« The ultimate corporate welfare queen? | Main | Coming to an entitlement culture near you »

John Yoo in Praise of President Obama

Oh.  My.

Antiwar Senator, War-Powers President

Like all of his predecessors, this president has realized why the Constitution vested certain powers in the executive branch: Only it can act with dispatch.

President Barack Obama has again flip-flopped on national security--and we can all be grateful. Having kept Guantanamo Bay open, resumed military commission trials for terrorists, and expanded the use of drones, the president has now ordered the U.S. military into action without Congress's blessing.

Imagine the uproar if President Bush had unilaterally launched air attacks against Libya's Moammar Gadhafi. But since it's Mr. Obama's finger on the trigger, Democratic leaders in Congress have kept quiet--demonstrating that their opposition to presidential power during the Bush years was political, not principled.

Mr. Obama's exercise of war powers in Libya is firmly in the tradition of American foreign policy. Throughout our history, neither presidents nor Congress have acted under the belief that the Constitution requires a declaration of war before the U.S. can conduct military hostilities abroad. We have used force abroad more than 100 times but declared war in only five cases: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American and Spanish-American Wars, and World Wars I and II.

Without any approval from Congress, presidents have sent forces to battle Indians, Barbary Pirates and Russian revolutionaries, to fight North Korean and Chinese Communists in Korea, to engineer regime changes in South and Central America, and to prevent human rights disasters in the Balkans. Other conflicts, such as the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the 2003 Iraq War, received legislative "authorization" but not declarations of war.


I find that I tend to agree with Victor Davis Hansen's seven count indictment (in Let Us Count the Ways) as the basis for principled conservative criticism of the President's actions.  The rank and blatant hypocrisy of the President and his supporters angers me far more than the actions themselves,  My principle objections to the actual military intervention is that I doubt that Obama and his supporters have a well thought out plan and the intestinal fortitude to bring the operation to a militarily successful conclusion.

The war powers issue is one which has been discussed back and forth for decades and which will remain un-resolved until the Supreme Court hears the issue.  For myself, I think the historical record is clear and that the President does have the requisite authority, and that the War Powers Resolution is un-constitutional on its face.


Since Vietnam, however, antiwar Democrats have sought to replace the Constitution's reliance on swift presidential action in war with a radically different system appropriate for peacetime: Congress makes policy, the president implements it. In 1973, they passed the War Powers Resolution to require congressional permission for any military intervention abroad, but no president has accepted the law's constitutionality.

President George W. Bush's campaign against terror upped the stakes in this contest. Opening the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, establishing special military courts for terrorist trials, ordering tough interrogation of al Qaeda leaders, and conducting warrantless wiretaps of electronic communications--all without congressional approval--fed the left-wing narrative of an "imperial presidency." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other prominent Democrats regularly attacked Mr. Bush for acting "above the law" and "cutting out Congress." Then-Sen. Joe Biden even opposed the Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito because he would not agree that Mr. Bush would need congressional permission to attack Iran.

Some might find it odd that Biden now seems to have no problem with the President acting "above the law" if they were so naive to believe Joe Biden has any deeply rooted principles beyond the good of his party.

Mr. Obama once agreed with his Democratic colleagues, saying in 2007 that "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." Fast forward four years: Last Monday, Mr. Obama notified Congress that he ordered military action in Libya "pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive."

For once, Mr. Obama has the Constitution about right. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 74, "The direction of war implies the direction of the common strength, and the power of directing and employing the common strength forms a usual and essential part in the definition of the executive authority." Presidents should conduct war, he wrote, because they could act with "decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch." In perhaps his most famous words, Hamilton wrote that "Energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. . . . It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks."


There is more, and it is imminently worth reading.

Hat Tip: Glenn "The Blogfather" Reynolds who quipped: "THEY TOLD ME IF I VOTED FOR JOHN MCCAIN, the President's expansive view of war powers would be praised by the likes of John Yoo. And they were right!"

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/41318.

Comments (52)

“America does not go abroad... (Below threshold)
Chico:

“America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.” — John Quincy Adams

“No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” — James Madison

“The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.” — George Washington

If scum like John Yoo are praising Obama, he's sunk pretty low.

We don't need to be spending $100 million per day on a war without Congressional approval. There are lots better things in this country that need the money, among them not borrowing or taxing it at all.

When scum like Chico are co... (Below threshold)
Rodney Graves:

When scum like Chico are condemning Obama because righteous men such as John Yoo praise his interpretations of Executive Powers, it's just possible that Obama may have stumbled onto the right path.

You stick with that fascist... (Below threshold)
Chico:

You stick with that fascist John Yoo, Rodney, and I'll stick with Washington and Adams.

chicka,Suit your w... (Below threshold)
Rodney Graves:

chicka,

Suit your words to action and start working towards the impeachment and removal from office of the President you have stated has "sunk pretty low."

Why not? At least both Bus... (Below threshold)
Chico:

Why not? At least both Bushes went to Congress for some kind of resolution authorizing military force.

Go for it, chicka.... (Below threshold)
Rodney Graves:

Go for it, chicka.

You stick with th... (Below threshold)
macofromoc:


You stick with that fascist John Yoo

Huh - he is? How?

I think that ultimately the... (Below threshold)
jim m:

I think that ultimately the use of US forces in this instance is not unconstitutional. However, obama has utterly failed to lead this nation. He is making decisions without consulting or even informing Congress. He is committing our soldiers to combat without bothering to address the issue with the American public, whose husbands and wives, sons and daughters will be doing the dieing for obama's ego stroking.

obama needs to wake up to the fact that being President is about leading and not just having cool parties, golfing and watching NCAA basketball.

The problem is not that thi... (Below threshold)
A_Nonny_Mouse:

The problem is not that this president has committed troops to military action without the consent of Congress (the argument can be made that he's got 60 days to bring them home without actually being in violation of the War Powers Resolution).

The problem is that he's ceded moral authority to the UN (that bastion of "freedom-loving democratic people's republics" who unite in opposition to Western interests every chance they get) and established a precedent whereby the "responsibility to protect" civilians from government actions can be used as an excuse to violate another nation's sovereignty. Under "R2P", groups of hostile nations can demand that the UN authorize military action against their enemies, based on the claim that "genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, or ethnic cleansing" are taking place.

Cast your mind back to Israel's "Operation Cast Lead" in which the IDF finally started retaliating for the massive number of rocket attacks from Gaza against its civilian population. Do you remember what the Islamic nations en bloc called that retaliation? They claimed it was "genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing".

Can you imagine the Islamic states NOT banding together to use R2P to get UN authorization to wipe out Israel? Do you think the preening UN representatives of the world's despot nations will ultimately be able to resist giving approval to the solution for what they see as the world's "Zionist problem"?

Heh.macfromoc @ 8 ... (Below threshold)
Rodney Graves:

Heh.

macfromoc @ 8 quotes chicka @ 4 and asks...

You stick with that fascist John Yoo

Huh - he is? How?

That (calling someone a Fascist) is leftist speak for "I don't like him and I cannot refute his point so I will label him such that all right thinking persons will ignore him."

"so I will label him such t... (Below threshold)
jim m:

"so I will label him such that all right thinking persons will ignore him."

By calling him something that means he's a leftist?

jim m @ 12 quotes my 11 and... (Below threshold)
Rodney Graves:

jim m @ 12 quotes my 11 and asks:

"so I will label him such that all right thinking persons will ignore him."
By calling him something that means he's a leftist?

Well yes, that is the wonderful irony to those of us who actually know the genesis of both Socialism (and thus Marxist, Trotskyite, Communist and Stalinist) and Fascism (Italian Fascism and German National Socialism) as children of the Progressive Movement. When one also considers that modern leftists don't think so much as emote, it really explains a lot.

Congress can only Declare w... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Congress can only Declare war. Not make it or execute it. But congress can fund or not fund an action. So it is in Obama's interest to seek approval from the congress.

I cannot wait to hear the bullshit this inexperienced chickenhawk is going to throw at the uninformed Monday. ww

Chico is an excellent examp... (Below threshold)
Jim Addison:

Chico is an excellent example of what hypocritical liars leftist scum are.

He spends 99% of his posts supporting all sorts of socialist crap the Founders would have died to prevent, then he finds something in their writings he can use to his own benefit - and now invokes their names.

What a pathetic loser. The left is really scraping the bottom of the septic tank to find their trolls these days.

The only thing more scary t... (Below threshold)
Caesar Augustus:

The only thing more scary than Obama presiding over a war is Obama getting another four years in office......

Re # 14:What an in... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Re # 14:

What an insightful, pithy comment! What gravitas you display, with terms like "socialist crap" and "pathetic loser" used! It's no wonder you have been accorded Emeritus status here.

Re # 12:

The fact that Jonah Goldberg wrote a book a few years back that cherrypicked tortured historical tidbits into an alternate "reality" that Nazism was a product of the left doesn't make it so. It's hilarious how you guys have accepted Goldberg's crackpot thesis as Received Wisdom. The fact is fascism and Nazism are phenomena of the right and always have been. Look it up somewhere other than Regnery Press, geniuses.

Oh, and also, what is it with you addressing this Chico guy as "Chica" and "chicka"? Is that because it's the feminine form, and you are implying that the female is less worthy? Seems pretty odd coming from blog authors constantly wailing about the "misogyny" of the left.

Also, the article may be em... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Also, the article may be eminently worth reading, but I don't know if it's possible for it to be imminently worth it.

Bruce Henry @ #16 ~ If you ... (Below threshold)
Jim Addison:

Bruce Henry @ #16 ~ If you are suggesting that Chico's posts do NOT support "socialist crap the Founders would have died to prevent," (context does matter, would you not agree?) or that he is NOT a "pathetic loser" for his new-found admiration for the writings of the Founders, present your arguments.

It seems to me you are doing what you are apparently accusing me of doing. But a foolish inconsistency is the true hobgoblin of small minds . . . ;-) . . . I probably should ask Jay Tea to interpret, since he is the one who insists you have something to offer in the way of intelligent debate. Of course, he has high regard for Mr. Ducky, too, who at least is stuffed with neutral filler.

Also, the article may be... (Below threshold)
Chico:

Also, the article may be eminently worth reading, but I don't know if it's possible for it to be imminently worth it.

But it is possible to have "principle objections." They might not be your principal objections, though.

As far and Yoo and youse, promoting legal and political theories which advocate concentrating power in the "unitary executive" and give the executive power start wars and to imprison and torture everyone, including U.S. citizens, is pretty much the essense of fascism and against the separation of powers and preservation of rights the Founders wanted.

What have I ever written wh... (Below threshold)
Chico:

What have I ever written which is "socialist?" Unless you define socialism as using tax money to repair roads and bridges instead of wars that you can jack off to.

Oh, no, Mr Gravitas Emeritu... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Oh, no, Mr Gravitas Emeritus, on the contrary: If you have examples of "all sorts of socialist crap the founders would have died to prevent" that Chico has advocated, you should present them. And simply because he has not used the Founders as support before, in his Wizbang comments, does not mean that any admiration he holds for their writings is "new-found."

Now as to whether I personally contribute to intelligent debate around here, I try. And at least I don't, to my recollection, call people "hypocritical liars", "leftist scum", or "pathetic losers". I think the worst I do is "rubes" (as in, "There are only two types of Republicans - multimillionaires and rubes.") I could be wrong in isolated instances though.

chico's right at #20 -- he'... (Below threshold)

chico's right at #20 -- he's never advocated for anything socialist.

He's done that by never advocating for anything, period. He's a one-trick pony -- attack, attack, attack.

Here's a quick sampling of his last 54 comments (being an editor has its perqs):

"Ho-hum."

"Poppycock."

"Freedom!!!"

"WAR!!!"

(Those are four comments, quoted in their entirety.)

"Naval history?? You sunk my battleship!"

"Ah, so simple. The wisdom of children."

"Bush was the most active fool ever to occupy the presidency. Obama is just weak and mediocre."

"They're bombing Libya, aren't you happy now?"

"Calm down, DJ."

"Bush's presidency was a Chernobyl, Obama's so far is only a Fukushima as far as ignoring the Constitution and flailing around misusing the military."

All comments presented unedited, and in their entirety.

Chico never advocates, so he never has to defend. He's the guy who, when assigned to a cleaning crew, goes and pisses in the corner that was just finished so he can point to his contribution to keeping the job going.

J.

If I may say so, Jay Tea, t... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

If I may say so, Jay Tea, that's what contrary voices in a blog comment section are supposed to do - make the Amen Chorus stop and reconsider a second.

chico's right at #20 -- ... (Below threshold)
Chico:

chico's right at #20 -- he's never advocated for anything socialist.

Whyyy, thank you JT. Glad we got that cleared up.

I do have a job, so sometimes my time to comment is limited.

Sometimes one word says it all.

And what's the point of writing kiss ass comments? -- like "You're absolutely right, Jay Tea. To hell with libtards and the Kenyan Muslim!!!!!"

Quoth Bruce Henry @ 23... (Below threshold)
Rodney Graves:

Quoth Bruce Henry @ 23

...that's what contrary voices in a blog comment section are supposed to do - make the Amen Chorus stop and reconsider a second.

Only true when the "contrary voices" present reasoned and reasonable counterpoints, not to be confused with the examples which JT provided of chica's (and yes, I do use the term dismissively, as such dreck deserves) unsubstantial contradictions:

Here's a quick sampling of his last 54 comments (being an editor has its perqs):

"Ho-hum."

"Poppycock."

"Freedom!!!"

"WAR!!!"

(Those are four comments, quoted in their entirety.)

"Naval history?? You sunk my battleship!"

"Ah, so simple. The wisdom of children."

"Bush was the most active fool ever to occupy the presidency. Obama is just weak and mediocre."

"They're bombing Libya, aren't you happy now?"

"Calm down, DJ."

"Bush's presidency was a Chernobyl, Obama's so far is only a Fukushima as far as ignoring the Constitution and flailing around misusing the military."

All comments presented unedited, and in their entirety.

Based on the company you keep and defend, Mister Henry, you could use a little more time with the Jonah Goldberg's of the world.

So calling this dude "chica... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

So calling this dude "chica" IS because comments that can be attributed to a female voice can and should be dismissed. Weak-minded and sentimental. Right, Rodney?

I daresay I've read a lot more Goldberg than I have read Chico, but I won't argue. Goldberg is a crackpot and a quack, writing imaginary gotcha points suitable only for True Believers. You're welcome, though, to continue to embrace his "writing" as serious stuff. Knock yourself out.

Mister Henry,This,... (Below threshold)
Rodney Graves:

Mister Henry,

This, if it too has somehow escaped your notice, is a discussion on an internet forum. As such the identities of most of the participants are unknown. No one knows if you're a dog on the internet, unless your typing is really bad and even then it's a supposition. The sub moronic participant here who I now address as chicka posts in a manner which is a nearly complete subset of the ascribed mannerisms which Latin culture (which you of course must respect since it is not Anglo culture) would address as a chicka. Now if you think that there's something wrong with Latin culture and their views of what they refer to as "chickas" do feel free to take it up with them, if you can bring yourself to be so critical of a culture not your own, that is.

Very Goldbergesque, there, ... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Very Goldbergesque, there, Rodney, in that you imagine you have revealed me as some kind of anti-Latino hypocrite. Well played -- in your head, at least.

Typical conservative He-Who-Smelt-It-Dealt-It attack tactic. Pathetic at best.

Mister ah Henry,No... (Below threshold)
Rodney Graves:

Mister ah Henry,

Not that you especially deserve to be taken seriously...

You have claimed:

Goldberg is a crackpot and a quack, writing imaginary gotcha points suitable only for True Believers.

Really?

So you checked his copious references and footnotes and have written an answering tome which demolishes his case?

No?

Ah yes, you offered this:

The fact that Jonah Goldberg wrote a book a few years back that cherrypicked tortured historical tidbits into an alternate "reality" that Nazism was a product of the left doesn't make it so.

That is an assertion offered without any evidence in support.

Contra your unsupported assertion, Mr. Goldberg documented his research and exhaustively footnoted his argument.

It's hilarious how you guys have accepted Goldberg's crackpot thesis as Received Wisdom.

And your documented research disproving his thesis is where? One suspects you are instead relying on the common wisdom relayed to you in your "education." Mustn't question that now...

The fact is fascism and Nazism are phenomena of the right and always have been.

The man who coined the term "fascism" was a life long and self avowed Socialist who described his new philosophy as a nationalist outgrowth of Socialism. Note also that Hitler as well named his never to be sufficiently damned brand of fascism "National Socialism." The grand lie that fascism was a product of the right was based on the propaganda of the Soviet Union which held as a tenet of their socialist faith that there could be no enemies to the left of Communism.

But hey, stay snug in your red diaper.

Dude, I'm a reader, not a w... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Dude, I'm a reader, not a writer. Others have debunked Goldberg quite well. Read the reviews of his book on some sites other than your usual fare, Rodney.

Hitler naming his brand of fascism "National Socialism" was an early example of Orwellian language. But again, it's funny to see conservatives claim that Nazism was a leftist phenomenon because "It says 'Socialism' right there in the name!"

You're flailing, Rodney. You're angry and want to have the last word. It's pathetic.

Dude, you're not even much ... (Below threshold)
Rodney Graves:

Dude, you're not even much of a reader, since you clearly reject works out of hand based on their publisher:

Look it up somewhere other than Regnery Press, geniuses.

Nor does it seem that you have actually read the book which you so lightly dismiss without quite being able to disprove, relying instead on distant references to critiques from which you seem to have drawn your entire store of knowledge on the subject.

But hey, stay warm in that red diaper of yours. It suits you so well.

While it is true that I hav... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

While it is true that I have not read the entirety of Goldberg's book, I have read lengthy excerpts and watched with admiration (for his chutzpah) as he, and others, defended it on TV and the web. He's a real intellectual giant, Rodney.

By the way, have you sat through every Michael Moore movie? How do you feel about Mr Moore, Rod?

As for Regnery, I HAVE read several volumes, among the Mark Steyn's "America Alone" and that one about how the Supreme Court has destroyed America, at the urging of conservative acquaintances. I found them all similarly paranoid and alarmist, nonsensical and perfectly suited to be bought in bulk and distributed to True Believers eager to embrace crackpot explanations for their woes.

Which, by the way, is Regne... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Which, by the way, is Regnery's business model, near as I can make out.

Bruce == Brian Griffin from... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Bruce == Brian Griffin from Family Guy

Heh. That's pretty good, Wu... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Heh. That's pretty good, Wuzzy. Touche.

I'm conflicted on this whol... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

I'm conflicted on this whole issue. On one hand, I expect the President is privy to information I don't have, and so I accord his decisions a lot of respect. Furthermore, I strongly believe that politics should end at the water's edge (and very much wish liberals and other left wing types would subscribe to this notion).

On the other hand, the former presupposes that the President has America's best interests at heart, which is never clear with Obama, and doesn't have his head up his ass, which in Obama's case is clearly not true.

So the upshot is that I have to support the President, but worry that either his stupidity and incompetence on one hand, or his perfidy (depending on his mens rea) on the other, or perhaps both, will make a lot of good Americans' lives forfeit.

If only Obama's decisions impacted only liberals ... what a wonderful world that would be. If he's right, they benefit, and fair enough. But if he's wrong, as he generally is, they're the ones who take it the shorts.

Jay,Given the comp... (Below threshold)
Rodney Graves:

Jay,

Given the composition of the Armed Forces in our all volunteer system, it's the conservatives who pay the blood price when the United States goes to war.

Given the composition of... (Below threshold)
Chico:

Given the composition of the Armed Forces in our all volunteer system, it's the conservatives who pay the blood price when the United States goes to war.

Ascribing political belief to the military is tough to do. While officers tend to be "conservative" culturally and economically, they are also skeptical of civilian warmongers. Few of the large numbers of blacks and Hispanics in the military are movement conservatives. If you look at contributions from active duty military, it's even more cloudy.

This story from USA Today said Obama received more contributions as of August 2008:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-14-military-donations_N.htm

Also, a lot of military contributed to Ron Paul, who is more of a classic conservative and noninterventionist, as contrasted to the neocon chickenhawks.

chicka opines:<blockq... (Below threshold)
Rodney Graves:

chicka opines:

Ascribing political belief to the military is tough to do.

Obviously ignorant of the fact that there is indeed hard data on the demographic composition of the Armed Forces.

Notice also that our sudden expert on such matters makes no mention of the career NCO's while bringing data (sort of) not from the most recent election cycle, but the one before that...

You go, chicka...

"Obviously ignorant of the ... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

"Obviously ignorant of the fact that there is indeed hard data on the demographic composition of the Armed Forces."

Umm, which you didn't post to contradict him. And, I don't think we were talking about demographics as much as political persuasion and opinions, as well as contributions.

If you have data to refute Chico's point, you should post it, or at least say how it contradicts him. You did neither, from which I conclude you're just "bein' c'ntrary," as we say down South.

Your misogynism is showing again, too. Oh wait, no, you're a "sudden expert" on Latin culture, not a misogynist.

Bruce,If I thought... (Below threshold)
Rodney Graves:

Bruce,

If I thought you or chicka were persuasible on the facts, I'd be inclined to provide some. The fact that I haven't speaks to my conclusions concerning y'all's susceptibility to factual persuasion.

Or that you don't have any.... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Or that you don't have any.

Is "persuasible" a word? I mean, in English? Of course, maybe it's a mysterious facet of Latin culture that I mistook for a malapropism, just as I keep mistaking your referring to a male in the dismissive feminine form as misogyny, or maybe racism.

( JK - I looked it up - it's a word all right. Don't bother scolding me on my ignorance. Some of these are jokes, ladies and germs.)

BH,So show me wher... (Below threshold)
Rodney Graves:

BH,

So show me where you and chicka have been persuasible on a matter if import/principle (as opposed to semantics and linguistics) and perhaps I'll be forthcoming with the facts which neither of you have provided.

of vice if... (Below threshold)
Rodney Graves:

of vice if

If by "persuasible" you mea... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

If by "persuasible" you mean "accepting of Rodney's interpretation of reality" I guess you got me.

Like for instance, you haven't convinced me that Goldberg is a brilliant scholar, so I guess I'm not persuasible. And your powers of persuasibility have not yet persuaded me that Obamasux, which is really all one needs to do to be considered persuasible, I suspect. So consider me unpersuasible, I guess.

On the other hand, you sneer at Chico's comment, in which he provided a link, claiming that there is "hard data" to contradict it, without providing the hard data you claim to possess and be in command of. So maybe it's YOU who needs to practice your powers-of-persuasion skillz, dude.

Shorter Rodney "ExpertOnLatinCultureNotaMisogynist" Graves: I've got data that disproves your point, but I ain't showing it to you. Take my word for it.

Ah yes...The libta... (Below threshold)
Rodney Graves:

Ah yes...

The libtard standard of persausability.

Just because I have failed to persuade you about a book you have not bothered to read yet feel qualified to criticize (and one which YOU introduced to this discussion) does not make you and your fellow travelers impersuasible. Isn't that the Red Quuen's standard there, Bruce?

Go ahead, pull the other one, it has bells on it.

Bruce "The Red Queen" Henry, whose words mean exactly what he means...

Hey Rodney, do you know wha... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Hey Rodney, do you know what the terms "lengthy excerpts" and "critical reviews" mean?

Among other things, those are things one reads in order to determine whether or not one wishes to read an entire volume of tiresome pseudohistorical nonsense. And if, after reading those lengthy excerpts and critical reviews, one chooses not to read said volume, one may still have a worthy opinion of the volume REGARDLESS.

Many Evangelical Christians think Darwin was wrong, and I'll betcha damn few have read "The Origin of Species." What they have read are lengthy excerpts and critical reviews, see?

And also, too, I don't have to read "Mein Kampf" to know Hitler was crazy. Or digest every word of "Das Kapital" to know that Marx's theory was, umm, flawed. Know why? Lengthy excerpts. Critical reviews.

Let's dumb it down a little, and alter the analogy slightly, so maybe you'll get it, Robney. For instance, you, Rodney, might say something like, "Whatever Olbermann said in his special comment tonight is probably worthless. I could tell it was bullshit after 15 seconds, so I switched back to FOX." And you would probably be right, would you not?

You should just post articles and stay out of the comments, Dude. You're too easily needled. It's too easy, too funny.

shorter Bruce "The Red Quee... (Below threshold)
Rodney Graves:

shorter Bruce "The Red Queen" Henry:

Just read the Cliff Notes like I do.

So you're telling me you've... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

So you're telling me you've read and refuted Das Kapital, Mein Kampf, Origin of Species, et cetera, before you feel qualified to offer your opinions on them and their authors? Seen An Inconvenient Truth? Capitalism: a Love Story? Read Cindy Sheehan's book?

Sure you have.

Bruce "The Red Queen" Henry... (Below threshold)
Rodney Graves:

Bruce "The Red Queen" Henry,

I'm not telling you anything since you've already pronounced sentance for cases you have not heard.

What an incredible Gotcha A... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

What an incredible Gotcha Artist you are, Rodney. Is my face red, or what?

All we've seen is your ass,... (Below threshold)
Rodney Graves:

All we've seen is your ass, and it's swathed in a bright red diaper.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy