Words that John Kerry will not say. And maybe, he shouldn't have to. A few thoughts:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/casey_rivkin200408090832.asp

The problem is the only one saying Kerry is a war criminal is Kerry himself. (Oh, and Shantinik).

Hey, if he says he is a war criminal, and he's a lawyer, and he knows the acts he committed, I think it's terrific that he is prepared to admit it. (Dropping thousands of tons of WMD on innocent civilians, bombing dykes and rice paddies are war crimes too.)

But it is hardly what I want in a President. The precedent is horrifying (and that's true whether he could have been charged as a war criminal or not, which makes the National Review article, as usual, irrelevant.)

But it is hardly what I want in a President. The precedent is horrifying (and that's true whether he could have been charged as a war criminal or not, which makes the National Review article, as usual, irrelevant.)[/b]

As usual, you misstate the premise of the article which is not that John Kerry is not a war criminal because he cannot be charged as one but that his actions, arguably, were not war crimes.

I'm suprised the ACLU isn't all over his case.

shantinik,

I think you might be missing the central point which is in the last paragraph of the article.

Now, since I was so diplomatic with you, would you reward me by sending me a PM describing what Wolfowitz does for fun in private? (or something like that which you mentioned in a long ago post)

(any icon here for rubbing one's hands in anticipation? )

I don't forget those kinds of statements.

Where's LadyElton when we need her?

JBryan,

Excuse me but the key statement is "Decisions on the interpretation and application of the laws of war should remain in the hands of American institutions, responsible to the American electorate."

The article was directed against the UN's coveting of that right

So MM, just to make sure we understand, is Kerry a war criminal or not?

It doesn't matter whether Kerry can be charged as a war criminal. What matters is that he thinks he is, and that the electorate knows he thinks he is.

Do you want a President who thinks he's a war criminal, and thinks it is okay for a war criminal to be President?

Not with regard to the specific point of John Kerry being a war criminal.

Yes, I know.

Yes, it doesn't matter if he can be charged as a war criminal. I believe I made that point.

That is a better question.

Turn around is fair play. Ask yourself if you want/have a president who is an alcoholic, who has stopped drinking, and who thinks it's okay for an alcoholic to be president.

Actually, all of this borders on the ridiculous.

If you wish to equate alcoholism with being a war criminal then that is up to you but you will be disqualifying from public service many former Presidents plus many past and present members of Congress.

I actually don't think John Kerry is a war criminal but the point Shantinik makes that John Kerry himself thinks he is a war criminal is a good one.

Alcoholism is a disease, and many people stop drinking and continue to lead thoroughly fulfilling lives. That said, Bush was not an alcoholic, any more than I am. I drank in college too, and probably a bit too much at times. Swearing off alcohol does not mean you are an alcoholic.

I'm surprised to hear someone who accepts the Christian faith compare someone who, after a religious conversion, made a decision to stop drinking, to a war criminal guilty of killing innocent civilians. They just don't rise to the same level.

For what it's worth--this is some pretty low crappy stuff. It's total conjecture.

I need clarification.

I would like to think we'd set higher standards for the US President than we would for ordinary citizens. Unfortunately, with these two characters as our choices, those higher standards are moot.

shantinik,

Your point is well taken. But, given all the other issues involved in this election, it's not nearly enough to sway my decision either way.

Regarding whether Kerry was actually a war criminal per se, I'd say that, if we were to set the bar this low, too many other soldiers in combat would qualify. So, pragmatically, my answer is no.

No, I don't want a President who was (?) an alcoholic as President. I use a question mark because I don't believe there is such a thing as a former alcoholic. And I would not want that time bomb hovering over the Presidency. (Yes I know about Grant. Those were different times.)

No evidence whatsoever I know about that Bush is a true alcoholic (which, as we all know, has little if anything to do with the amount consumed).

Makes me yearn for the Bill Clinton days of yore..... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :rolleyes:

NOT!!!!!