girly man through and through.

I keep hearing liberals/progrssives talk about "War Crimes" the Bush administration is guilty of. However, they never make any specificity as to exactly what those "war crimes" are. Until I hear some specificity, I will continue to ignore their rants. I havent watched Letterman in years, and will continue that trend.

It really pains me to criticize Letterman. He's been practically a Carson to me for over two decades. I think he's a truly talented guy, but of course, quite goofy. Which has it's appeal.

However, whenever he tries to be serious about anything, notably politics, he's just unwatchable. Letterman has always been self-deprecating, for good reason, and that's why he can be so very funny.

Thus, whenever he "interviews" politicians or political people, it's just unwatchable. Especially in the past few years with all the Bush "humor". He's had a verifiable clown like Olbermann on, and treated him with utter humorless respect. While he's also had O'Reilly on, and basically made an a** of himself attempting to make O'Reilly look bad.  

Letterman is truly what he's always said he is---a dope. So it's always sad and disturbing to me when he tries to be serious or political. He's a lefty and a dope, so he does himself no service by advertising such on his show. That's when I, and I presume millions of others, click on to the next channel. Bye bye Dave! 

If he is such a good interviewer, not my opinion, then why didn't he ask his guest to tell us what "war crimes" the President has committed. Why didn't the guest expound on said crimes on her own? I think we know the answer to those question....

The guy seems uttlerly clueless these days.

I used to love his show but its been a decade or so since I noticed him failing in his comidic responsibilities.

I rarely tune in anymore to see what Dave is up to. When he goes off the air, I probably will not even notice.

LETTERMAN: Is that spelled out in the Geneva convention, “oh by the way none of this applies to terrorists?”

MAYER: No, it's not. It took special lawyers to come up with special answers, which is what they did here.

Letterman's argument is that since the Geneva convention didn't explicitly say that the rules don't apply to terrorists, that we must treat terrorists in the same way we treat uniformed soldiers. I guess we just give them a pass on that whole uniform thing.

Which is, of course, stupid. The rules agreed to in the convention were concerned with the protection of uniformed soldiers (lawful combatants) and civilians. The conventions said nothing about what we now call unlawful combatants. As it is, there has been no agreement on what to do with terrorists. There have been some commentators who argue that we must treat the terrorists as lawful combatants, but whether you agree with that or not, the fact is that nothing has been agreed to.

Even if the Geneva Convention meets again, and draws up rules, or just decides that terrorists are to be treated as soldiers, it wouldn't make any difference. There is no existing law that covers illegal combatants. It's not the kind of thing that can be retroactive, either. There is, therefore, absolutely no legal basis for any "war crimes" prosecution.

The administration didn't create a fanciful dodge of existing law. They correctly argued that there was no law in the first place. When Mayer says that it took "special lawyers" to come up with "special answers," she reveals the dilemma between lying and stupidity. Either she understands that distinction and deliberately lied about it, or she doesn't understand it. Either way, it renders her opinion legally worthless.

 War crimes? Like the spoilt children they are, liberals who write this drivel like to use "buzz" words, "catch" phrases. In the hopes that other people think of them as "informed" or "with it".  It's all about gathering attention to themselves. Don't you see? Miss Mayer is convinced the world revolves around her, so you just have to listen to her. BS.  I am convinced they have no idea what they are writing about or even the definition of the words they bandy about.

Letterman is a stooge who gives these people a platform to announce to the world that they do not know what they are talking about. Pitiful really. This like everything else the left throws at President Bush doesn't amount to anything. He'll still retire undefeated, and more importantly, un-impeached.

Even a non lawyer could defend against the charges. Letterman, who I never watch, is a comedy himself.  I suppose the 'war crimes' people also want to try Slick Willie, we're still in his un-approved war. Congress approved the Iraq war by a large margin and the 'reasons' were hyped by every 90's, head up Slick's butt, democrat. The democrats like to lie about their 90's statements but the electronic world won't let them get away with it, other than with the 'uneducated left' with college degrees. Educated to the point of stupidity is the mark of the left.

Old, Retired and glad of it.

I used to be a Letterman fan and watched his show, but now I never watch him. There is nothing worse than watching a comedian who begans to think he is some sort of powerful politico. I wonder what his ratings are now and how many others will not watch?

...as she should have. There's no case (which sensible people know) and once the question is put directly to Mayer and her ilk, in the specific wording Letterman that did, they have to demure with remarks like "I'm not a lawyer."

The accusation against Bush et al is pure partisan politics, and the reason they aren't laughing at the White House is that this is such an egregious accusation, being supported by Democratic pols, it is beyond imagination.

The same information known today was known back in 2002 when the decision was being made to invade Iraq. There are no "dark secrets" or otherwise inculpatory information against Bush.

I'm sure Letterman is sympathetic to the war crimes screwballs, but he put a "put up or shut up" question to Mayer, whether he intended to or not, and she then shut the hell up...in a damn hurry.