sure why you have to react with ad homs and labels. Even setting aside the difference between having an unfavorable opinion of the war and finding it 'illegal' (which you don't answer), again your argument is based on the classic logical flaw of assuming the something must be true because many people believe it so. Sorry but that's neither convincing nor does it bolster your opinion. But if you'd rather declare yourself correct TJ style, instead of debating or discussing the issue, then I don't have much to say to you.
we live in a representative democracy and the white house lied to us about WMD so they could start a war to further their agenda with blatant disregard for the financial toll upon taxpayers and the lives of so many of our brothers and sisters. the majority of our citizens now realize that this is the case and whether it is illegal or not is beside the point AFAIC.
Happy reading -- I. Position That War Is Illegal "Iraq Invasion Violated UN Charter" (news.com.au, August 7, 2003) ("With unusual candour, the former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix today denounced the US-led war on Iraq as a violation of international law, and questioned Washington's motives for the invasion.") Law Professors for the Rule of Law "War on Iraq Was Illegal, Say Top Lawyers" (Severin Carrell and Robert Verkaik, The Independent, May 25, 2003) "International Legal Experts Regard Iraq War as Illegal" (Peter Schwarz, World Socialist Web Site, March 26, 2003) "Tearing up the Rules: The Illegality of Invading Iraq," Center for Economic and Social Rights, March 2003 Superb "Canadian Law Professors Declare US-Led War Illegal" (Henry Michaels, World Socialist Web Site, 22 March 2003) Robin Miller, "This War Is Illegal," March 21, 2003 "Chirac: Iraq War Breaches International Law" (Middle East Online, March 21, 2003) "Is the War on Iraq illegal?" (Irwin Cotler, The Globe and Mail, March 21, 2003) Jim Lobe, "Law Groups Say U.S. Invasion Illegal," OneWorld.net, March 21, 2003 (an open letter signed by 31 Canadian international law professors calls a U.S. attack against Iraq "a fundamental breach of international law [that] would seriously threaten the integrity of the international legal order that has been in place since the end of the Second World War.") Joan Russow, "U.S. Enagaged in an Illegal Act," March 20, 2003 International Appeal by Lawyers and Jurists against the "Preventive" Use of Force Michael C. Dorf, "Is the War on Iraq Lawful?" Findlaw, March 19, 2003 Emma Thomasson, "Iraq War Illegal but Trial Unlikely, Lawyers Say," Reuters, March 19, 2003 ("President Bush and his allies are unlikely to face trial for war crimes although many nations and legal experts say a strike on Iraq without an explicit U.N. mandate breaches international law.") Hilary Charlesworth and Andrew Byrnes, "No, This War Is Illegal, The Age [Melbourne, Australia], March 19, 2003 Matthew Happold, "A Talented Lawyer Arguing a Weak Case," The Guardian, March 17, 2003 ("The [British] attorney-general's assertion that the use of force against Iraq is legal without a second UN resolution does not stand scrutiny") Keir Starmer, "Sorry, Mr Blair, But 1441 Does Not Authorise Force," The Guardian, March 17, 2003 "Analysis of the US Legal Position on the Use of Force Against Iraq" (Greenpeace, March 16, 2003) Richard Norton-Taylor, "Law Unto Themselves, The Guardian, March 14, 2003 ("A large majority of international lawyers reject the government's claim that UN resolution 1441 gives legal authority for an attack on Iraq.") Robert Verkaik, "'Illegal War' Could Mean Soldiers Face Prosecution," The Independent, March 12, 2003 Anthony Howard, "War Against Iraq--The Legal Dilemma, The Times [London], March 11, 2003 Mark Littman, "A Supreme International Crime," The Guardian, March 10, 2003 ("Any member of a government backing an aggressive war will be open to prosecution.") "The UN Must Take Mr Blix's Report Seriously--by Voting Against Military Action," The Independent (editorial), March 8, 2003 "War Would Be Illegal," The Guardian, March 7, 2003 ("The doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence against an attack that might arise at some hypothetical future time has no basis in international law. Neither security council resolution 1441 nor any prior resolution authorises the proposed use of force in the present circumstances."). Michael White and Patrick Wintour, "No Case for Iraq Attack Say Lawyers," The Guardian, March 7, 2003 (commenting on letter, just above, by 16 professors of international law). "War With Iraq 'Could Be Illegal,'" BBC, March 6, 2003 (British Professor Nicholas Grief says that Bush and Blair could face prosecution for war crimes, specifically waging an illegal war). Alan Elsner, "US War Without UN Approval Would Be Seen as Illegal," Reuters, March 6, 2003 ("Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, said eight out of 10 international lawyers would consider a U.S. attack without a new resolution as a violation of international law."). "Australian Legal Experts Declare an Invasion of Iraq a War Crime" (James Conachy, World Socialist Web Site, February 27, 2003) Bill Bowring, "Bush and Blair Must See Law Has a Life of Its Own," AlertNet, February 21, 2003. Julie Mertus, "The Law(?) of Regime Change," JURIST, February 20, 2003. Thalif Deen, "Of Man and God and Law," Asia Times, February 14, 2003. Nathaniel Hurd, "UN SCR 1141 and Potential Use of Force Against Iraq," December 6, 2002. "IN THE MATTER OF THE POTENTIAL USE OF ARMED FORCE BY THE UK AGAINST IRAQ AND IN THE MATTER OF RELIANCE FOR THAT USE OF FORCE ON UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 1441," Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, November 2002. "Lawyers Statement on UN Resolution 1441 on Iraq," November 27, 2002. Mary Ellen O'Connell, "UN Resolution 1441: Compelling Saddam, Restraining Bush," JURIST, November 21, 2002. Marjorie Cohn, "UN Resolution 1441: Blackmailing the Security Council," JURIST, November 21, 2002. George P. Fletcher, "Did the UN Security Council Violate Its Own Rules in Passing the Iraq Resolution?," CounterPunch, November 16, 2002. "Legality of Use of Force against Iraq" (Public Interest Lawyers on behalf of Peacerights, September 10, 2002) Mary Ellen O'Connell, The Myth of Preemptive Self-Defense," August 2002. II. Position That War Is Legal Greg Hunt, "Yes, This War Is Legal, The Age [Melbourne, Australian], March 19, 2003 "Attorney General: War Is Legal," The Guardian, March 17, 2003 III. Surveys of Legal Opinions Tom Raum, "Legality of War Still Debated Worldwide," Associated Press, March 22, 2003 ("The Bush administration says the war in Iraq is lawful, an assessment disputed by many skeptical foreign leaders and international law scholars.") Peter Ford, "As Attack on Iraq Begins, Question Remains: Is It Legal?" Christian Science Monitor, March 21, 2003 Zachary R. Dowdy, "Law Experts Debate Legality of America's War," Newsday, March 20, 2003 ("When President George W. Bush said he could strike Iraq without UN approval, he set off a sharp legal debate, with a few experts finding license in UN resolutions and many others saying the move flouts the UN and tramples on the U.S. Constitution.") Peter James Spielmann, "Q&A About Legality of War in Iraq," Associated Press, March 17, 2003 Barnaby Mason, "Is War with Iraq Legal?" BBC Matthew Happold, "The Legal Case for War with Iraq," The Guardian, March 13, 2003 Karen DeYoung and Walter Pincus, "Again, Agreement on Iraq, But Not What to Do About It," Washington Post, March 8, 2003 http://www.robincmiller.com/ir-legal.htm
Yeah. Plus, we can't blame her for making $$$ from books because her CIA career was effectively destroyed.
